*1 184 Bair,
Gary Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, respondent. BELL, C.J.,
Submitted to ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, RAKER, CATHELL, WILNER and JJ.
ORDER The Court having considered granted the petition for a writ of certiorari the above-captioned case, it is 9th day this March,
ORDERED, by the
Appeals
Court of
Maryland,
majori-
ty of the Court concurring, that the judgment of the Court of
Special
be,
Appeals
it
is hereby, summarily
reversed
State,
light of
420,
Johnson v.
355 Md.
(1999);
HARRELL, J., did not participate in the consideration of this case.
747A.2d657 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
v.
Cary David DECHOWITZ. (Subtitle AG) Misc. Sept. Term, No. 1999. Appeals
Court of Maryland. March *2 (Melvin Delores O. Ridgell, Assistant Bar Counsel Hirsh- man, Counsel) Bar for the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, for petitioners.
No argument on behalf of Respondent. Argued BELL, C.J., before ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL and HARRELL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The Attorney (the Grievance Commission of Maryland Petitioner), “Commission” or through Bar Counsel and pursu ant to Maryland 16-709,1 Rule a filed Petition for Disciplinary Action against Cary David Dechowitz (Respondent) as a result of his conviction in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California of one count possession with intent to marijuana. distribute The Commission asserted here that Respondent’s conviction, and conduct, the underlying placed him in violation of Maryland Rules of Professional (RPC). See Maryland Rule 16-812. Conduct specifical More ly, Respondent was charged with violating 8.4(b),(c), RPC (d).2 16-709, relevant,
1. Rule provides: may Charges a. Who against file. attorney an shall be filed acting Bar Counsel at the direction of the Review Board. 2. RPC 8.4. Misconduct. professional
It is lawyer misconduct a for to: (b) commit a criminal act adversely reflects lawyer’s on the honesty, trustworthiness lawyer or fitness as respects; in other to the T. Caroom Philip referred the matter Honorable We County for Anne to make find the Circuit Court Arundel to Rule Maryland fact and of law pursuant conclusions ings 16-711(a).3 1999, Respon August On 18 the Commission and Caroom, filed, Adoption Motion a Joint For Judge dent Law, Of Fact And Conclusions Of Proposed Findings Of him to of fact asking adopt the referenced its to to this law and forward same Court conclusions parties’ submission adopted Caroom consideration. 1999, and, Findings August stipulated on 23 filed the written Law, as follows: provided Fact And Conclusions Of which Of I. FACT FINDINGS OF following documentary A. The Petitioner submitted the exhibits: 3:97CR00111-001, Judgment
1. United Criminal Case District for the District of Califor- States Court Northern Information; 2. Transcript Proceedings nia and held 1997; containing March June 3. Letter dated agreement terms and the plea government’s case constituting Statement of Facts entries; 5. min- Pretrial against Respondent; Docket utes. was to the Bar on admitted is Bar of
December 1976. He also a member of the the District of Columbia and the State of California. matter, During times relevant this only Francisco in the State practiced resided San *4 of California. fraud, (c) engage involving misrepre- dishonesty, or conduct deceit sentation; (d) engage prejudicial that is to the administration of conduct
justice ... 16-711(a) provides: Rule “A written of facts statement proceedings be of and conclusions of law shall filed in the record copies parties.” sent to all 6, 1997, On or February about the Respondent was attempting arrested while to mail a to an parcel individual Frederick, Maryland. parcel approxi- The contained mately marijuana. A of ounces search his residence following his arrest resulted the seizure of approxi- mately marijuana. 12 ounces of Also seized were hand- written records drug purchase sales that showed marijuana by sales of and cocaine Respondent made 20,1996 September February 4,1997, between with a marijuana total of 150 ounces of grams and 62.3 cocaine. These records also showed that at least 74 marijuana grams ounces of and 15 cocaine were sold to individuals in during period.
On or about June Respondent entered plea of in the guilty United States District Court for the Northern District of California to one count of violating Title 21 U.S.Code Section possession intent to marijuana. Respondent distribute The was sentenced to incarceration, a period of 12 months to be served in a half-way The house. sentence commenced on or about 19,1998. January The incarceration was to a period be of 3 years supervised probation. followed appeal No was taken.
B. Respondent provided The has part Response his
to Writ of Summons information in mitigation of the sanction imposed by Appeals. to be the Court Based on this information this Court clear finds and convincing following: evidence of the
The has his completed sentence and is serving the currently year period supervised release. also from the abstained use of beverages alcoholic and has or possessed not used narcotics, or dangerous drugs, restricted control sub- stances, or marijuana associated paraphernalia, except valid He has at prescription. attended least three meet- ings per month of Alcoholics or Anonymous drug edu- Corrections, cation and through treatment classes Cornell Inc. *5 telephone and address maintained current
He has of the Chief Office Unit with the Probation number of four to six the results provided hasHe Trial Counsel. have never indicated month which screenings per drug or substances and all controlled positive for alcohol. Respondent’s guilty plea, and
Following his arrest by suspended was law California right practice Bar of of the State Department of the Review Order 20, 1997, further pending California, August effective for the District Court States The United disposition. his on suspension ordered of California District Northern of that Court. further order pending November In Re 24, 1998, in the Matter of an Order On November filed in the Discipline was on David Dechowitz Cary This Order of California. of the State Supreme Court from the suspension on actual placed for 18 months State of California of law the practice rehabilitation, fitness to proof until he had shown and law, with general in the ability and learning practice, conditions, require- with the with probation years Responsi- Multistate Professional pass that he ment given was credit bility examination. period for the of actual period toward the August on which commenced his interim suspen- commencement Since the California, he of law the State practice from the sion probation terms and conditions has abided all the of the State Hearing Department by the recommended complied provisions has Bar of California. He of Professional Conduct Act and the Rules the State Bar quarterly has of California. He submitted of the State Chief of the Office of the to the Probation Unit reports Ethics the State Bar He has attended Trial Counsel. at of that given the test end passed School to take the Multistate Profes- registered session. He sional Responsibility examination given to be on August 13,1999.
On June an of Suspension Order was filed *6 Court, the United States District for the Northern District of California suspending the Respondent from the prac- tice of law from the United States District Court for Northern District of California for the duration of his actual from practice of law the of State California. He has been granted leave to petition that Court for reinstatement upon the that showing he has been reinstated to the State Bar of California and that he has completed all requirements probation of his as set out by the State Bar of California.
On March the Court of Appeals Maryland of issued an Order suspending the Respondent from the practice of law in this State until further Order.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The judgment
entered
the United States District
Court for the Northern
10,
District of California on October
1997 is conclusive evidence of the Respondent’s conviction of
violating
§
U.S.C.
pursuant
to Rule 16-710e. This
Court therefore finds that
there is clear and convincing
evidence that
Respondent
possessed marijuana with the
intent to distribute in violation of Federal law. The Court
of Appeals has previously held that the acts constituting this
offense also
Maryland
violate the
Rules of Professional
Conduct as
alleged
Action,
the Petition for Disciplinary
and this Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that
the Respondent committed a criminal act that reflects ad-
versely on his honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a
lawyer in
respects,
8.4(b),
other
in violation of Rule
engaged
fraud,
conduct involving dishonesty,
deceit or misrepre-
sentation,
8.4(c),
in violation of
engaged
conduct that
prejudicial
is
to the
justice
administration of
in violation of
8.4(d). See, Attorney Grievance
Hamby,
Commission v.
(1990[1991]),
322 Md.
In to the Petition his written Caroom, that the same Respondent asked Judge Action before imposed Maryland be as was attorney disciplinary sanction the U.S. District Court adopted by the State of California and suspension a period the Northern District of California: for after certain condi right apply with the to reinstatement by is to be followed suspension tions are met. The California which would be period probation during a by the Office Chief subjected drug testing monitored and to Trial Counsel.5 Gilbert, Attorney Md. Comm’n v. 356
4. See Grievance (Court (1999); Hamby; imposed a sanction of 1 and Proctor 739 A.2d illegal attorneys possessing sub- where were convicted stances). complied successfully the terms Respondent alleged he that had preceding twenty-two months and conditions of his for the present filing July response to the Petition in the the on 1999 of his As admitted his conduct before Caroom, 8.4(b), (c), and that that conduct violated RPC (d), only matter for us to is the appropriate decide so, doing sanction. In we that keep mind purpose protect of sanctions is to to public, deter other from lawyers engaging violations of the Rules of Conduct, Professional to maintain integrity legal profession. appropriate severity of a sanction depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular misconduct, In case. addition to the facts underlying the attorney’s prior grievance history, well as miti factors, gating part are of the equation. Atkinson,
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. (2000) (citations omitted). 745 A.2d are not We bound follow California’s decision as to appropriate sanction in this matter. We have explained that sanctions, Court has often imposed reciprocal
[t]his disci- cases, pline facially equal severity imposed by to those Nevertheless, sister state. there is no requirement that this done; impose should be we need not the same sanction as imposed by jurisdiction. fact, the other In this Court is duty-bound to assess for itself the propriety of the sanction imposed by jurisdiction the other and that recommended Indeed, the Commission. we have stated the rule in recip- rocal cases to discipline be:
When the appropriate Court considers the sanction in a case of reciprocal discipline, we look not only to the *8 imposed by jurisdiction sanction the other but to our own cases as well. The sanction will on depend unique that, case, case. He also asserted as to the sentence in the criminal he completed had halfway the term of commitment in a house on 15 January serving year, supervised 1999 and was probationary the three period. Essentially, Respondent along contended he was well anticipated course to rehabilitation and termination of his California submitted, however, suspension shortly. license He no extrinsic evi- supporting optimistic dence assessment. case, but with a view of each facts and circumstances misconduct. for similar dispositions consistent toward 67, 83, v. 350 Md. Sabghir, Comm’n Attorney Grievance omitted). (citations (1998) 926, 934 A.2d distinction, for to with Petitioner’s agree We continue involving possession between conduct sanctioning purposes, actual distribution of narcotics. involving and that narcotics In Proctor, Mary at 776-77. at 524 A.2d See See land, results disbarment. generally the latter conduct do, as we with Petitioner McGonigle, supra. Agreeing evi mitigation us with his having persuaded not extenuating circumstances having nor demonstrated dence (which burden), we shall conduct is his his criminal regarding to respectfully decline Petitioner’s recommendation adopt case. We order decision the instant follow California’s in Mary of law practice be disbarred from the land.. ORDERED; PAY ALL
IT RESPONDENT SHALL IS SO COURT, TAXED BY THE OF THIS COSTS AS CLERK TRANSCRIPTS, ALL PURSU- INCLUDING COSTS OF 16-715(c), RULE FOR WHICH SUM ANT TO MARYLAND THE OF ATTOR- JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR NEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST GARY DAVID DECHOWITZ.
ELDRIDGE, J., dissenting: to According is a resident of California. respondent respondent “practiced only findings, Caroom’s and the of California.” Both the State California State District of District Court for the Northern United States In light on imposed respondent. California facts, circumstances, I underlying as well as the would of these apply to right an indefinite with the impose is respondent bar after the reinstatement fully reinstated California.