*1 A.2d 233 MARYLAND OF COMMISSION ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE BRIDGES. Charles Term, 83, Sept. 1997. No. Maryland. Appeals of
Court of Sept. *3 Hirshman, Melvin Bar Counsel and O. Ridgell, Delores Counsel, Asst. Bar for the Atty. Mary- Grievance Com’n of land, Petitioner. Anderson, Baltimore,
Curtis for Respondent. BELL, C.J., Argued ELDRIDGE, before and RODOWSKY, WILNER, RAKER, CATHELL and HARRELL, JJ.
HARRELL, Judge. ,Bar 16-709(a)1 Maryland Pursuant Counsel, Rule behalf (AGC), of the Attorney Grievance Commission Petition er, Board, direction the Review a petition filed with this disciplinary Court against, action Charles Bridges, Esquire, Respondent. Bar petition, Counsel 8.4(d) alleged 5.5(a), 7.1,.7.5, 8.1, violations of Rules Maryland (MRPC) Rules Professional Mary Conduct (1989, land Code 2000 Repl.Vol.), Business Occupations and (BOP), § Professions Article 10-602.2 In accordance with 16-709(b) 16-711(a)3, Rules this Court referred *4 16-709(a) 1. Md. Rule “[c]harges against that: any attorney states shall by be acting filed the Bar Counsel at the the direction of Review Board.” 10-601(a) 2. hearing judge inadvertently The § substituted BOP in the place § findings of BOP 10-602 in his written of fact and of conclusions law in this matter. 16-709(b) 3. by Md. Rule Appeals may states that the "Court of order charges direct the any be transmitted to and heard in court and evidentiary an to conduct hearing judge to a the matter of law. conclusions of fact and findings make hearing and by clear found judge the hearing, evidentiary the Following MRPC violated Respondent convincing evidence filed 8.4(d), 5.5(a), 8.1, Respondent § BOP 10-602. Rules of fact and findings judge’s us the exceptions with of law. conclusions
L established facts as following found the hearing judge convincing evidence: clear and officer, who Bridges, Army was an Charles Respondent, Re- Army from the U.S. He retired in Vietnam. served in Gulf War. serving of Lt. Col. after at the rank serves University from State graduated Cleveland in 1979, to the Ohio bar was admitted Law School District and the Pennsylvania bar is admitted Additionally, Bridges 1987. bar in Columbia Maryland, for the District District Court the U.S. Court and the U.S. Military Appeals U.S. Court to take the applied Appeals. respondent Veterans he was admitted attorneys’ bar examination and Maryland Currently, bar on Maryland June bar, relocated to having status with the inactive Law as an Administrative serving he is Mississippi where Judge. respondent
During period govern- attorney full time as an advisor employed His employment of Columbia. ment of the District an him conduct outside of Columbia permitted District office. government not see clients practice but he did charges judge judges hear the and the clerk designate the shall proceeding.” responsible maintaining the record in the 16-711(a) findings of states that "written statement of Md. Rule proceed- filed in the record of and conclusions of law shall be facts ings copies parties.” all sent to *5 Occasionally, he would interview in clients his residence Maryland.
Prior to bar, his admission to Maryland respondent his private practice limited matters bankruptcy before the TJ.S. District Court for Maryland, the District of and to cases before the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. Bridges applied
When Maryland admission to the bar in December of his application included the names (Paul three residents Murray Yvonne Osborne), Lowell whom he represented had on matters before federal courts. The evidence does not indicate respondent legal advertised his services in Maryland directories, telephone or on radio television or commercials in newspapers of general circulation Maryland. in There was no presented evidence to establish that respondent had appeared as an attorney any Maryland state court any before prior administrative board to his admission the Maryland bar. addition to the clients identified his Maryland bar application, Bridges testified that he represented fewer than five clients in each year between 1993 and his admission in 1995.
On or August about September (here- AGC received from complaint forms Kaibeh Johnson “Johnson”), after referred as alleging that attorney an (hereafter “Carter”) named Albert Carter referred to as had received more than from Johnson $1200 [in 1994] return for legal services which Carter failed to provide. Carter has never been admitted to the Maryland bar.
The investigation assigned to AGC investigator Marc (hereafter O. Fiedler “Fiedler”), referred as who was familiar with Carter from an unrelated investigation or 1989. Johnson provided the AGC with photocopies cheeks payable canceled made to Carter. On or about 26, 1995, September she sent a photocopy [Johnson] of a 6, 1995, letter February dated “To May addressed It Whom Concern.” The letterhead on which letter written appears as follows: BRIDGES
CHARLES AT LAW AND COUNSELOR ATTORNEY BOX P.O. *6 BALTIMORE, MD 21203
(410) 433-5847 as follows: reads body of the letter Carter, was Mr. Albert certify that is to This letter Paralegal/Assis- Independent office in this law as employed 10, January durning [sic] Counsel Appellate tant Present. January income from compensation
Mr. total Carter’s $25,410.00. 31,1994 [sic] were to December compensa- non-employee Mr. Carter placed This office independent as worked [sic] a week to tion of $470.00 counsel. appellate paralegal/assistant and Bridges” says line it “Charles signature Under the Bridges” The name “Charles “Attorney at Law.” under line. signature written above investigate the October, assigned to 1995 Fiedler his with Carter at residence spoke He complaints. Johnson legal a paralegal, himself as Carter described Baltimore. He assistant, advisor, and accountant. bookkeeper financial acknowl- Carter business from his residence. operated to Johnson services knowing providing and certain edged preparation Johnson with that he had assisted and indicated that he was He explained an immigration application. Coast, friend, Ivory of the a resident Johnson’s sponsoring Bridge’s letter letter- February 1995] [on [6 for a visitor’s visa. Carter of the part application head] was provide required he was further to Fiedler that related of the part applica- income as employment of his proof Therefore, February drafted the he tion for the visa. Fied- signature. respondent’s and obtained the letter the truth confirm with Carter was unable to ler as set forth compensation concerning information Carter’s provide promised Carter February in the 1995 letter. further information but he failed to keep subsequent appointment provided no further information to Fiedler.
On November 1995 Fiedler met with respondent at his 5816 Loch Raven Blvd. City. residence Baltimore Fielder testified that the respondent acknowledged signing February produced by letter Bridges Carter.[ ] became upset Fiedler did not have other documents to which he claimed the letter had been when attached signed it. Fielder testified that respondent was unable to specific documents, recall the nature of the yet other Bridges told him that he signing recalled similar letters the past, verifying employment. Carter’s any denied contact with any Johnson and knowledge legal services or performed by matters Carter for Johnson. Bridges advised Fiedler that Carter was an independent contractor who performed legal bookkeeping *7 services him for and was in cash on paid a piecemeal basis. Carter’s cases, services were in bankruptcy used and matters before the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. Bridges refused to produce concerning documents money amounts of that he paid had to Carter for his years. services over the
Following meeting, Fiedler received some documents mail by from respondent. These documents included an for application 6, a visa and the 1995 February letter. No explanation cover letter other was included. In January, 1996 that, Fiedler met with Johnson and confirmed while she was aware Charles Bridges through her interaction with Carter and the documents he provided, including 6, letter, February 1995 no she had direct contact with the respondent. 8,May
On respondent was notified by the AGC that it a concerning had docketed case the Johnson complaints request and a provide made that he responses written questions 6, specific relating to the February 1995 letter and his relationship with Carter. Two additional letters were forwarded to Bridges by the AGC. The respondent acknowledged receipt these letters. a letter from 28, received 1996 the AGC June
On 27,1996 allegations denied the which dated June respondent any involvement complaints Johnson contained Bridges with those matters. in connection with Carter complained of the AGC challenged jurisdiction “a racial animus motivated against him were its actions to the relating by any evidence unsupported it since [was] should be conduct suggested He that [Fiedler’s] issues.” investigated. 5, July on again to respondent wrote
The Commission letter, 6, February requesting explanation for the documentation signature, authentication January the period during to Carter compensation paid in a responded Bridges December through Bar that Assistant July requesting letter dated advised questions. He was answer specific Counsel provide 1996 that the AGC declined July letter dated insisted that re- questions. to his Petitioner answers July in the 5 letter within ten spond requests made that Rule Professional Bridges was reminded days. lawyer, in connection with disci- requires 8.1 Conduct matter, to respond fail to lawful plinary knowingly not to by disciplinary authority. demands information 28, 1996, again requesting Respondent replied July asserting to him provided further information be rights being his civil he was defamed being and/or challenge the AGC’s He continued to violated.
in this ease. to the respondent by 1996 a was issued July, subpoena *8 by the regarding compensation paid for
bar counsel records calls to Fiedler two respondent placed telephone to Carter. subpoe- in an service of respondent arrange effort of he was Bridges acknowledged na. that advised testified that he informed Fiedler subpoena by Fiedler and records available. there were no relevant conversation, angry became telephone respondent second cooper- going and that he was not with Fiedler indicated ate. 17,
On December 1996 respondent was notified that an inquiry panel had been appointed to hear the complaints (hereafter against Roger Garfink, him K. Esquire chairman”) referred to as “the had been chair appointed as of panel. He was of the advised Rules of Professional Conduct which was alleged he to have ] violated.!
There followed a series written communications be- respondent tween the the chairman. On December 1996 respondent forwarded a “Memorandum” in which he again, challenged jurisdiction the personal be- AGC cause he had been a member of Maryland bar at the time of the alleged violations. While denying that was he practice involved of law within the Maryland, State of however, Bridges acknowledged that he was admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court in and that a had handled limited number specific client claims and defenses before the Bankruptcy Court from his person- al office his home.
On February 1997 the chairman respondent notified that the had inquiry panel concluded that a hearing was necessary a had established date of March 1997 at a.m., office, 10:00 at the chairman’s 100 S. Charles Street Baltimore. respondent wrote to the chairman on Feb- 26, 1997, ruary requesting information concerning witnesses and documents relating to the upcoming hearing. On Feb- ruary 1996 Bridges sent the chairman a motion to the complaint jurisdiction dismiss for lack of a request stay for a pending the hearing a on the ruling motion. He included memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss lack of and a motion for the continu- ance of the panel hearing. Bridges indicated that he would be out state attending previously mandatory scheduled job training 28,1997. until course March He requested 3,1997. April be rescheduled after
Bridges notified the AGC on March 1997 that granted chairman had request for a continuance. The letter also documented that a telephone message pro- viding this information had been left on the respondent’s *9 he machine, including the information answering office date, for the and time place as to the new be advised would chairman 1997 the hearing. On March rescheduled had hearing him that the notifying respondent, wrote a.m., in at 10:00 for April rescheduled been Baltimore, Street, office, Mary- 100 S. Charles chairman’s land. (second to request) with a motion
Bridges responded failure lack of and the jurisdiction for complaint dismiss of Rules of claim for violation state an actionable to ruling requests for a and renewed Professional Conduct a contains certificate The document any hearing. prior that the Respondent complained service March on his deliberately jurisdictional to rule had failed panel to harass and continuing was motion and that AGC conducting him for the sole prosecute purpose wrongfully to find in order racially prosecution biased unlawful a him claims charge with which to other than the something argued complaints. Respondent asserted in the Johnson engaged in ex parte communications that bar counsel had an report felony, a failed to conduct with the failed panel, and address the investigation, investigate failed impartial and exceeded May, issue of when raised respondent authority by wrongfully prosecuting her him, in of his to harm violation civil purposes racial order rights. on Bridges April responded
Assistant Bar Counsel to be for witnesses copies subpoenas 1997 with issued him hearing informing presented April panel a The would also be called as witness. Fiedler 17, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. Commission coun- April convened on The appear. but the did present respondent sel was letter, following day respondent the chairman sent the that, panel him had convened and when advising that the a.m., placed the chairman had appear by 10:30 failed by the previously provided number telephone call to the answering machine respondent message left panel had and that convened awaiting his presence. remained panel for several hours, awaiting respondent’s appearance. The chair- *10 man’s letter also advised respondent the panel had previously deferred consideration of his motions until the hearing, at which time it to intended treat them as a preliminary matter. chairman The noted that he left had respondent the a telephone message concerning the deferral of the motions and that he had not from Bridges heard following either telephone message.
The that, chairman further respondent informed the when panel 17, 1997, the convened on April and he failed appear, it took up jurisdictional motions and denied it, them based upon the evidence before concluding he engaged had been in the practice of law in Maryland and subject was of Bridges the AGC. was notified that hearing another had been scheduled Wed- 28, 1997, nesday, May at 10:00 a.m. in the chairman’s office in Baltimore. was encouraged to call the chair- man at the number provided.
A second notice was writing forwarded the respon- 21,1997 on April dent at the 5816 Loch Raven Blvd. address in Baltimore. This letter was mailed regular first class mail, certified receipt return requested. It con- tained following the statement: “You’re advised that this 16-706d.3.(d) subpoena letter serves as a pursuant to Rule in that specifically it requires personal attendance at ypur date, time and place hearing day day ” thereafter completion until the hearing,.... of said The receipt return appears to have been signed by Harry Bridges, respondent’s brother.
On April the chairman requested that Fiedler personally attempt to serve of a copy letter notifying respondent the rescheduled date. Fiedler’s efforts to locate respondent at his Baltimore un- residence were successful. He contacted the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and learned that the respondent had filed a change address with that office. This document 'stamped was as 22,1997 received on April completed by was respon- Mississippi Hattiesburg, dent, billing address providing home, located at family’s at his address with an alternative This information in Baltimore. Street 2711 East Federal AGC. provided had not been sent previously Thereafter, subpoena/letter copy respondent on Blvd. re-mailed Raven to 5816 Loch hearing, At 16,1997, Mississippi. May at the address he was that had Fiedler testimony the uncontradicted provided numbers at one of the respondent telephoned to him. spoken form and had change of address on the conversation, respon- inquired whether During this the new date. notice of dent had received notification him he had received informed respondent intended to attend tell whether he but he refused to Fiedler *11 Bridges that had Fiedler further testified hearing. the racist, being a of lying, and accused Fiedler angry become harassing him unlawfully, number obtaining telephone his job. not knowing respon- 1997. The again May panel convened respondent the to waiting for did not While appear. dent respondent the arrive, from a letter and other documents Along the letter was a the chairman. were delivered to subpoena issued quash any motion dismiss renewed matter be a that jurisdiction request for lack of for deter- Appeals to the Court of for resolution forwarded by and the bar panel any mination of misconduct communication, respondent requested counsel. this holding jurisdiction prior issue resolve the panel that the of Appeals. to the Court forward the matter hearing a panel that had things, alleged, among He also other harassed him thereby issue and jurisdiction disregarded May This is dated rights. civil letter and violated his service a certificate of signed motion contains 1997. The 27,1997. May dated fact, findings on the aforementioned
Based violated: judge concluded 5.5(a) practice MRPC Rule of law. —Unauthorized A lawyer shall not:
(a) practice in law a doing where so violates regulation legal profession jurisdiction. § 2. BOP Misrepresentation as authorized 10-602— practitioner. by
Unless to practice State, authorized law law in the person may represent title, to the public, by use of a including “lawyer”, “attorney law”, or “counselor at law”, services, methods, description or procedures, otherwise, or person to practice authorized law in the State.
3. MRPC Rule 8.1—Bar disciplinary admission and matters.
An applicant bar, or admission reinstatement or a lawyer connection with a bar admission application or in matter, connection with a disciplinary shall not:
(a) knowingly fact; make false statement material or
(b) fail to necessary disclose a fact to correct a misap- prehension known person have arisen in the matter, knowingly fail respond lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary author- ity, except that this Rule require does not disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.4 8.4(d) 4. MRPC Misconduct. professional
It is misconduct for a lawyer to: *12 s{; jft % tfs
(d) engage prejudicial conduct that is to the adminis- tration of justice.
Respondent filed exceptions challenging this juris- Court’s matter, diction over the as well the hearing judge’s as findings 5.5(a), conclusions that Respondent violated MRPC Rule 8.1, 8.4(d), § and BOP 10-602. protected by
4. Information implicated otherwise MRPC 1.6 not this case.
503 II. jurisdiction to Court lacks this Respondent suggests him because he was against proceeding present entertain the February Bar Maryland to admitted Bar that first attracted on his letterhead letter date solely this case is argues to him. He Counsel’s attention subject of Ms. Johnson’s as the jurisdiction federal within an investigation was Bar Counsel’s initial complaints and jurisdiction exclusively matter within immigration maintains, alternatively, that he Respondent courts.5 federal matter, immigration only legal involvement with had no he Respondent, to because According Albert Carter did. Johnson, he relationship with Ms. attorney-client had never an respect continuing obligation supervise to Carter had no that, finally contends Respondent matter. immigration out to Ms. never held himself period, the relevant during attorney, as a Maryland public or the Johnson of this subject not be therefore he should Court. to be Respondent’s jurisdictional arguments
findWe authority unquestionably This has meritless. Court jur State Respondent’s disciplinary proceeding. over preside is vested in attorney disciplinary proceedings isdiction over 709(b); Attorney Griev. Rule this Court. See Md. 16 — Sheridan, 1, 17, 1143, 1152 v. 357 Md. 741 A.2d Comm’n Adams, 86, 93, v. Md. (1999); Attorney Griev. Comm’n (1998); v. Attorney Griev. Comm’n 706 A.2d (1996); Glenn, 448, 470, Attorney 671 A.2d 341 Md. 361, 371, 909, 914 Kent, 653 A.2d v. 337 Md. Comm’n Griev. Powell, 276, 287, (1995); 328 Md. Attorney Griev. Comm’n whether a power to decide 614 A.2d Conduct within has the Rules of Professional lawyer violated alleges petition was motivated Counsel's also that Bar relating unsupported it the evidence "a since [was] racial animus rights. Respondent, Bar violated his civil the issues” and that Counsel however, supporting provide any these factual basis evidence fails accusations, we address them. and therefore decline *13 504 ultimately Sheridan,
this State rests with this Court. See 357 1152; at at Md. 741 A.2d Attorney Griev. Comm’n Garland, 383, 392, (1997); 345 Attorney Md. 692 A.2d Breschi, 590, 599, Griev. Comm’n v. 340 Md. 667 A.2d (1995); Joehl, Attorney 83, 88, Griev. Comm’n v. 335 Md. A.2d us, Based on the facts before Attorney Grievance Commission properly investigated Ms. complaints Inquiry Johnson’s and the Panel judge discharge properly assumed the of their respective roles process.
It is to state complaints accurate that Ms. Johnson’s impetus so, AGC were the for initiating this matter. Equally complaints Carter, were who Ms. Johnson directed. believed to be attorney an practicing Maryland. Johnson alleged paid that Carter was for the of an preparation $1200 immigration application which he allegedly complete. failed In the investigating course of Ms. complaints, Johnson’s Bar Counsel application examined the visa prepar- that Carter was for ing Ms. application Johnson. The contained the letter 6 February dated written Carter and apparently signed by Respondent, indicating Carter not an attorney, employee but rather an of Respondent, arguably rendering for Respondent responsible that the insuring legal services to Ms. provided Johnson were competently. See MRPC 5.3.6 Responsibilities regarding nonlawyer MRPC 5.3. assistants. respect nonlawyer employed a or retained or associated With lawyer:
awith (a) partner a ain law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure giving that the firm has in effect measures reasonable assurance that person's compatible professional obligations conduct is with the lawyer; of the (b) lawyer having a supervisory authority nonlawyer direct over person's shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct is compatible professional obligations with the lawyer; of the .and (c) lawyer responsible a be person shall conduct such professional would be violation of the engaged rules conduct if by lawyer if: or, (1) conduct, lawyer knowledge orders specific involved; ratifies the conduct (2) lawyer partner is a in the person law firm in which the employed, supervisory or has direct authority person, over the duty to therefore, Counsel, had Bar *14 relationship professional of the nature the exact investigate it was related any, if because Respondent, Carter between to do so reasonable of Carter and directly investigation to its the circumstances. under jurisdiction lacks this Court
Respondent’s argument during Bar the Maryland of not member he was because Respondent is inaccurate. investigation phase initial Ms. on 20 June 1995 and Maryland Bar admitted to the until 25 were not filed to the AGC complaints Johnson’s 1995, Respondent’s 18 well after September 1995 and August Bar. admission 1995 date considering February the 6
Even letterhead, is sup Court’s this Bridge’s letter on 8.5(b), in part: which pertinent MRPC states by ported of by Appeals practice the Court lawyer A not admitted of this disciplinary authority subject in this State is of these Rules that constitutes violation State conduct (1) law in this practice of State and that: involves lawyer. 16-701(a), moreover, states: Md. Rule Ap- of any person admitted the Court Attorney means or inactive discipline law. For of peals practice purposes of status, any member of the bar the term also includes a state, district, of United States who territory or other State, in or himself practice of law in this holds engages State, has in this or who or herself out as law practicing attorney over another supervision of or control obligation in in of law this State. engages practice who discipline, to the Court’s acknowledge subject be We 16-701(a). We also See Md. Rule attorney. must be an one of of the practice note that the what constitutes determination that this Court makes. See Public Serv. is ultimately law one Inc., Tramp., 253 A.2d v. Hahn 253 Md. Comm’n consequences can be avoided of conduct at time when its knows mitigated to take reasonable remedial action. but fails (1969); Lukas v. Bar Montgomery Ass’n County, of Inc., 442, 447, 35 Md.App. 371 A.2d 6The February letter in contained the visa application suggest- ed that Carter was undertaking legal transactions while Respondent’s Therefore, employment. Respondent potential- ly obligation had “the supervision” Carter. See Md. 16-701(a). Rule also testified he “practice[d] law by handling this state” up 5 federal cases per year Thus, Maryland. Respondent placed himself within the reach 8.5(b). our disciplinary investigatory authority under MRPC Hallmon, See Griev. Attorney Comm’n 343 Md. (1996) (holding A.2d 510 an attorney’s adequate supervision legal requirement). Moreover, assistants an ethical Re- spondent’s Ohio, admission to the bars of Pennsylvania, and *15 the District Columbia unquestionably comports with the attorney definition of an under Md. Respondent, Rule 16-701. therefore, not escape jurisdiction shall our claiming by that he an attorney not licensed practice Maryland when the alleged place. initial misconduct took
III.
We now turn to Respondent’s exceptions
relating
the content
sufficiency
and the
findings
of fact conclusions of law
hearing judge.
made
As stated
earlier,
jurisdiction
we exercise the State’s
over attorney
Sheridan,
disciplinary
709(b);
See Md. Rule
proceedings.
16—
17,
1152; Adams,
357
at
741
93,
Md.
A.2d at
507
677,
Respondent, converse
510, 516,
681
307 A.2d
Md.
aby
in his defense
factual matters
only
need
establish
ly,
evidence,
mitigating
including whether
preponderance
misconduct.
alleged
at the time of
circumstances existed
108; Bakas,
Powell,
A. BOP, 5.5(a) § 10-602 MRPC in the engaging charged Petitioner law, prior to his admission practice of unauthorized bar, from practice by conducting his federal contention, if This established clear Maryland residence. 5.5(a), evidence, would violate both MRPC convincing states, ... part, lawyer “A shall pertinent which doing violates law where so practice *16 jurisdiction,” in that and regulation legal profession of BOP, 10-602, § which declares that
[ujnless State, to in the a law law practice authorized title, a to use of may public, by not person represent law”, law”, at “attorney at or “counselor including “lawyer”, services, methods, or procedures other by description wise, in practice is to law the person that the authorized State. Florida, U.S. 83
Respondent argues,
Sperry
under
v.
373
(1963),
he was duly
10
428
that because
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
practice
admitted to
before the
for Mary
U.S. District Court
he was
to
land
entitled
maintain a limited practice dealing
exclusively with federal matters in the
in Mary
federal court
land,
to
prior
his admission to this State’s bar. Respondent
argues
further
that he falls within
exception
established in
Inc.,
Kennedy v. Bar
Montgomery County,
Assoc.
316 Md.
(1989), which,
The found Respondent violated both MRPC 5.5(a) § and BOP 10-602 Bridges because maintained a legal small, practice, from in however his home Baltimore City, to prior Maryland to admission Bar. In finding these violations, Attorney hearing Griev. judge, relying Harris-Smith, Comm’n (1999), Md. A.2d that: stated
(a) attorney an unadmitted not may principal maintain (b) for the practice Maryland; office law in interviewing, analyzing, explaining legal and issues to a regular clients on practice state, basis amounts in to of law this even if the lawyer’s court appearances are limited to federal those fora (c) admitted; in he duly impossible which it is virtually to maintain a law office only limited federal (d) right practice cases court specific does right practice amount law within generally jurisdiction. hearing judge
The noted that Respondent usually testified he met with clients at the U.S. Courthouse in Baltimore or in homes, their but would occasionally advise clients from his home, during Baltimore which time he apply would legal problems. his clients’ principles judge deter- Harris-Smith, mined under these activities constitute the Harris-Smith, practice Maryland. unauthorized law at supported Md. 737 A.2d 572. He his determina- tion by pointing out testified used business cards stationary containing his name followed designation “Attorney at Law” listing Counselor
509 number, to admission prior Maryland postal telephone box Maryland to the bar. case. We present from the distinguishable
Harris-Smith to law practice was duly admitted agree that in Harris- attorney similarly disciplined to the Maryland held conclusively attorney Respondent, Smith. Unlike See Maryland attorney. as a public herself out Harris-Smith, represent at A.2d 570. She Md. in Maryland in radio advertisements public ed herself named a directory partner as a telephone and the classified advertisements, firm promot firm. was Maryland In both law. See Maryland in areas of and federal ed as practicing Harris-Smith, 76-77, at 569. Further Md. at 737 A.2d. her busi more, directory and telephone in both the classified cards, in her firm’s name name was listed ness Ilarris-Smith’s Landover, Harris, Johnson), & (Craig, Henderson Harris-Smith, 356 Md. at Maryland, street address. met with 15 clients
A.2d at 569. She also testified she Harris- working in office. per week while her Landover Smith, therefore, protection Sperry was under ineligible bar, Maryland she prior passing Kennedybecause, Maryland held as a definitively public herself out attorney. case, Respon- found that hearing judge the present legal “a limited only very private practice,”
dent maintained his bar. The prior to admission tele- judge through found no that he advertised evidence directory Respondent, other more- phone public or media. (or over, his shingle sign did not outside residence hang advertise on the face of the to indicate that he dwelling) law, practiced any nor there indication clients were on a visiting regular residence basis. Respondent’s argu- erred in hearing judge dismissing Florida, 379, 83
ment made
373 U.S.
S.Ct.
Sperry
under
Supreme
In Sperry,
We relied on v. Bar Sperry Association of Inc., Montgomery County, 316 Md. 200 A.2d Kennedy was not in practice Maryland, admitted but was in licensed District Columbia and the United States affirmed, Maryland. District Court for the District of We in trial part, injunction court’s against Kennedy enjoining him the general from of law in this practice State because he maintained his law in principal Maryland, office Silver Spring, advising legal while clients and for preparing documents them office, from that gaining without admittance to Maryland stated, however, injunction bar. We that the against Kennedy was over broad to extent it prohibit Kennedy “would from considering, accepting in representation any matters be- fore, to be in the Maryland filed District which [U.S.] Court not violate the him in a which does come to manner may 669-670, A.2d at Kennedy, 316 Md. injunction.” that: explained We Kennedy’s present- foreclose possibility shall not
[w]e County, in the Montgomery to the Circuit Court ing injunction, its over continuing exercise of Kennedy, without whereby for modification any proposal Maryland, could as law holding practicing himself out re- actually matters specific first clients whose pinpoint Kennedy cur- courts where quired counsel before those legal could limit his rently practice, thereby admitted specific matters. to those representation 667-668, Thus, at 211. an Kennedy, Md. at A.2d an attor- Kennedywhich. permitted was created exception bar, to *19 Maryland practice who not to the ney, was admitted so he or she Maryland, long courts in as did before federal in lawyer or out as a practicing not hold himself herself on exclusively focused clients whose matters Maryland and hold, only. heard in federal courts See id. We were be in that acknowledged Kennedy, Respon- the exception under specific his limited federal permitted dent maintain and Maryland in Maryland, prior to his admission to the practice 5.5(a) bar, § in of MRPC and BOP 10- being without violation convincing there is not clear and evidence that summary, himself an law in Respondent attorney practicing held out as or our rules Maryland proscription within Md.Code a attorneys. Respondent of conduct for did not maintain law, in regular Maryland practice office for the advertise cards a any capacity, stating Maryland distribute business address, home, outside of his or create hang shingle street with a address he could be found. letterhead where through that his clients Respondent only testified he solicited registries, through general public various federal and never did, on occa- Respondent solicitation. There is evidence sion, home, however, this is consistent meet with clients his both is insufficient to Sperry Kennedy, support result, Respondent’s exception violation. As a we sustain find that Bar Counsel did not establish clear and convincing 5.5(a) that Respondent evidence violated MRPC and BOP § 10-602.
B. 8.1 MRPC record, our Upon review we hold that hearing judge’s determination that Respondent violated 8.1 is supported by convincing MRPC clear and evidence. Respondent There is evidence that refused to provide request information, Panel, to cooperate ed failed with the Inquiry actions, destroyed relevant Respondent’s documents. there fore, 8.1(b), lawyer violate which states: ... MRPC “a matter, disciplinary connection with a shall knowingly not ... fail respond to a lawful from demand information an ” or disciplinary authority.... admissions exception hearing judge’s takes conclu- sion, contending that his light actions were reasonable in of his jurisdictional He challenge. responded contends he occasions, Bar Counsel’s demands several either tele- phone challenged and then writing, legality their Respondent argues demands. not require MRPC 8.1 did Inquiry attendance Panel nor is proceedings, there any Maryland precedent for an disciplining attorney based solely on failure to attend such a hearing. Respondent, additionally, contends that Bar did request Counsel relevant documents that he until destroyed after had been *20 appointed to the of position judge. administrative law Re- spondent suggests his him position required new “to vestiges private divest all his practice,” Respondent which interpreted to his destroying include old business cards and stationary. We overrule Respondent’s exceptions.
The
Respondent
record reveals that
refused to pro
concerning
vide
documents
requested
background
Carter,
details of his
employment
including the nature of
compensation paid
Carter’s services and
to
Bar
Carter.
1996;
Counsel issued a
for
subpoena
July
these documents
of the
however,
produce any
to
documents
failed
Respondent
letters
to write numerous
Bar
continued
requested.
Counsel
pro-
Rather than
the documents.
Respondent requesting
to
documents,
by
Respondent countered
subpoenaed
ducing
further
requesting
Bar
challenging
Counsel’s
directed
though
complaints
the initial
information. Even
were
Carter,
to
this relevant
required
provide
was
Respondent
at
attorney
8.1 mandates
an
because MRPC
information
of a disciplinary
to the
respond
demands
adequately
must
Hallmon, 343
or her
See
employees.
authority concerning
“[a]
at 519
demand
(holding
681 A.2d.
Md.
information,
may
...
relate
disciplinary authority
information
sought,
whom the
is
lawyer
conduct of
from
another”).
to
may relate
the conduct
it
he was notified
continued when
Respondent’s misconduct
evidentiary hearing
telephone
Inquiry
of the
Panel’s
letter
appear. Respon-
1997.
not
for 17
He did
April
scheduled
considering
is
he failed
absence
inexcusable
particularly
dent’s
Panel
his schedule
appear
Inquiry
when the
accommodated
failure to
hearing
Respondent’s
As a result of
with
date.
May
evidentiary hearing
was rescheduled for
appear,
letter,
sub-
was notified
Respondent
by telephone,
1997.
Despite
subpoena,
of the new
date.7
poena
hearing.8
again
appear
evidentiary
failed
at the
the attorney
disci-
Respondent’s
analogous
conduct
Hallmon,
343 Md.
Attorney Griev. Comm’n v.
plined
Hallmon,
an attorney
681 A.2d
8.1(b).
Hallmon,
alia,
charged,
violating
inter
with
MRPC
See
power
Inquiry
provided
subpoena
Panel is
to aid in
7.
possible attorney
investigation of
and need not demonstrate
misconduct
justify the
ethical
incurred in
issuance of
an
violation has
order
Stewart,
251, 259,
subpoena.
Attorney
See
Griev.
Md.
Comm’n
(1979)
16-706(c).
Rule
Respondent’s testimony before the hearing judge confirmed
his earlier misconduct.
hearing
judge stated that he was
“left with the distinct impression that Respondent’s inability to
provide information throughout these proceedings constituted
attempt
direct
to conceal inappropriate behavior on his
part.” He also determined that Respondent was not credible
when testifying about his
with
relationship
Carter or the
keeping of records concerning Carter’s services. As stated
earlier, we give deference to the hearing judge’s credibility
determinations, as he is in the best position to assess the
Glenn,
witnesses’ credibility.
See
341 Md. at
A.2d
474; Bakas,
402-403,
Respondent’s sent numerous Respondent establishes that was evidence ing his involvement for concerning information requests written Carter, provide request- refused to the repeatedly but he record, despite from It ed information. is also clear appear failed to subpoena, Respondent of a that issuance by the Panel evidentiary hearings Inquiry scheduled two present.9 he not be he not inform the Panel that would did Inquiry adopt this Court Respondent urges was insufficient evidence determination that there Panel’s 8.4(d). Panel’s work Although Inquiry he MRPC violated assistance,” by is this Court not bound “of invaluable Barton, In re 291 Md. findings Inquiry of the Panel. See Panel Inquiry Unlike the 432 A.2d matter, to gauge had the hearing judge opportunity this observing his on the credibility by demeanor Respondent’s judge Respondent’s The found that hearing witness stand. on the “sorely and cited his demeanor credibility lacking” as credibility finding stand and his lack of witness reasons 8.4(d). hearing judge of MRPC The stated that violation “that either testified in a manner Respondent indicated trivial or proceedings perceive considered these as he failed under As noted need to be truthful even when oath.” Although Respondent’s time he was we do not consider conduct at the hearing judge in our before the served with notice 8.4(d), Respondent we note it determination whether violated MRPC it is misconduct because consistent with caliber of nonetheless report, According proof preceded process i1. server’s of service Respondent and stated he process server called his name after him, Respondent began “turned to run” as the a summons for had upon being approached. report process server continues summons, process to his chased the server back handed the "slung” process backseat server's car and the summons into the car. supra, this gives Court deference to the hearing judge’s finding on a credibility. witness’s We hold there was suffi- cient evidence to support the hearing judge’s conclusion that 8.4(d). Respondent violated MRPC Respondent’s exceptions are overruled.
VI. Sanctions Having determined Respondent violated MRPC 8.1 8.4(d) evidence, clear and convincing we now address what sanction will imposed. be Bar Counsel recommends “Respondent’s license to practice law be suspended indefinite ly right with the to apply for reinstatement no sooner than six months from commenced, the date the suspension that his *23 reinstatement costs, be conditioned upon payment of all proof provided to bar counsel that successfully com pleted a course on Professional Responsibility.” Conversely, Respondent argues he did not violate the Rules and therefore he should not be sanctioned.
Regarding the proper sanction to apply in an attorney
case,
grievance
Brown,
we refer to Attorney Griev. Comm’n v.
271, 295,
353 Md.
(1999),
725 A.2d
1080
where we stated:
purpose
“[T]he
disciplinary proceedings against
attorney
an
is to protect
public
rather
than to punish the erring
attorney. The public is'protected when sanctions are im-
posed that are commensurate with the nature and gravity of
the violations and the intent with which they
commit-
were
severity
ted. The
of the sanction depends upon the facts
and circumstances of the case before this Court.
Imposing
a sanction protects the public interest
it
because
demon-
strates to members of the legal profession the
type
which
conduct
will not be tolerated.”
(citations
omitted).
and internal quotations
support
Bar Counsel’s indefinite suspension recom
mendation, it refers us to Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Hall
mon,
(1996),
343 Md.
Dissenting opinion by J..
RAKER, Judge, dissenting: jurisdictions, in most failure that in as Maryland,
It clear is attor- authorities constitute disciplinary may to cooperate 8.1(b). Attorney under Rule See misconduct ney Milliken, A.2d v. 348 Md. Griev. Comm. attorney practice (1998)(stating an licensed “[a]s has submitted Maryland, law the State this Court. disciplinary jurisdiction the exclusive disciplin- to a attorney respond of an demand refusal 8.1(b)”); see conduct under Rule authority sanctionable ary Hallmon, 390, 681 Md. Attorney Griev. also Comm. previously “[t]he This has noted that Court A.2d *24 solely is not measured gravity misconduct broken, by the largely is number of rules but determined Milliken, Md. at 704 A.2d at conduct.” lawyer’s constitut- Respondent’s I conduct agree majority with full is of rule. There no doubt a violation ed surrounding alleged of facts and circumstances disclosure of Bar responsibility is Counsel’s misconduct fundamental complaints. investigating however, majority, as to company
I with the part I suspen- case. would impose sanction in this appropriate days. sion for ten In imposing a sanction for attorney miscon- duct, severity of the sanction depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The purpose of the sanction is not to punish but, the lawyer, notes, as the majority it is to protect public and demonstrate to lawyers that the partic- ular conduct will not be tolerated.
While a public reprimand is often for fitting failure to respond inquiries Counsel, view, Bar in my it is not the appropriate discipline this case. Respondent refused to provide requested Counsel, information to Bar refused to provide requested documents, indeed, destroyed some of them, and attempted to evade the disciplinary authorities. He failed to appear the inquiry panel hearing and refused to cooperate with the panel. The hearing judge stated that he was “left with the distinct impression that Respondent’s inabil- ity to provide information throughout these con- proceedings stituted a direct attempt to conceal inappropriate behavior on part.” This Court found findings these of fact clearly Respondent’s erroneous. conduct in this case was egregious and should be considered an aggravating factor in imposing a sanction.
With
exception
of the privilege against self incrimina
tion,
Klein,
see
Spevack
511, 516,
625, 628,
U.S.
87 S.Ct.
(1967)
Compliance with these [state rules is vital. prac- bar] tice of law has profession been a of the highest order since its and it inception must continue to be so. Internal investi- gation complaint is an integral part of the machinery *25 and conduct regarding the ethics handling charges Public this court. before practice to attorneys admitted the deterrence legal profession, in the confidence investigations. misconduct, complete require prompt, ex- great to a depends complaints investigating process Without attorney’s cooperation. an individual upon tent informa- deprived Bar Association is cooperation, lawyer should whether to determine necessary tion Obviously, fit. as public certified to continue to be fails system process, in the cooperate attorneys unless is undermined. legal profession confidence public the process do not take profession of our If the members public expect we cannot seriously, discipline internal erodes. professionalism of our very and the basis do so profes- her] his attorney disregards [or who Accordingly, an authority] [disciplinary with the duty cooperate sional to severe sanctions. subject must be 1341-42 Clark, P.2d In re 99 Wash.2d serious, I imposes this Court Although any sanction presented the circumstances that a under reprimand, believe failure herein, message. Respondent’s wrong sends was viewed of records and his destruction cooperate, court, Court, attempt up to cover as an and this reprimand than a A sanction greater behavior. inappropriate An attorney required. circumstances is particular these under inquiries and investigative permitted ignore not be should would not be or other witnesses complainant that the gamble a later time. the facts at develop available to joins that he has authorized me state RODOWSKY Judge dissenting opinion. in this expressed views