*1 The evidence obtained at pre-indictment lineups inadmissible and should have been excluded. I would there- fore reverse the judgments of the trial courts and would remand the cases for new trials. I Accordingly, respectful- ly dissent.
v. Philip S. MARANO. (BV) 22, Sept. Term,
Misc. No. Appeals
Court of Maryland.
25,May *2 Hackerman, Baltimore, for respondent. Richard J. Counsel, (Mel- Grossman, Annapolis M. Asst. Bar Glenn Counsel, Hirshman, petition), Bar on the Annapolis, vin petitioner. ELDRIDGE, MÚRPHY, C.J., SMITH, and
Argued before COUCH, COLE, DAVIDSON, and JJ. RODOWSKY MURPHY, Judge. Chief Commission, Bar acting through
The Grievance Counsel, against Phil- petition disciplinary action filed Disciplinary. Rules ip alleging violations referred the Responsibility. of Professional We the Code b, Judge Thom- matter, Rule BV9 to pursuant Maryland City Baltimore to make of the Circuit Court for as Ward conducting After of fact and conclusions of law. findings following Judge Ward made evidentiary hearing, an findings:
“FACTS documentary produced plus “The Petitioner evidence Allen, Deputy testimony of Glorioso and William Salvatore De- The County. of Baltimore Clerk of the Circuit Court fendant, Maraño, testified for himself. Philip Glorioso had retained revealed that Salvatore
“The facts time for all period a considerable Mr. Maraño over Glorioso, Italian, spoke work because States, com- to the United felt immigrant an Italian being for which among with him. Included work fortable Mr. Maraño was sale Glorioso’s Glorioso retained Delicatessen, Frank and Rosalie Scac- Inc. to Groceries and into in Septem- contract entered cio, concerning which a was sale calling grocery business ber of the accompanying beer and wine purchase license for a price $18,000.00. agreement
“The was reduced writing, and an advisory settlement date scheduled to occur after the license was transferred. In addition to the downpayment, the money (5) was to be paid over a year period. five If the license transferred, not was price $1,000.00. would be reduced In addition above, to all of the all of the profits obtained from the sale of beer and premises wine while the license pending transfer was to belong seller, Glorioso. The buyers permitted were operate the busi- ness pending the settlement of the business and transfer of the license.
“Mr. Glorioso testified that he complained that Mr. Mara- ño never told him when the license was transferred despite repeated calls. No accountings were made of monies re- ceived from the sale of beer and Glorioso, wine to Mr. contract, violation of the despite again numerous calls from *3 Mr. Glorioso And, to Mr. Maraño. Mr. finally, Glorioso testified in that the spring of 1979 he learned that the grocery had up, burned and he called his attorney reporting the him, information to inquiring the about etc. money, Mr. Maraño it, said don’t worry it, about he would take care of and Mr. Glorioso was by advised Mr. Maraño pick up check from the insurance company the value of the lost inventory and business. Mr. Glorioso further testified that this, and, fact, he did in produced a check gave which he Maraño, but noticed that it was payable to “Little Sicily”, the new name of the operated business as Frank by Scaccio, and Rosalie buyers. the The testimony was that despite the fact Mr. Maraño was aware of the incorrect payee on the check in question, that for over a month he did nothing it, about until he later learned from Mr. Glorioso that the insurance company had either issued another check payable to Little Sicily, or somehow or another regained control of the check in question it paid to them. In any event, the payees, is, buyers, Frank and Rosalie Scac- cio, received $17,600.00 the sum of as a result of the fire formerly known as Glorioso’s Gro-
occurring at what was according out ceries. Mr. Salvatore Glorioso was insurance company. own he admits to substan- testimony,
“In Mr. Marano’s Glorioso, stated Mr. previously by the facts as tially the fire that he notified insurance produced evidence the immediately after con- carrier Glorioso’s Groceries 1978, sold, being that the was September, tract in business to enter as endorsements company and asked the insurance Little purchasers, on the interest policy protected as Frank and Rosalie Scaccio. Sicily, operated “However, had acted fact that despite notifying company change the insurance promptly in in purchasers of the contract protection of endorsement in 1978, he fire when learned which spring 1979, nothing. He May he did spring occurred company insurance was neither checked to see that notified, not the contract not check to see whether or did did property, on the and he had fire insurance purchasers make a claim on company and notify not the insurance client, Glorioso. behalf of his Salvatore in, and event, out and any “In Glorioso was Scaccio was to do to enter thing, according to only Baltimore suit, finally he did in the Circuit Court of which and Delica- Equity entitled Glorioso’s Groceries County Scaccio, his wife tessen, and Rosalie Inc. v. Frank Scaccio 140, (Case 102477, 135). No. Docket Folio suit was filed on November “Docket entries show *4 the Bill of 1979, filed a Demurrer to Com- the defendants 7, 1979, on the hearing a was held plaint on December the Bill of 5, 1980, and that an Answer to May Demurrer on A 530 May, on the 15th of 1980. Rule filed Complaint was 1981, 9, on entered in the case November dismissal was granted December days was on suspend ninety to leave dismissed order of 10, 1981, finally case and the was again A filed to 20, 1982. Petition was May on court suspend 530, the dismissal under Rule and Judge Raine refused the on grant 11, Petition June 1982.
“No question was at the time of the hearing raised in concerning propriety filing a the case Equity.
“The evidence showed did request that Maraño not that on placed the matter be Docket Equity pur- poses of trial. Deputy Clerk William Allen the Circuit Court of Depu- Baltimore testified that he had been County ty years Clerk 28 supervisor legal department for the 12 years respect last assignment with He equity cases. said from 1976 it onwards became neces- in sary request hearing when equity cases counsel desired to have cases heard their merits. This in case question, Groceries, the case of Glorioso’s et al. above to, not, therefore, referred was a trial assigned during date the time it rested in files County that of the Baltimore Courthouse. Allen testified that of the attorneys most practice who Baltimore familiar this County are with procedure.
“Cross examination of Mr. Allen revealed that mechanics liens assigned cases are because request without matter, nature of cases in automatically. but law are set He further procedures change testified that the with (that is, respect equity cases attorneys rule that must request hearing) posted The Record in Daily He further testified that if a case is dismissed under Rule 530, an attorney must that it request placed be back on trial docket even though it been on previously the trial docket.
“The clearly record that at no did Mr. shows time Maraño request a in question trial date on behalf of the case either before or after the of Rule dismissal
“There no is evidence to show did anything during day grace the ninety period between De- 20, 1982, cember May when case was finally dismissed.
“Meanwhile, years by, as months and rolled Mr. the testified, apprehensive, he con- extremely Glorioso became case, he consulted with and progress in the cerning the money to as a attempt gain to attorney retained another on or June of grocery result of the sale of his store before this, his filed suit on attorney a result of new 1981. As Anne 18, 1981, County Court of Arundel June the Circuit Maraño, Philip suit was against Respondent, the which Maraño, making Mr. Mr. Glorioso eventually settled negli- a alleged free of as result of his damage whole and gent practice. line Frank and in the case at hand was that
“The bottom $17,600.00 keep proceeds Rosalie Scaccio were able (to it never company day from insurance this has been an Mr. and company paid insurance clearly determined what claim). Mr. Maraño checked to Mrs. for the never Scaccio had it was see or not insurance whether whether Scaccio had the claim. paid company Glorioso’s own insurance make an compelled never to ever and Mrs. Scaccio were from beer and wine accounting for the monies received contract, until the during pendency up sales (the transfer- eventually transferred license was license was after- red, it sometime and Mr. Maraño found out about Scaccio’s, wards); and, finally, The never buyers, for the except deposit, Mr. Glorioso a for pay penny, in question. of the business purchase charge against Philip “A misconduct Maraño second retained as allegedly being out of Mr. Marano’s evolved of Jean R. Aronson. Estate attorney as result of the Mr. Maraño was retained a “Apparently, member of the Bar to assist request of fellow Aronson, Estate of R. the result administration Jean contacting in Mr. the heirs of the of which resulted Maraño handling probate work which had respect Estate with this, made a claim to be done. As result proceeds Employees Group insurance from Federal life Life of Barton Aronson Company Insurance benefit D. Complainant against and the Lawrence Aronson. *6 August
“The facts that R. Aronson died on reveal Jean 10, 1980, following date certain Affidavits that that September were Mr. Maraño in of 1981 indicat- by obtained Miss ing surviving that Aronson had no at the time husband 8, of her death. 1982 Mr. made February On Maraño claim under the life his proceeds insurance due policy 14, clients. On March 1982 Mr. Maraño apparently received the funds. facts in hearing
“The showed that after March 1981, Dr. Aronson and Lawrence Barton Aronson dealt exclusively Philip with Maraño claim for life concerning the resulting insurance from the Estate. Mr. Maraño testified was deliberately that he in the delaying production of the in question had, funds because Mr. Barton Aronson accord- Mr. ing to involved in dealings become certain with in him Estate which resulted to his owing money brother, Lawrence Aronson. Mr. Maraño hoped by that his delays producing the life checks from the insurance company, that Barton persuaded Mr. Aronson could be turn over his check to his In any brother. event this did not occur, 30, 1981, and on July Lawrence Aronson wrote Mr. Maraño complaining about his failure to money. obtain his It after receipt was of this letter that finally 4, on September 1981, submitted Affidavits to be signed by Mr. Aronson with respect to the life claim the proceeds. insurance Although the facts are not clear as presented at the hearing, apparently Aronson, Barton a period considerable of time after the Affidavits were for- warded the insurance company, received his some- money where around March of 1982. For another, some reason Dr. Lawrence Aronson did not receive his share of the life proceeds, insurance and he continued to complain, including filing complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland. As a result of complaint, this a hearing was 4, April scheduled on at which time Mr. Maraño testified concerning receipt of the life insurance pro- at that this Court that
ceeds. Maraño testified before his file be more perhaps he should suggested time check, happened closely examined to determine what This he subsequent on occasion. and he referred to that After the check. hearing, and found following did check, resting finding apparently which had been pending complaints when he during file the time Commission, he forwarded the check Attorney Grievance Dr. Lawrence Aronson. “CHARGES brought Com- charges “The Grievance charging of Rule 1-102 disciplinary infractions mission 6-101, to act misconduct, charging Rule failure Disciplinary 7-101, charging Rule Disciplinary competently, *7 zealously”. a client “represent Maraño with failure “FINDINGS “1. Salvatore Glorioso. Complaint herein, Maraño, the Defendant “This Court finds that Mr. Rules: following Disciplinary violated the 1-102 Rule Disciplinary
‘Misconduct.
(A) A shall not: lawyer reflects
(6) adversely other any conduct Engage to practice on his fitness law.’ Rule 6-101 Disciplinary
‘Failing Act Competently.
(A) A not: lawyer shall
(3) to him.’ legal a matter entrusted Neglect Rule 7-101 Disciplinary
‘Representing Zealously. Client (A) A not intentionally: shall lawyer
(3) course of damage during his client Prejudice except un- relationship, required as professional 7-102(B).’
der DR Dr. Complaint by D. Aronson. Lawrence
“2. Maraño, finds herein, “This Court that Mr. the Defendant violated: Rule
Disciplinary 6-101 Act
‘Failing to Competently.
(A) A shall not: lawyer
(3) Neglect legal matter entrusted to him.’ Defendant, “With respect Charge against Philip this Court finds that Disci- violated 1-102(A)(6), plinary 6-101(A)(3), Rules Rule and Rule 7- 101(A)(3) respect representation with to his of Salvatore business, Glorioso in the matter of the sale of his grocery the matter of the claim or resulting claims from a fire which destroyed former matter of grocery, filing against suit Frank buyers grocery, Rosalie Scaccio. particularly,
“More Mr. Maraño failed to: 1. Act promptly, competently, and with re- diligently spect to the preparation the settlement of the grocery store of Mr. respect Salvatore Glorioso with to his contrac- agreement tual with Mr. and Mrs. Frank Scaccio. to properly Failed account for all due monies to his
client as a result of the products. sale beer and wine to monitor Failed and attend the license transfer.
4. to place Failed the prompt matter down for settle- ment.
5. Failed to his properly protect respect client with to the claim fire concerning damage.
6. to Failed learn which company paid the actually claim and or whether not it one or companys two involved at the time of the claim. This matter still remains handling unknown. His of entire the matter of the insur- ance claim lapses involved numerous which this Court will not specifically itemize further. suit, pretrial and promptly Failure to file conduct mat- prepare to necessary and other matters
discovery and Mrs. against claim ter for trial in Mr. Glorioso’s Scaccio. claim filed in the Circuit request Failure to that the trial docket upon set County of Baltimore be
Court case, and progress failure to monitor the promptly, throughout client represent his competently failure to County. instituted Baltimore proceedings this, respect to to Mr. Marano’s actions with “In addition ability practice on his to adversely reflect of the above all to his damage prejudice in financial or law, which resulted occurred. lapses time that the client at the Defendant, Philip Charge against respect “With Disci- Mr. Maraño violated finds that this Court representation to his 6-101(A)(3) respect with Rule plinary R. Aronson. the Estate of Jean of ’ Court, if it that even of this findings respect “With on of diligence lack of behalf lapses or is true that life insurance a claim for making to his respect Maraño with R. the Estate of Jean the heirs of proceeds behalf given is no excuse there acceptable, true and Aronson were diligent- to act and failure lapse Marano’s for Mr. givable or locating proceeds respect with competently ly from by him obtained already been apparently which and was Company Insurance Group Life Employees Federal re- that Mr. Maraño from the time in his file remaining Commis- Grievance from complaint ceived hearing time of including the up to and Maryland sion the said Commission.” before findings. Judge Ward’s any except did not dis- charges should be that the maintains
He nevertheless alternative, issued. reprimand that a be missed, in the factors, on a number predicated is His recommendation service at satisfactory years e., twenty-seven his i. interests; personal bar; to his client’s his dedication in Mr. Glorio- $30,000 malpractice judgment of a payment
643 he has his manner of says adjusted so’s favor. Maraño that law, longer that he no takes all cases offered to practicing him; engaged that he has now an associate to work with office; him in manages and that he now to work more diligently points a reduced case load. Maraño also out he is taking improve that now educational courses to He management says of his law office. that his health has impaired laboring been since 1977 and that he has been by personal family under a severe strain caused tragedy. suggests representation that his of clients no poses danger public. argues he Consequently, that a suspension punishment would constitute of the violation rules, disciplinary prevailing which is inconsistent with the proceedings. view of lawyer disciplinary Bar suspended Counsel recommends that Maraño be from practice for at a thirty-day period. law least He gross contends that Marano’s misconduct was and involved lapses diligence, resulting particular numerous preju- dice to Mr. Glorioso. Bar Counsel advises that Maraño a private reprimand failing received in June of 1976 for client, file suit on causing behalf the claim to be barred limitations. by true, course,
It is
purpose
discipli
that
nary proceedings
protect
public
is to
rather than to
punish
erring
attorney. Attorney Griev. Comm’n v.
Kahn,
654,
(1981).
290 Md.
In of Marano’s view in the circumstances justified cannot be suspension than in this case. impose shall That is the sanction we this case. from suspended Maraño shall stand Accordingly, Philip S. thirty days period in this State practice of law He opinion. of this filing after thirty days beginning until all that date unless and suspended beyond shall stand proceeding paid this are in connection with costs incurred full. PAY ALL ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL
IT IS SO COURT, BY THE CLERK OF THIS TAXED COSTS AS TRANSCRIPTS, ALL PUR- THE OF COSTS INCLUDING c WHICH RULE BV15 FOR TO MARYLAND SUANT OF THE ENTERED IN FAVOR IS SUM JUDGMENT AGAINST COMMISSION ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE PHILIP MARAÑO.
ELDRIDGE,
concurring:
Judge,
my
majority.
See
in the result reached
I concur
Sinclair,
v.
Griev. Comm’n.
opinion
dissenting
(1984),
also
today.
Court 25,May