Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mitchell
521 A.2d 746
Md.
1987
Check Treatment

*1 ARTHUR AGAINST COMMISSION GRIEVANCE NEY REID, JR. JOSEPH MARYLAND OF COMMISSION GRIEVANCE

ATTORNEY Rоnald MITCHELL. William (Subtitle BV) Term, Sept. 1985. No. Misc. Maryland. Appeals of

Court of 4, 1987. March Hirshman, Counsel, Grossman, Melvin Glenn M. Com’n, Asst. Bar Counsel for Attorney of Mary- *2 land, for petitioner. Wheeler, Baltimore,

Thomаs B. respondent. for MURPHY, Argued C.J., ELDRIDGE, ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍before and RODOWSKY, COLE, COUCH, McAULIFFE and ADKINS, JJ.

MURPHY, Judge. Chief The Attorney Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a for action petition disciplinary against Wil- Mitchell, liam Ronald alleging violations the disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We re- matter, ferred pursuant to Maryland b, Rule BV9 to Judge Leonard of the S. Jacobson Circuit Court for Balti- more to County findings make of fact and conclusions of

After conducting evidentiary hearing, Judge an Jacobson found that the had Respondent August been convicted on 27, violating (1982 1985 of Maryland Vol.), Code Reрl. 27, Article felony 464A—the degree second sexual § offense—for which he a suspended ten-year received sen- tence and a fivе-year probationary period. According to the agreed trial, statement of facts at the criminal the Respon- dent, 1983, 1, on performed (fellatio) June a act sexual upon thirteen-year-old boy, and that four on other occasions 1, between June and Januаry engaged he in like acts with the juvenile. same

At the hearing, was disciplinary evidence adduced that Respondent compulsive pedophiliac, was a homosexual that this was a psychiatric disorder for the Respondent which undergone treatment, had extensive thаt his but behavior regard power this was and his impulsive beyond to control. Judge from testimony Jacobson found that Respondent “ depressive suffеred from ‘manic reaction disorder and ” compulsive pedophilia.’ homosexual He concluded that conviction Respоndent’s e the Rule BV10 Maryland under of his proof was conclusive offense degree sexual second moral involved felony which offensе was guilt, that 1-102(A)(1) DR had violated that and turpitude, (3).1 find- Jacobson’s Judge to exception took no as inactive status him on place we urged He ings. Counsel, while b 4. Rule BV11 Maryland by authorized was criminal behavior Respondent’s that the acknowledging disorder, recommends an his psychiatric to causally related protect sanction appropriate as the suspension Bar, and to of the integrity to maintain public, Respondent’s of the nature the intolerable demonstrate points out Bar Counsel misconduct. no there is turpitude, moral conduct involved *3 remission, in and is disease the

evidence as to render are such circumstances the of law. practice ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍for the unfit case, agree we of the the circumstances

Considering all forthwith and shall recommendation Bar with Counsel’s of practice the from the indefinitely suspend v. Flynn, 283 Md. Attorney Griev. Comm’n law. See (1978). ALL PAY ORDERED; SHALL RESPONDENT IT SOIS COURT, OF THIS BY THE CLERK TAXED COSTS AS TRANSCRIPTS, PUR- ALL OF THE COSTS INCLUDING WHICH BV15 c FOR MARYLAND RULE TO SUANT THE OF IN FAVOR ENTERED IS SUM JUDGMENT WIL- AGAINST COMMISSION GRIEVANCE ATTORNEY MITCHELL. LIAM RONALD (3) 1-102(A)(1) provide: and

1. DR Misconduct. “DR 1-102 (A) lawyer not: A shall (1) Disciplinary Rule. Violate a

(3) Engage [******] illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.” COLE, J., opinion. dissents with J., MсAULIFFE, COLE, concurs J. with COLE, dissenting. Judge, case, In this Court imposes the the sanction of indefinite suspension upon attorney an has who been convicted of a turpitude crime having of moral no relation to his ability to practice law. I believe the is appropriate sanction disbar- I, therefore, ment. dissent. it,

As I see this Court has employed three sanctions to from First, remove the attorneys we have imposed sanсtion of disbarment an attorney when has demonstrated his unfitness to abe member of the Bar by to misconduct ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍that amounts conduct of turpi- moral tude byor misconduct that shows basic lack of character rendering the attorney’s continued in the membership prejudicial this State justiсe. the administration of

Second, professional when the misconduct of the attorney stems from physical a mental or malady substantiаlly impacts upon attorney’s ability to function as a respon- sible the legal profession, member of imposed we have suspensiоn. sanction Our is that theory attorney’s mitigates trangressions illness his professional that, if controlled, the illness or is malady treated and the attorney may at some again future time once be en- trusted with the affairs of others. if differently, Stated attorney removed, under which the disability had lаbored is the attorney will presumably profes- be able to assume his *4 responsibilities sional competence. with when the Finally, attornеy is incompetent cannot function within professional age, standards because of infir- mity or other physical or mental disability, placed we have him on protect inactive status to the public as as the well himself. attorney

In case, the instant the conduct that the Cоurt finds opprobrious is that the Respondent was of convicted a degree second sexual offense for which he a receivеd sus-

657 period to a of subject five-year sentence pended ten-year performed fellatio Factually, Respondent the рrobation. on over thirteen-year-old boy separate five occasions upon The at eighteen months. facts elicited рeriod of showed that hearing further disciplinary who, despite psy- pedophiliac homosexual compulsive was a treatment, рroclivity. to control his was unable chiatric ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍was no evidence to demonstrate Significantly, there interfered with his impulses uncontrollablе of his practice, subjects his to maintain law ability clients, or or the children attention were clients sexual practice juvenile engaged was words, was no In other there or relations law. domestic nexus, remote, connecting Respondent’s or near his misconduct with susрen-

Nonetheless, concludes that this Court I find this conclusion is an sanction. appropriate sion incongruous. incredibly suspension an indefinite should have said that

Clearly, we misconduct has been professional where imposed be Attorney illness. See physical a mental or by “caused” Willemain, v. 665, Comm’n Grievance 506 A.2d 305 Md. Shaffer, Comm’n v. Attorney Grievance 305 (1986); 245 Grievance Comm’n Attorney 190, (1986); Md. 502 A.2d 502 Miller, Attorney (1984); v. 592, 483 A.2d 1281 301 Md. Aler, v. 389, 483 A.2d Grievance Comm’n Md. 56 301 Nichols, Attornеy Comm’n v. Grievance (1984); 301 Md. v. Attorney Comm’n Grievance 172, (1984); 482 A.2d 499 Truette, Attorney Griev- (1984); 435, Md. 211 299 474 A.2d ’n v. Dunphy, 377, (1983); ance Comm 297 Md. 467 A.2d 177 Willemain, 297 Md. v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n 386, Comm’n v. Attorney (1983); 466 1271 A.2d ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​‍Attorney Finlayson, (1982); 156, A.2d 293 Md. 442 565 Willcher, 74, Grievance Comm’n Md. 411 A.2d 83 287 Flynn, Comm’n v. Attorney Grievance 41,Md. (1980); v. Coo- Grievance Comm’n Attorney (1978); A.2d 775 per, (1977). Respondent’s 279 Md. Nor does categоry. does not within this misconduct fall *5 mold of fit one is incompetent who of physical impairment. cannot function because or mental is a convicted criminal whose misconduct has However, ability not affected his because turpitude of the nature of his conduct —moral continu- —his ance as Bar of practicing member of the this is State prejudicial to the administration of justice. Accordingly, Respondent should be disbarred.

Judge has me McAULIFFE authorized to state he expressed concurs with the views herein.

521 A.2d 749 Tyrone TRUSTY Maryland. STATE of 81, Sept. Term, No. 1986. of Appeals of Maryland.

Court

March 1987.