*1 238 A.2d
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE OF MARYLAND COMMISSION
v. R. Scott SCROGGS. Term, Sept. Misc. Docket AG No. 2004. Appeals Maryland. Court of May *3 Hirshman, Com’n, Melvin Bar Atty. Counsel for Grievance petitioner. Rockville, Robert Scroggs, Scott for respondent. BELL, C.J, Argued RAKER, WILNER, before CATHELL, HARRELL, GREENE, BATTAGLIA and JJ.
GREENE, J. a reciprocal This is arising action out of disci plinary Oklahoma, initiated in proceedings respondent, where 1, bar, R. Scroggs Scott a member of that practiced law. We are asked to decide the on impact Mr. Scroggs’s privilege practice Maryland law in as a result of the of Supreme Court 14, Scroogs 1. Robert Scott was admitted to the Bar on June 241 from the approval respondent’s resignation Oklahoma’s disciplinary proceedings. bar pending Oklahoma
Background Oklahoma, in previous The Court of disci respondent from the plinary proceeding, suspended year law for one for violations of the Rules Professional ex rel. Bar Ass’n v. R. Conduct. State Oklahoma Scott P.3d 821 Scroggs, (petition rehearing pending). 70 disciplinary proceedings pending While additional were Oklahoma, the in those complainant proceedings, the Okla Association, homa Bar an applied for order approving resignation of the R. Scott respondent, Scroggs, pending conjunction In disciplinary proceedings. with the action taken Association, Bar filed the same proceed ings Resignation Affidavit of from in the membership bar pending disciplinary proceedings. Oklahoma The Su Bar preme approved application Court Oklahoma of the resignation Association and the of R. Scott ex Scroggs. State rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. R. Scott 71 15 Scroggs, P.3d (2003). law, Scroggs’s resignation Pursuant Mr. disciplinary proceedings equivalent while were is the P.3d at rel. Scroggs, (citing of disbarment. 17 State ex Bourland, 289, (2001)). Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. 19 P.3d Oklahoma, lawyer resigning pending disciplinary pro “a may not make for reinstatement ceedings application prior expiration years approv of five from date order Id. ex rel. Oklahoma Bar ing resignation.” citing State Grunewald, (2001); Ass’n v. 27 P.3d State ex rel. Redell, (2001). *4 In the Bar Ass’n v. 38 P.3d Oklahoma 20, 2003, the of May Supreme order dated Court Oklahoma resignation, struck his name from approved respondent’s Scroggs Roll of ordered that Mr. could make no Attorneys, in membership reinstatement to the Oklahoma application Bar from the effective date of the years Association before five interest, order, him repay court’s and ordered with to Fund, any Trust Security Oklahoma Bar Association Clients’ funds on his behalf. expended Affidavit of filed Su-
Respondent’s Resignation with the that “it preme freely Court of asserted was and rendered; subject he du- voluntarily was not coercion or ress; fully and he of the of consequences was aware submit- ting the He also noted he was resignation.” suspended of in previous from the law for one case and year that a ac- petition rehearing Respondent was pending. he burden of knowledged proof was aware that the rests upon the Bar Association and that disciplinary proceedings, he all any right waived and to contest the allegations. addition, Scroggs’s resignation Mr. stated that a 25-page complaint against filed him alleging was Court 1.5(a) 1.4, (c), 1.1, 1.3, of misconduct for violation Rules and (b) 8.4(c) 1.15(a), (c), 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1, of of and the Rules Governing Professional and Rule 5.2 of the Rules Conduct Disciplinary Proceedings. acknowledged sepa- He also seven grievances rate filed with the of Office General Counsel Id. at against him for misconduct. 16. In addition to his of acknowledgment pending Mr. complaints, Scroggs stated that, “respondent affidavit that allegations is aware con- conduct, if cerning proven, his would constitute of violations ... Professional Conduct the Rules [Rules Govern- ” ing Disciplinary Proceedings].... 26, 2004, The May Attorney On Grievance Commission (hereinafter Counsel”), Maryland “Bar acting pursuant Rules, Rules 16-7512 and 16-7733 of the Md. filed a Petition Maryland provided part: 2. Rule 16-751 (A) disciplinary ap- Upon Commencement or remedial action. Commission, proval of the Bar Counsel file a shall Petition for Disci- plinary Appeals. or Remedial Action in the Court of provides: Rule 16-773 (a) attorney. (1) Duty attorney An jurisdiction who in another is disbarred, (2) suspended, disciplined, resigns or otherwise from bar while remedial action is threatened or in that jurisdiction, placed incapacity on inactive status based on shall promptly resignation, inform discipline, Bar Counsel or inactive status. (b) Appeals. receiving in Court of Upon verifying Petition jurisdiction information from source that in another *5 incapacity, placed inactive status based on disciplined or on has been Action in may Disciplinary or Remedial file a Petition Bar Counsel 16-751(a)(2). copy of A certified Appeals pursuant to Rule the Court of Petition, the and shall be attached to disciplinary or remedial order the attorney in on the and order shall be served copy of the Petition a with Rule 16-753. accordance (c) copy of a petition a and certified cause order. When Show filed, Appeals of have been the Court disciplinary or remedial order attorney, days the within 15 from and the shall order that Bar Counsel order, grounds writing upon any the based of the show cause date of (e) discipline why corresponding or in section of this set forth imposed. not be inactive status should (d) attorney. petition the and disci- Temporary suspension of When attorney has been that an plinary remedial order demonstrate or by a currently suspended practice final order of from or is disbarred order, may Appeals enter an jurisdiction, the Court of in another court law, attorney immediately, suspending the from the of effective apply to provisions of Rule 16-760 of Court. The pending further order attorney under this section. suspending an an order (e) discipline not be Reciprocal shall Exceptional circumstances. attorney demonstrates clear if Bar or the ordered Counsel convincing evidence that: (1) lacking opportunity or to be heard procedure was so notice deprivation process; a of due as to constitute (2) infirmity proof establishing the as of misconduct there was such Court, duty, with its give clear that the consistent rise to a conviction misconduct; accept as final the determination cannot (3) grave corresponding discipline imposition would result injustice; (4) in this not constitute misconduct the conduct established does State; substantially discipline in this or different State or it warrants longer exists. inactive status no the reason for (f) petition Appeals. Upon consideration Action Court cause, may Appeals any the order the Court of answer to status, may corresponding discipline or inactive immediately impose designating judge pursuant to Rule 16-752 to hold enter an order hearing 16-757, may any enter other with Rule or in accordance apply an order provisions of Rule 16-760 appropriate order. The attorney places suspends an or this section that disbars under attorney on inactive status. adjudication. Except provided in subsec- as (g) Conclusive effect of Rule, (e)(2) disciplin- (e)(1) adjudication in a a final of this tions court, agency, proceeding by or tribunal ary another or remedial incapaci- guilty professional misconduct or is been has incapacity in that misconduct or conclusive evidence of tated is evidence Chapter. The introduction of such proceeding under this introducing from preclude or Bar Counsel the Commission does introducing evi- preclude attorney from additional evidence or showing why discipline or lesser disci- cause no dence or otherwise pline imposed. should be (h) jurisdiction has jurisdiction. If other stay in other Effect of status, any proceedings under this stayed discipline or inactive Action Mr. Disciplinary against Scroggs Remedial a certified of the Oklahoma copy which Court’s Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Order Proceed *6 the ings Respondent and Order from Practice of Suspending Petition, One Year attached. In the Bar Law for were alleged subject respondent Counsel of Maryland this State to Rule 16-701 authority pursuant and in as charged engaged misconduct defined therein, to specifically, report discipline his failing Okla 16-773(a), homa to Bar Counsel in violation of Rule 1.1 (Competence)4, Representation)5, and 1.2 (Scope MRPC stay longer operative be deferred the Rule shall until is no and the (Added 30, discipline or inactive status becomes effective. Nov. 1, 2001; 12, 2003, July effective amended Nov. effective Jan. 2004.) Competence. 4. Rule 1.1. lawyer provide representation competent Compe- A shall a client. to skill, requires legal knowledge, representation thoroughness
tent the preparation reasonably necessary representation. and for the Scope representation. 5. Rule 1.2. (a) lawyer by concerning A shall objec- abide a client's the decisions ©, (e), and, (d) subject paragraphs representation, tives of to and when appropriate, by shall the client they consult with as to the means which pursued. lawyer by are to A be shall abide a client's decision whether case, accept an offer to of settlement of a matter. criminal the decision, lawyer by abide shall the client's after consultation with the entered, lawyer, plea to a jury as to be whether waive trial and testify. client whether the will (b) client, lawyer's representation representation including A of a appointment, politi- does not the constitute endorsement of client's cal, economic, social or moral views or activities. (c) lawyer may objectives representation A limit the of the if the client consents after consultation. (d) lawyer client, engage, A shall not a client to counsel or assist a fraudulent, lawyer the lawyer conduct that is criminal knows or but a may legal consequences proposed discuss course of conduct may good with a client counsel or assist a make a client to faith scope, validity, meaning application effort to determine the of the law. (e) lawyer expects permit- When knows that a client assistance not law, lawyer ted the Rules of Professional Conduct or other shall regarding consult with the client the relevant limitations on the law-
yer's conduct. (Safe (Communication)7,1.5 (Fees)8, 1.4 1.15 (Diligence)6, 1.3 Terminating Represent 1.16 keeping Property)9, (Declining Diligence. Rule 1.3. 6. diligence lawyer promptness A shall act with reasonable
representing a client. 1.4. Communication. (a) reasonably lawyer keep a client informed about the status A shall comply requests promptly a matter and with reasonable for informa- tion. (b) reasonably necessary lawyer explain A a matter to the extent shall regarding represen- permit make informed decisions the client to tation. (in part) provides 8. Rule 1.5 that: (a) lawyer's The be considered A fee shall be reasonable. factors to following: determining of a fee include the the reasonableness novelty difficulty required, labor time and requisite legal questions perform and the service involved skill *7 properly; client, likelihood, (2) apparent acceptance if that the of the the preclude employment by particular employment will other the law- yer; services; (3) legal customarily charged locality in the the fee for similar obtained; (4) and the result the amount involved circumstances; (5) imposed by by lime limitations the client or the the (6) length professional relationship the with the the nature and client; (7) ability lawyer lawyers experience, reputation, and of the or the services; performing tire (8) contingent. fixed whether the fee is or provides Rule 1.15 as follows: (a) persons lawyer property clients or third that is in a A shall hold
lawyer’s representation separate from possession in connection with a kept separate lawyer's property. be in a account the own Funds shall 16, Chapter pursuant Title 600 of the Rules. maintained to safeguard- appropriately property be identified as such and Other shall property Complete funds and of other ed. records of such account period five kept by lawyer preserved be for a shall be the shall years representation. after termination (b) Upon receiving property other in which a client or third funds or interest, lawyer promptly notify or third person a shall the client has an by permitted law or person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise client, lawyer promptly deliver to the by agreement with the a shall property client or person funds or other that the client or third and, upon request by client or person receive the third is entitled to accounting regarding promptly full such person, third render a shall property. (Bar
ation)10, 8.1 Admission Litigation)11, (Expediting 8.2 (c) representation lawyer possession is in When in the course of a interests, lawyer person claim property in which both the another by lawyer property kept separate the until there is an the shall be dispute If a con- accounting and of their interests. arises severance interests, dispute kept cerning respective portion the shall be their by lawyer dispute separate the until the is resolved. Declining terminating representation. 10. Rule 1.16. or (c), (a) lawyer represent Except paragraph a shall not a as stated in or, commenced, representation withdraw from client where has shall representation the of a client if: (1) representation of the Rules of the will result violation Profession- law; al Conduct or other (2) lawyer’s materially impairs physical the or mental condition the client; lawyer's ability represent the or (3) lawyer discharged. the is (c), (b) lawyer may Except paragraph a withdraw from as stated representing accomplished if mate- a client withdrawal can be without client, rial adverse effect on the interests of the or if: (1) involving lawyer’s persists the client in a course of action the fraudulent; lawyer reasonably services that the (2) believes is criminal or lawyer’s perpetrate a crime the client has used services to fraud; (3) upon pursuing objective lawyer a client insists an that the considers repugnant imprudent; (4) substantially lawyer obligation the client fails to fulfill regarding lawyer's given warning services and has been reasonable fulfilled; lawyer obligation that the will withdraw unless the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden client; lawyer unreasonably on the or has been rendered difficult or (6) good other for withdrawal exists. cause tribunal, (c) lawyer When ordered do so continue shall notwithstanding representation good terminating repre- cause for *8 sentation. (d) Upon representation, lawyer steps termination of a shall take interests, reasonably practicable protect extent a client’s such as client, giving allowing employment reasonable notice to the time for counsel, surrendering papers property other and to which the client is refunding any payment entitled and advance of fee that has not been lawyer may papers relating earned. The retain to the client to the permitted by extent other law. Expediting Litigation. 11. Rule 3.2. lawyer expedite litigation A shall make reasonable efforts to consis-
tent with the interests of the client. (Misconduct)13. Matters)12, and 8.4 Disciplinary directing per- This Court issued three Show Cause Orders on or before a date certain sonal service on directing respondent writing upon show cause based 16-778(e) forth in Rule grounds Maryland why set should be Bar imposed by disbarment this Court. Coun- that it Mr. Scroggs personal- sel contends was unable to serve necessary Thus it was to serve notice ly. respondent’s on Protection Fund of the Bar agent, Client to Rule 16-753 14. pursuant disciplinary
12. Rule 8.1. Bar admission and matters. bar, applicant lawyer An for admission or reinstatement to the or a application connection with a bar admission or in connection with a matter, shall not: fact; (a) knowingly make a false statement or material or (b) necessary misapprehension fail to disclose a a fact to correct matter, person knowingly known to have arisen in the or fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an or admissions disciplinary authority, except require that this Rule does not disclosure protected by of information otherwise Rule 1.6. 13. Rule 8.4. Misconduct. professional lawyer It for a to: is misconduct (a) Conduct, attempt violate or to violate the Rules of Professional so, knowingly through or induce assist another to do or do so the acts another; of (b) adversely lawyer's commit a criminal act that reflects on the hones- ty, lawyer respects; trustworthiness or fitness as a in other fraud, (c) engage involving dishonesty, misrepre- in conduct deceit or sentation; (d) engage prejudicial in conduct to the administration of
justice; (e) imply ability improperly government state or to influence a official; agency or (0 judge knowingly judicial a assist officer in conduct that is (Amend- applicable judicial violation of rules of conduct or other law. 10, 1996, 1, 1997.) July ed Dec. effective petition. 14. Rule 16-753. Service of copy pursu Disciplinary A of a Petition for or Remedial Action filed 16-751, Appeals designating ant to Rule the order of the Court of 16-752, attorney by
judge pursuant to Rule be served on an shall Appeals. If cannot be Court of after reasonable efforts the may designated personally, upon employee made tire served service be Maryland pursuant the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of 1(x), attorney’s agent receipt of 16-811 c who shall be deemed the *9 8, 2004,
On November filed a respondent response written to the order to upon show cause served Client Protection Fund. his that the response, respondent asserts Petition for Disciplinary Remedial Action and Show Cause Order were never him and personally served on that Rule 16-75415is not Rule applicable requires because 16-753 reasonable efforts to serve at process attempt personal and one service not was reasonable in this We will case. address the issue of service of the orders to show cause later this opinion.
Discussion In our review of the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Order, Action and Respondent’s Response To A Show Cause guided we are by Maryland Rule 16-773. Pursuant to Rule 16-773(a) an attorney jurisdiction disbarred, who another is suspended, or from the bar resigns while remedial action is threatened or jurisdiction shall inform Bar Counsel promptly the discipline, resigna- tion, (c) or inactive status. Section of Rule 16-773 requires that, a petition after copy certified of a disciplinary or filed, remedial order have been the Court must order that Bar Counsel and the attorney “show cause in writing based upon (e) any grounds set forth in section of this why corre- send, employee service. The Fund’s shall both certified mail and mail, ordinary copy papers of the so served to the at the address maintained in the Fund's records and to other address (Added 30, 2000, 2001; provided by Bar July Counsel. Nov. effective 6, 2002.) amended effective Nov. 15. Rule 16-754. Answer. (a) Timing; days being contents. Within 15 after served with the ordered, petition, unless a different time respondent shall file designated with the petition clerk an answer to the copy and serve a on (e) petitioner. Sections © and apply Rule 2-323 to the answer. objections petition, including Defenses and insufficiency to the of ser- vice, shall be stated in the answer and preliminary motion. (b) Procedural ground objection defects. It is not a defense or petition procedural may during disciplin- defects have occurred ary proceedings prior filing or remedial petition. (c) Failure filing to answer. If the time expired an answer has and the has failed to file an answer in accordance with (a) Rule, section of this the court shall treat the failure as a default and provisions (Added 30, 2000, apply. of Rule 2-613 shall Nov. 1, 2001.) July effective not be 16- sponding discipline” imposed. Specifically, should 773(e) provides: *10 ordered if Bar or
Reciprocal discipline shall not be
Counsel
the
demonstrates
clear and
evidence
by
convincing
(1)
in
lacking
that:
the
so
notice or
procedure
opportu-
was
nity
deprivation
to be heard as to constitute
of due
(2)
infirmity
there
such
of
process;
proof establishing
was
the
to a clear
that the
give
misconduct as
rise
conviction
Court,
duty,
accept
consistent with its
cannot
as final the
(3)
misconduct;
determination of
the
of
imposition
corre-
(4)
sponding discipline
grave injustice;
result in
the
would
conduct established
in
does
constitute misconduct
this
or it
different
in
substantially
discipline
State
warrants
this
State;
(5)
longer
or
the reason for inactive status no
exists.
adjudi-
in relevant
that: “A final
16-773(g), provides
part
in
disciplinary
proceeding
cation
or remedial
another
by
”
court ...
is conclusive
of that misconduct.... Atty.
evidence
Roberson,
328,
v.
373 Md.
Although respondent excep 16-773(e), on tional circumstances outlined Rule his assault on proceedings is launched several disciplinary Oklahoma First, although he contends that the Supreme fronts. Court him from the suspending practice issued an order for reconsidera year, filing petition of law for one his Second, tion that order. he automatically suspended posits on that the orders issued Court Oklahoma (order approving (suspension) May March Re disciplinary not remedial or orders. resignation) were attorney’s resig that an order spondent approving reasons “a nation from the of law is not addition, remedial order.” although acknowledging that resignation pending disciplinary proceedings is tantamount to Oklahoma, a disbarment in his is that view that statement of only law refers to the procedural similarities in applying Third, for readmission to the bar. asserts that the order of resignation, Supreme Court of Oklahoma made no of fact findings as to the allegations against him. Thus, the allegations stated in the order approving his resig- nation subjected Moreover, were never to court review. he argues that Rule 16-773 was not intended to cover resigna- tions disciplinary proceedings that type because proceeding disbar, thus, does not result in an order to show cause order we issued was improper. Finally, respon- dent contends he was never properly served with the Mary- petition land and show cause order. According to Mr. Scroggs, there only was one attempt to serve him copies *11 of the documents filed these proceedings were never mailed Therefore, to him. the default provisions of Rule 16-754 are not applicable.
Taking a contrary view of the Oklahoma proceedings, peti tioner contends that respondent disciplined First, was twice. he was suspended for one year from the practice by law Supreme Oklahoma, Court of and that constituted a final order despite respondent’s filing petition for rehearing. Moreover, respondent confirmed suspension his when he ad mitted his suspension the context of subsequent his Affida vit of Resignation. According to petitioner, the motion for reconsideration was never granted. Therefore, the issues by raised the motion are moot because the Supreme Court of Oklahoma approved the application for resignation pending disciplinary proceedings. argues Petitioner that the affidavit respondent signed and filed with the Supreme Court of Okla homa contains the very same kinds of statements required as 772(b)(2)16 by Md. Rule regarding an attorney’s affidavit to 16 — 16. Rule discipline 16-772. Consent to or inactive status.
(b) Consent to discipline [*] [*] for misconduct. [*] [*] [*] [*] his Scroggs Mr. waived for misconduct. discipline consent pro- in the Oklahoma allegations the factual right to contest are allegations proven, that if the acknowledged ceedings, law, petitioner As to misconduct. Oklahoma they constitute and an disbarment that there is no distinction between asserts disciplinary proceedings pending approving resignation order Bourland, 19 Bar Ass’n v. ex rel. Oklahoma relying on State (2001). Scroggs view Mr. Finally, petitioner’s P.3d served under the circumstances. properly was statutory no case note that cites law We on the status of Oklahoma position his authority support 6.15(c) Governing Disciplin Rules of the Oklahoma law. to a party disciplinary that either ary Proceedings provides rehearing days for within may petition file proceeding filed a Respondent of the court’s decision. mailing after rule upon. the court did not for reconsideration which petition discussing cases any reported unable to find Oklahoma We are pending the effect of a specifically Rule 6.15 as to generally the court. on the orders of rehearing for petition matter, however, petition the fact that the a practical As to our decision consequence is of no rehearing rendered its The Court of Oklahoma Supreme this case. As of the Mr. on March Scroggs suspending decision has not Court date of this opinion, and more petition rehearing on the ruling its published its order since the court entered year passed than one has Hence, in from the law. Scroggs Mr. suspending (b)(1) required. joint petition filed under subsection Affidavit A *12 accompanied an affidavit the Rule shall be this attorney: the certifies that (A) currently pending investigation proceeding or is is aware that misconduct, which the nature of involving allegations professional of forth; specifically shall be set held, (B) hearing evidence could if were to be sufficient knows that misconduct; allegations of produced be to sustain the (C) discipline in stated the the disbarment or other consents to petition; (D) freely voluntarily coercion or gives without the consent duress; discipline (E) to the or other of the effects of disbarment is aware attorney consenting; and is which the in (F) stated comply conditions agrees to with Rule 16-760 may impose. Appeals petition that the Court of the our the issue is The final of the view moot. decision Okla- Court, homa in ex rel. published as State Oklahoma 821(2003), Bar v. 70 P.3d is that Scroggs, respon- Association suspended in practice dent was from the of law Oklahoma for of the explained the reasons misconduct as court in its published opinion.
We
with
that there is no
agree
petitioner
difference between
an order of disbarment and an order approving resignation
pending disciplinary proceedings under
law in
view
to
consequences
respondent’s
practice
to
privilege
law.
Respondent’s license to practice law is terminated under ei-
ther
Both
of
disposition.
dispositions
disciplinary
flow out
proceedings. Respondent
required
is
to meet the standards
if,
when,
for
he
admission
seeks readmission to the bar.
law,
Further as
limitation on his
to
ability
practice
respon-
dent
not
may
make an
application
prior
reinstatement
to
the
of five
from the
the
expiration
years
date of
order approv-
resignation.
the
ex
ing
State
rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v.
(2003).17
Scroggs,
There no merit contention that the respondent’s order of suspension and the order approving resignation his were not Indeed, remedial orders of disciplinary the court. his resignation light disciplinary of was the proceedings equiva- lent of disbarment. The approved Scroggs’s court Mr. resig- nation challenge on condition that he did not the allega- tions of misconduct and on the condition that he freely and admitted voluntarily allegations misconduct, of if proven, would constitute violations of specific enumerated rules of It professional disciplinary conduct. was the proceed- ings allegations and the of against misconduct Mr. Scroggs which served as the predicate disposition. the court’s Under discipline, Rules “disbarment means unconditional termination any privilege law contrast, By availability attorney resign during to an pendency disciplinary proceedings Maryland. does not exist 775(b) provides part attorney may resign relevant that an 16 — action, subject investigation, while is the of a proceeding involving allegations professional misconduct. *13 State____” 16-701(e). dis- resignation pending The this is, indeed, to a in tantamount ciplinary proceedings in Maryland. disbarment the court signed and filed with Scroggs
The affidavit Mr.
Md. Rule 16-
required by
statements
contained the same
772(b)(2).
consents
Similarly, Maryland
in
when
affidavit,
other
certify by
among
he or she must
discipline,
to
she,
that if
were to be
hearing
that he or
“knows
things,
held,
be
to sustain the
produced
sufficient evidence could
Here, respondent acknowledged
of
allegations misconduct.”
any
and waived
to contest the
alleged
right
the misconduct
consent to
disci-
allegations.
resignation
His overall
disciplin-
of consent to
equivalent
was the
plinary proceedings
hold, therefore,
the proceed-
action in
We
ary
Maryland.
regard
suspension
in
with
ings
respondent’s
held Oklahoma
were,
fact,
in
disciplinary proceedings
and resignation pending
Mr.
to the
subjecting
Scroggs
or remedial actions
discipline Maryland.
of
imposition
reciprocal
record,
From our review of the
we find
service
or Remedial Action and the order
Disciplinary
the Petition for
Protection
served on the
properly
to show cause were
Client
report
proceedings
An affidavit and
filed
these
Fund.
Biennas, Investigator
F.
with
details the efforts of Mr. Dennis
serve
Attorney
Maryland,
Commission
Grievance
to communicate
multiple attempts
Because the
respondent.
him
for the
personally
purpose
and contact
respondent
with
him
failed,
to serve
it was reasonable
process
service of
v.
Atty.
Comm’n
Griev.
Fund.
the Client Protection
through
205(2003).
Faber,
filed
Respondent
817 A.2d
373 Md.
cause on
to the order to show
timely response
this Court
view,
failed to
18. In our
has
November
service.
presumption
proper
to rebut
offer
evidence
separate
to the Petition For
Respondent did not file a
answer
Although
he filed an answer
Disciplinary Or Remedial Action.
cause,
argue
Scroggs did not
that his answer to show
Mr.
order to show
Md. Rule 16-
ought
answer to the Petition.
to be treated as his
cause
754(c),
filing
part that if the time for
an answer has
provides in relevant
implicit
It
answer to the show cause order
respondent’s
16-773(a) in failing
promptly
that he violated Rule
inform
*14
and
from the
suspension
resignation
Bar
of his
Okla-
Counsel
in
homa bar while
remedial action was
disciplinary
suspension
He
the
order and his resig-
Oklahoma.
concedes
pending,
nation
but
disciplinary proceedings
while
were
as-
the
rehearing stayed
suspension
serts that his motion for
order and his
was not a
matter.
resignation
disciplinary
We
rejected both contentions and hold that Mr. Scroggs
have
16-773(a) in
Md. Rule
to
inform Bar
failing
promptly
violated
suspension
resignation
in
and
Counsel
of his
while
is no
disciplinary proceedings
pending.
were
There
evidence
contrary
support
the record to
conclusion.
Sanction
inclined,
In a
are
reciprocal discipline case
but
we
not
to
same
required,
impose
imposed by
the
sanction as
the
misconduct
Atty
state
which the
occurred.
Griev.
238, 253-254,
1139,
v. Ruffin,
Comm’n
369 Md.
A.2d
798
1148
(2002). We are
to assess for ourselves the
required
propriety
imposed by
jurisdiction
the sanction
the other
and that
recommended
the
Atty
Commission.
Griev. Comm’n v.
Gittens,
(1997).
316, 326,
83,
346 Md.
697 A.2d
88
We are also
to
required
consider “the
facts and
particular
circumstances of
case,
latter,
each
the
being dependent
outcome
the
but
upon
with a
dispositions
view toward consistent
for similar miscon
Roberson,
328,
Atty.
356,
duct.”
v.
Md.
Griev. Comm’n
373
(citations omitted).
1059,
818 A.2d
1076
As in Okla
homa,
impose
not to punish
attorney,
we
sanctions
the
but to
protect
public.
rel.
Bar
State ex
Oklahoma
Association v.
Groshon,
(2003);
Court violated 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1:15(a), conduct: following professional rules 8.1(a) 8.4(c). (b), (c), 1.16(a)(5), 3.2, and with Specifically, 8.1(a) 8.4(c) regard Seroggs’s to Mr. violation of Rules that re allegations dishonesty, “the court concluded material spondent deliberately misrepresented facts Bar Oklahoma Bar Association.” State ex rel. Oklahoma (2003). Scroggs, Association v. 70 P.3d *15 allegations The of misconduct rise to Mr. giving Scroggs’s clients and mat- resignation eight separate involved involved communication, ters of lack of neglect, incompetence, dishonesty. The filed him complaint against also contained 8.4(c), allegations of misconduct for violation of Rules 8.1 and that, The specific allegations regard dishonesty with were had “respondent informed Bar Association he [Oklahoma] client], to Patricia provided accounted for work Hurst [a Hurst refund for he partial [legal representation] with when not, did that he made to the Bar.” misrepresentations addition, mat- alleged “neglected legal it that respondent was ters and failed to return the client’s another property.” On occasion, “he the Bar Association false informa- provided with occasions, paid tion.” On three other individual clients each and either the fee legal representation “$650.00 matter, or he agreement writing neglected legal was not client, misrepre- or failed to communicate or made a with sentation.” adjudication proceed-
“A final in a or remedial ... guilty another court has been ing ... is of that professional misconduct conclusive evidence 16-773(g). forming misconduct....” Rule The allegations are not in disciplinary proceedings basis for both dispute. Respondent’s failure to inform Bar promptly Coun- really sel of the Oklahoma is not discipline dispute. Specifi- however, cally, regard with to matters of intentional dishones- that, ty we have said matters,
in disciplinary we will not in the future attempt distinguish degrees between of intentional dishonesty based convictions, upon testimonial or other factors. Unlike mat- like, ters relating competency, diligence and the inten- tional dishonest conduct is closely entwined with most important matters of basic character a degree to such as to make intentional dishonest aby lawyer conduct almost beyond are, Honesty not, excuse. and dishonesty or are present in an attorney’s character.
Disbarment should be ordinarily the sanction for intentional dishonest conduct. Vanderlinde,
Atty. 376, 418, v. Griev. Comm’n 364 Md. (2001). Thus, A.2d if respondent’s misconduct had occurred Maryland, ordinarily we would have imposed the sanction of disbarment.
Oklahoma has held the effect of an attorney’s resigna- tion pending disciplinary proceedings equivalent of a therefore, disbarment. Respondent’s resignation, is tanta- mount to a years disbarment for five beginning, May After years, five respondent may apply for readmission to the there, Oklahoma bar. If granted admission he apply could readmission to the Maryland bar.
Rule 11.1 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary *16 Proceedings rule, covers reinstatement. Pursuant to that applicant who either disbarred or accepts resignation pending investigation of disciplinary proceedings shall not be permitted to an application reinstatement, file after dis- barment or resignation pending investigation or disciplinary proceedings, within five years of the effective date of the order of the Supreme Court Oklahoma disbarring applicant or accepting resignation. For purposes of disposi- tion, Oklahoma does not distinguish between disbarment and resignation pending disciplinary proceedings. Nor shall we. Therefore, action, in this we defer to the decision of and the the miscon- Supreme Oklahoma Court venue where in and conclude that the sanction appropriate duct occurred action is disbarment. reciprocal this ORDERED; PAY ALL
IT IS RESPONDENT SHALL SO TAXED BY THE COSTS AS CLERK OF THIS COURT, TRANSCRIPTS, THE OF ALL PUR- INCLUDING COSTS 16-761, MARYLAND SUANT TO RULE FOR WHICH SUM ENTERED THE JUDGMENT IS IN FAVOR OF ATTOR- NEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND AGAINST ROBERT SCOTT SCROGGS.
RAKER, J., dissenting. in I The sanction this case should be disbarment. would not tack a requirement respondent may apply on before Bar, Maryland readmission to the he must first be readmitted to the Oklahoma Bar.
I that this action arises as a recognize disciplinary recipro- Respondent’s resignation accept- cal action. was Oklahoma, ed in his name stricken from the Roll of was Attorneys, and the state Court ordered that five must before he make for read- years elapse may application mission to that Bar. treats disci- resignation while matters are as disbarment. plinary lawyer no disbarred has Maryland, my knowledge, limited, order, any particular been as a matter of court to wait jurisdiction, foreign of time or to be readmitted period may Maryland for readmission in the lawyer apply before disbarment cases. reciprocal Bar. This is situation even lawyer a disbarred must wait a practically speaking, While has period reapplying, substantial of time before this Court if imposed year waiting period. respondent five What Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky or Ore- had been disbarred permanent states that have disbarment? Would that gon, permanently mean that would be disbarred permanent does not have Maryland, though even disbarment?
258
This Court has stated often that in disbarment reciprocal cases, sanction, usually impose while we a like we are not bound to do so. explained We have as follows: sanctions,
“This imposed Court has often in reciprocal disci- cases, of pline facially equal severity imposed to those aby Nevertheless, sister state. there is no requirement this done; should be we need not impose the same sanction as imposed by jurisdiction. fact, the other this Court is duty-bound to assess itself the propriety sanction imposed by the jurisdiction other and that recommended by Indeed, the Commission. we have stated the rule in recip- rocal discipline cases to be:
“ ‘When the Court considers the appropriate sanction in a case of reciprocal discipline, only we look not to the sanction imposed by jurisdiction the other but to our own cases as well. The sanction depend will on the unique case, facts and circumstances of each but with a view ” toward consistent dispositions for similar misconduct.’ Attorney Sabghir, 67, 83-84, Grievance v. 350 Md. 710 A.2d 926, 934 (quoting Willcher, Attorney v. Grievance 340 217, 222, 1059, (citations Md. (1995)) 665 A.2d 1061 omitted); Attorney Richardson, accord 354, Grievance v. 371, 350 Md. 525, (1998). 712 A.2d 533
This Court enunciated criteria for reinstatement after dis
barment
In re Meyerson,
671,
190
(1948),
Md.
“Disbarment ‘does not in all circumstances forever prevent
reinstatement....’
‘There may be a
point
time when it is
proper to reinstate
of law even one who has
committed a most heinous crime.’ The fundamental inquiry
‘whether,
in the interval
following
rendering of
*18
removal,
has become a proper
the petitioner
judgment
...
look
at
probingly
office.’ ‘We
to hold such
person
reform,
compe-
rehabilitation and
reapplieation alleging
because,
continue to believe that
although
tence’
‘[w]e
‘only
reinstatement
permit
we
lawyer may
again,’
fallen
rise
from
he was
change
and demonstrated
what
after a clear
words,
does not neces-
disbarment
before.’
other
‘while
may only
it
be
disability,
as a
sarily operate
permanent
showing
and
of rehabilita-
convincing
a clear
overcome
applicant’s
borne out
competence,
and of legal
tion
”
of time.’
long
conduct
period
over
(citations omitted).
304-05,
We
at
“1. The nature misconduct. and reformation. subsequent
2.
conduct
Petitioner’s
His or her
character.
present
qualifications
competence
4. His or her present
law.”
Id. at
I suggest do Rather, stand I believe that he should time. any particular readmission, disbarred, applies if he we and when and factors for readmission consider the criteria should accordingly. our decision make