ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. Beatty

MURPHY, J. Paul Stephen Beatty, Respondent, was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 23, 1967, and to the New Jersey Bar in ¹² 1990. On October 30, 2008, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action that included the following assertions: On July 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered that the Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months based on his conviction in Superior Court, Monmouth County, for Fourth Degree Stalking in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated 2C:12-10(b). The Supreme Court of New [Jjersey determined that the Respondent violated [Rule 8.4(b) of the] Rules of Professional Conduct by committing a criminal act. On October 31, 2008, this Court ordered that Bar Counsel and Respondent show cause “why reciprocal discipline shall not be ordered by this Court.” Having considered the responses to our Show Cause Order, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction.

Background The following Order was entered by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on July 11, 2008, and filed by the Clerk of that Court on July 15, 2008: The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 08-006, concluding that as a matter of final discipline pursuant to Rule l:20-13(c), PAUL STEPHEN BEATTY of SPRING LAKE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months based on his conviction in the Superior Court, Monmouth County of violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(b), conduct that violates RPC 8.4[ (b) ] (criminal act that reflects adversely on lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer), and good cause appearing; ¹³ It is ORDERED that PAUL STEPHEN BEATTY is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective August 13, 2008; and it is further ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to Rule l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule 1:20—20(b)(l 5) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a pei'iod of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; and it is further ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17. The decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s Disciplinary Review Board (the Board) included the following findings, conclusions, and recommendations: On May 16, 2007, [Respondent pleaded guilty to fourth-degree stalking, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(b), which states that: A person is guilty of stalking, a crime of the fourth degree, if he purposefully or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself or a member of his immediate family or to fear the death of himself or a member of his immediately family. ¹⁴ Respondent stalked a horse trainer at a New Jersey racetrack and followed her to her South Carolina home[.] 5fi Hi H< On July IS, 2007, [Respondent was sentenced to a one-year term of unsupervised probation and was assessed penalties and fines totaling $155, subject to the following conditions: 1) he was barred from contacting [the victim of this offense]; 2) he was permanently barred from contacting the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office; 3) he was required to continue with counseling and treatment with his psychiatrist; and 4) he was required to take all prescribed medications, until medically discharged by the psychiatrist. [This] matter was not [Respondent’s first stalking incident. In 2003 and 2004, he stalked his next-door neighbor, [Victim # 1]. Hi * ❖ Stalking, peering, and other charges ensued in the [first] matter, for which [Respondent was granted enrollment in a pretrial intervention (“PTI”) program.

Respondent’s PTI was later terminated, upon his arrest in this matter. During the course of these matters, [Respondent conceded that he suffers from mental illness, for which he had been treated for over thirty years. He had previously been a patient at a mental health facility ... and has been treated by his own psychiatrist ... for bipolar disorder. ❖ Hi Hi We determine that [In re Frankfurt, 159 N.J. 521 , 521 732 A.2d 512 (1999) ] (three-month suspension) most closely resembles this matter. We, therefore, voted to impose a three-month suspension for [Respondent’s criminal offense. ¹⁵ In addition, due to the seriousness of [Respondent's mental illness, we have, by separate letter to the [Office of Attorney Ethics], requested that office to compel [Respondent, pursuant to R. 1:20-12, to undergo a medical examination for possible placement on disability inactive status.

(Footnotes omitted). Discussion In its response to this Court’s Show Cause Order, the Commission argues that “the Respondent’s misconduct warrants a substantially different discipline in Maryland than that which he received in New Jersey.” Respondent’s counsel has requested that this Court either (1) take no action until the Supreme Court of New Jersey rules on the petition for readmission that Respondent has filed in that jurisdiction, or (2) order a “fact-finding hearing.” From our review of the New Jersey Court Rules, we are persuaded that the above quoted Order is the functional equivalent of an indefinite suspension. Under New Jersey Court Rule 1:20-15A, disciplinary sanctions include “a suspension for a term.” Reinstatement after suspension requires compliance with New Jersey Court Rule 1:20-21, which, in pertinent part, provides: (b) Definite Suspension of Six Months or Less. A lawyer who has been suspended for a definite period of six months or less may file a petition for reinstatement and publish notice of reinstatement forty days prior to the expiration of the period of suspension.

(f) Contents of Petition. The petitioner shall provide a certified petition for reinstatement setting forth all material facts on which the petitioner relies to establish fitness to resume the practice of law. The petition shall in the discretion of the Board considering the nature of the disciplinary offense contain, in correlatively numbered paragraphs, the following information: ¹⁶ (12) whether the petitioner, during the period of suspension, sought or obtained assistance, consultation or treatment, whether as an in-or out-patient, for a mental or emotional disorder or for addiction to drugs or alcohol, if such services relate to the disciplinary offenses or the Board determines that such information is relevant to the petitioner’s present ability to practice law. The name, address and telephone of each