ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MD. v. Osburn

MURPHY, Chief Judge. The Respondent was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of violating Maryland Code (1957, 1980 Repl. Vol.), Article 81, §§ 221 and 302(a) by unlawfully and willfully filing fraudulent state income tax returns for 1979 and 1980. 1 He was also found guilty of conspiring to violate the Maryland income tax laws. He was sentenced on September 14, 1983 to imprisonment for five years, the execution of all but one year being suspended.

The Respondent was placed on five years supervised probation. We affirmed the judgments of conviction in Osburn v. State, 301 Md. 250 , 482 A.2d 905 (1984). On February 19, 1985, the Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against Osburn, setting forth the fact of the final judgments of conviction and contending that such misconduct violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 which provides as follows: “DR 1-102 Misconduct. ¹⁸¹ (A) A lawyer shall not: (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule. (2) Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another.

(3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude. (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. (6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.” We referred the matter, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 b, to Judge Richard B. Latham of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

After conducting a hearing, Judge Latham noted that under Rule BV10 e 1 Respondent’s convictions constituted “conclusive proof of the Respondent’s guilt of conspiracy to violate the Maryland Income Tax law, willfully giving false information on the Maryland State income tax return and making fraudulent Maryland State income tax returns.” Bar Counsel has recommended disbarment as the appropriate sanction for the Respondent’s misconduct. While taking no exception to Judge Latham’s findings, Osburn maintains that the imposition of any disciplinary sanction should be deferred until the conclusion of post conviction proceedings which he plans to