Attorney Grievance Commission v. Andresen

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Peter Christian Andresen (Andresen), a member of the bar of this Court, stands convicted on one count of obtaining ²⁵¹ money under false pretenses and three counts of fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary. See Andresen v. State, 24 Md. App. 128 , 331 A. 2d 78 , cert. denied, 274 Md. 725 (1975), aff'd 427 U.S. 463 , 96 S. Ct. 2737 , 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976). The disciplinary proceeding with which we are here concerned was complicated by the “growing pains” involved in the implementation of a totally new, centralized attorney grievance procedure in Maryland by our order of February 10, 1975, effective July 1, 1975, but containing certain transitional provisions.

Based upon Andresen’s conviction in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, which had just been affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals, Montgomery County Bar Association, Inc. (the local bar association), filed a petition for disciplinary action with us on February 14, 1975. On February 24 this Court appointed a panel of three judges in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to hear the charges and transmitted the petition to that panel. We denied Andresen’s petition for the writ of certiorari addressed to the affirmance of his conviction by the Court of Special Appeals on March 31, 1975. On April 7, 1975, pursuant to Andresen’s petition alleging pendency before us of his petition for the writ of certiorari and that “in order for [his] convictions to constitute conclusive proof of his guilt of such crimes in these proceedings, as relied on and alleged in . . . the petition, said convictions must be ‘a final judgment by a judicial tribunal,’ ” this Court passed an order staying the disciplinary proceedings “pending application for review of the judgments of conviction ... to the Supreme Court of the United States and until final decision by that Court.” On the same day acting Bar Counsel filed a petition with us on behalf of the then newly created Attorney Grievance Commission alleging Andresen’s conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude and praying that he be suspended from the practice of law pursuant to the provisions of Maryland Rule BY16.

We held a hearing on the petition on June 9,1975, and suspended him on that day. On August 9,1976, Bar Counsel filed what was styled as a request for further hearing. It stated “that the Supreme ²⁵² Court of the United States ha[d]. affirmed the decision of this Court and upheld the convictions of [Andresen]” and “requested that a further hearing be held, pursuant to Rule BV16 c (as amended) ... to determine whether the crimes warrant discipline, and, if so, the extent thereof.” The Clerk of this Court referred the matter to the three judge panel which had been previously appointed. Rule BY16 c provides in pertinent part: “In any case in which the Court of Appeals has entered an order suspending an attorney until its further order, pursuant to this Rule, further proceedings on the charges shall be conducted pursuant to Rules BV9 (Charges), BV10 (Hearings) and BV11 (Disposition of Charges), to determine whether the crime warrants discipline and if so, the extent thereof.

If the attorney has appealed from his conviction, the hearing shall be delayed until completion of the appellate process. If the conviction is reversed at any stage of the appellate process, the suspension shall be terminated. If after the completion of the appellate process, the conviction has not been reversed, . .. the hearing shall be held within a reasonable time after the mandate is issued .... However, if the attorney is incarcerated following termination of the appellate process . . ., the hearing shall be