Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bennett

SMITH, Judge. Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to the provisions of Maryland Rule BY9, filed a petition with us seeking disciplinary action against Stanley Y. Bennett, a member of the Maryland Bar. He charged that Bennett violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5), (6). (The pertinent portion of the rule is reproduced in that part of the opinion of the trial judge which we shall quote.) The petition was based upon acts set forth in In Re Bennett, 301 Md. 517 , 483 A.2d 1242 (1984), where we found that Bennett was guilty of misconduct as a judge of the District Court of Maryland for which he should be removed from office.

We shall disbar. Pursuant to Rule BV9 b we referred the matter for hearing to a judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Maryland. He filed with us an opinion which states in pertinent part: “FINDINGS OF FACT “1. Stanley Y. Bennett was admitted as a member of the Bar of the Court of Appeals of Maryland on June 10, 1960. “2.

While the Respondent was a judge of the District Court of Maryland, District II, sitting in Frederick County, he committed acts of misconduct which are set forth in the Opinion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in In Re: Bennett, supra. This misconduct included the Respondent’s forgery of another judge’s name to the change of the disposition in a traffic case which the Respondent did at the behest of an individual of whom he sought political support. “3. The Respondent’s misconduct set forth in In Re: Bennett, supra, is conclusively proved herein pursuant to Maryland Rule BV10e1. “CONCLUSIONS OF LAW “1. Maryland Rule BVlOel states, inter alia: ‘1.

Proof of Guilt. ... A final adjudication in a disciplinary proceeding by a judicial tribunal or a disciplinary agency appoint ¹²² ed by or acting at the direction of a judicial tribunal that an attorney has been guilty of misconduct is conclusive proof of the misconduct in the hearing of charges pursuant to this Rule.’ “2. The misconduct set forth in In Re: Bennett, supra, is proved conclusively pursuant to Maryland Rule BYlOel and said misconduct violates the following Disciplinary Rules: 1-102 ‘Misconduct. (A) A lawyer shall not: (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.’ ” Bennett has taken no exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Bar Counsel states, and we agree, that Rule BV10 e 1 is applicable here and thus that the findings in Bennett are conclusive in this proceeding.

The charges in Bennett were brought before us by the Commission on Judicial Disabilities. Its and our authority are found in Md. Const, art. IV, § 4B. We deem our determination there to be one coming within the purview of the rule.

No useful purpose will be served by reviewing in detail the facts before us in Bennett, 301 Md. 517 , 483 A.2d 1242 . It is sufficient to say that we there found clear and convincing evidence that the then Judge Bennett had forged the signature of another judge in a proceeding in the District Court of Maryland in Frederick County. We concluded that opinion by stating: “Forgery of