Attorney Grievance Commission v. Butler

Barbera, C.J. On June 22, 2016, Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“AGC”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Respondent, Lance Butler, III. The Petition alleged violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and 8.4 (Misconduct). 1 Those violations stemmed from Respondent materially misrepresenting the existence of his private law practice and the status of his personal finances; falsifying his time sheets at his job with a federal agency; submitting false testimony during his deposition and hearing in a prior disciplinary proceeding; making material misrepresentations to the Inspector General of the federal agency at which Respondent was employed; and, for multiple years, failing to file certain tax returns and making misrepresentations on others. Pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-752(a) and 16-757, this Court designated the Honorable Beverly J. Woodard (“the hearing judge”) to hold an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. On September 6, 2016, Respondent was served, pursuant to Rule 19—723(b), with the Petition and “Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents.” Respondent failed to respond to either.

On October 6, 2016, Bar Counsel filed a Motion for Order of Default and Military Service Affidavit. On November 28, 2016, the hearing judge entered an Order of Default and mailed a copy to Respondent. The order included notice to the parties of the scheduled hearing. Respondent did not move to vacate the Order of Default.

The hearing judge held a hearing on January 18, 2017. Respondent did not appear at that hearing. The hearing judge deemed Respondent to have admitted both the averments in the Petition and the facts set forth in Exhibits 1-37 attached to Bar Counsel’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, and treated all matters admitted as conclusively established. See Md. Rules 2-323(e), 2-424(b), (d); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bellamy, 453 Md. 377, 385 , 162 A.3d 848 (2017); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harmon, 433 Md. 612, 619 , 72 A.3d 555 (2013).

The hearing judge issued written findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law, concluding that Respondent had violated MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). No exceptions were filed. Respondent made no written recommendation regarding sanction; Bar Counsel recommended disbarment. On September 7, 2017, we heard oral argument, at which only Bar Counsel appeared.

On that same date, we issued a per curiam order disbarring Respondent. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, 456 Md. 43 , 169 A.3d 457, 458 , 2017 WL 3910147 , at ¹ (2017). We explain in this opinion the reasons for that action. I—i A. The Hearing Judge s Findings of Fact 1.

Background, In 1984, when he was seventeen years old, Respondent began working for the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) as a typist. From 1984 to 2015, he held various non-legal positions at USAID. He continued to work in a non-legal capacity at USAID while attending law school and after being admitted to the Bar of Maryland in 2007 and the District of Columbia Bar in 2010. In addition to his employment at USAID, Respondent maintained a law office in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

Respondent was temporarily suspended from the practice of law in Maryland on March 20, 2014, for failure to pay the required annual Client Protection Fund and AGC assessments. He remained in that status at the time of the hearing. 2. The First AGC Complaint In April 2012, the USAID Office of the Inspector General received a complaint about Respondent. The complaint, which was submitted anonymously, alleged, among other things, that Respondent falsified his time sheets and purported to attend fabricated USAID meetings in order to spend time furthering his private law practice; improperly rendered, and received payment for, legal advice to his co-workers during work hours; provided false information about unemployment to his federal loan servicer to obtain a deferral; and failed to pay back income taxes.

The Inspector General referred the matter to the AGO, which sought to contact Respondent to elicit a reply to the allegations. After multiple attempts over many months, Bar Counsel’s investigator finally made contact. Bar Counsel subsequently charged Respondent with violating MLRPC 8.1(b) 2 for knowingly failing to respond to a disciplinary authority. Following an evidentiary hearing in January 2014, the hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated MLRPC 8.1.

In an opinion filed on January 27, 2015, this Court reprimanded Respondent. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, 441 Md. 352 , 107 A.3d 1220 (2015). As we shall see, the substance of the allegations in the anonymous complaint, rather than Respondent’s failure to reply to Bar Counsel’s inquiries regarding that complaint, are the subject of the current proceeding. 3. The USAID Inspector General’s Investigation In April 2014, while the prior AGC proceedings were ongoing, the Inspector General began its own investigation of Respondent’s conduct.

The Reporting Agent assigned to the case reviewed documents and records and conducted interviews related to the allegations. Among those documents and records analyzed were Respondent’s OGE Form 450 (“Confidential Financial Disclosure Report”); search results from Maryland Judiciary Case Search and Public Access Court Electronic Records (PACER); the websites of the District of Columbia and Maryland State Bar Associations; documents provided by Access Group, Inc., the federal loan processing company referenced in the anonymous complaint; documents, emails, and personal tax return forms found on Respondent’s government computer; data from Respondent’s parking logs; and records from Respondent’s personnel security file at USAID. The Reporting Agent interviewed numerous witnesses, including Respondent’s former clients and employees of USAID. On March 10, 2015, the Reporting Agent interviewed Respondent.

During the first hour, Respondent made multiple material misrepresentations to the Reporting Agent. The Reporting Agent then revealed that she had been investigating Respondent since early 2014 and asked if he would like to revise his prior statements. Respondent admitted that he had provided untruthful answers. After its investigation was complete, the Inspector General transmitted a final report to the AGO. 4.

Additional Findings a. Financial disclosure form Prom 2007 to 2014, in addition to being employed full time by USAID, Respondent maintained a private law practice in Maryland and represented clients in roughly fifty separate matters in court. Respondent also worked part time as a personal fitness trainer from 2010 to 2014. As a federal government employee, Respondent was required to file an annual ethics disclosure form with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics to report certain financial information and outside activities that might present a conflict of interest.

On February 16, 2012, he signed and filed a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report in which he falsely stated that he had no reportable assets or sources of income, liabilities, outside positions, agreements, or arrangements for himself outside of USAID, and he certified that those statements were “true, complete, and correct to the best of [his] knowledge.” Moreover, he failed to file the required financial disclosure reports for the years 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014. b. Unemployment deferment request In June 2014, the Inspector General reviewed documents provided by Access Group, Inc., Respondent’s student loan servicer. In September 2010, Respondent became delinquent on his student loan payments. He filled out and signed an Unemployment Deferment Request, which indicated that as of September 25, 2010, he qualified to have his payments deferred because he “became unemployed or began working less than full time” and was “diligently seeking but unable to find full-time employment in the United States ... in any field or at any salary or responsibility level.” Respondent also certified that he had “made at least 6 diligent attempts to find full-time employment in the most recent 6 months.” In January 2011, Respondent faxed a copy of the Request to Access Group, Inc. He certified that the information he provided was “true and correct,” despite a clear warning on the form that “[a]ny person who knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation on this form” would be “subject to penalties that may include fines, imprisonment, or both[.]” Respondent later admitted to the Reporting Agent that he was employed full-time when he filled out the form and that he knew it was illegal to falsify information on a federal loan document. c.

Tax returns Respondent “intentionally failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010,” He also “failed to disclose to USAID that he had not filed state income tax returns for tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010,” and he “intentionally failed to pay his income taxes for tax years including 2009, 2010 and 2013.” On November 20, 2012, Respondent falsely stated to the USAID Office of Security that he had rectified his delinquent tax filings and payments. The hearing judge further found: In July 2013, the Respondent hand-delivered federal tax returns for 2009 and 2010 to the Office of Security. There was no evidence that the returns had actually been filed. The Respondent failed to claim his law practice on his 2009 return and misrepresented his associated earnings on his 2010 return.

In August 2013, the Adjudications Chief of the Office of Security issued the Respondent a letter notifying him that his security clearance had been downgraded to “conditional” due to. the Respondent having over $100,000.00 in delinquent debt and $1,127.93 in tax debt. The Chief advised the Respondent that he was to provide proof of filing his federal returns for tax years 2009 and 2010 and state returns for tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010 by August 31, 2013. The Respondent failed to provide the requested documentation. In his interview with the Reporting Agent on March 10, 2015, Respondent admitted to knowingly falsifying his tax returns. d.

National security questionnaire Respondent also intentionally misrepresented his financial status on a Questionnaire for National Security Positions, Standard Form 86, on September 12, 2012. In particular, he did not disclose that of forty-one active accounts, ten were in collection status, totaling over $100,000 in past due accounts. Further, Respondent did not disclose his failure to file federal or state income tax returns for tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010. e. Theft of services Respondent falsified numerous time sheets and submitted them to USAID.

Specifically, the hearing judge found: A review of the Respondent’s time and attendance sheets, as compared to his court appearances and estimated transit time, revealed that approximately 200 hours in which the Respondent claimed to be working at USAID, on sick leave, or on jury duty[,] he was, in fact, working as an attorney for his private law practice. The number of hours amounted to a loss of approximately $9,500 to the government. Additionally, the Respondent used his government computer for his private law practice and worked for his private clients while present at USAID. (Citations omitted).

The documents recovered from Respondent’s government computer and email account revealed numerous files concerning Respondent’s private law practice and Maryland court cases in which Respondent was identified as the representing attorney. f. False testimony On January 10, 2014, Respondent was deposed by Bar Counsel in his prior disciplinary matter, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, 441 Md. 352 , 107 A.3d 1220 (2015). Respondent testified in the deposition that he had reported Bar Counsel’s investigation to the Inspector General. Respondent then testified at the hearing on the charged violations of the MLRPC on January 15, 2014, that he “self-reported [the AGC’s investigation] to the [Inspector General]” and that there were “[n]o issues.” In his interview with the Reporting Agent on March 10, 2015, Respondent admitted that he never reported the AGC’s investigation to the Inspector General and that his testimony stating otherwise was false. g.

Bar Counsel’s investigation USAID suspended Respondent’s security clearance on March 16, 2015. Shortly thereafter, Respondent resigned from USAID. On August 13, 2015, Bar Counsel received a complaint from the Office of the Inspector General. On August 28, 2015, Bar Counsel sent a letter to Respondent at the address listed in the Client Protection Fund and requested a reply.

The letter was returned as undeliverable. Bar Counsel then attempted to serve Respondent at all known addresses but was unsuccessful. B. The Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law Based on the record and the above-summarized findings of fact, the hearing judge concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). II Standard of Review “In attorney discipline proceedings, this Court has original and complete jurisdiction and conducts an independent review of the record.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Good, 445 Md. 490, 512 , 128 A.3d 54 (2015) (citation omitted).

We accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that those findings are clearly erroneous. Id. “A hearing judge’s factual finding is not clearly erroneous if there is any competent material evidence to support it.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136, 169 , 105