Attorney Grievance Commission v. Clinton

COUCH, Judge. Jerome F. Connell and Lloyd E. Clinton, Jr. were partners in the practice of law, being members of the Maryland Bar since 1959 and 1962 respectively. Both attorneys were charged in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland with violating 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201 and 7206(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 , involving income tax evasion for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981. In October 1985, both attorneys were found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court of all counts in the indictment; each was sentenced to a prison term of one year and one day and fined $5,000.00.

Subsequently, upon petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, no cause to the contrary being shown, this Court ordered on February 24, 1986 that each of the ⁷⁰³ attorneys be suspended from the practice of law until further order of Court. Although each attorney appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the appeals were voluntarily terminated. Consequently, the convictions became final. Thereafter, the Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, petitioned this Court for disciplinary action pursuant to Md.Rule BV16(c), alleging that each attorney: “was found guilty of violations of Title 26 United States Code Section 7201 and 18 United States Code, Section 2 (attempt to evade or defeat tax and aiding and abetting) and a violation of 26 United States Code Section 7206 (1), (Willfully making and subscribing to any return, statement, or any document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; and aiding and abetting the commission of that offense.)” The Commission specifically charged the attorneys with unethically and unprofessionally violating: DR 1-102 Misconduct.

(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. Answering the petitions, each attorney admitted that he had been found guilty of violating the above-mentioned ⁷⁰⁴ sections of Titles 26 and 18 of the United States Code, and that he had voluntarily terminated his appeal. However, they averred that they did not willfully violate DR 1-102(A)(1) through (6).

Thereafter, we transmitted these charges to Judge James T. Smith, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Md. Rule BV9 et seq. A hearing was held on December 4, 1986 with the attorneys appearing pro se. According to the transcript of this hearing, little evidence was offered other than the underlying documents incident to the criminal charges and their disposition. Both attorneys did offer evidence that they had paid the taxes and interest for the years involved in the criminal charges.

It was also stipulated that the sentences had been completed, the fines had been paid, and, other than the matters contained in the petition, there was no other basis for disciplinary action against either attorney. Judge Smith made his written findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which he stated: “FINDINGS OF FACT On October 23,1985, each Respondent was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland of violations of Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7201 , 18 U.S.C. Section 2 , and 26 U.S.C. Section 7206 (1). On December 2, 1985, each Respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and one day and assessed a fine of $5,000.00 and court costs. As a result of the withdrawal of Appeals which had been noted to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by both Respondents, the convictions noted above are final.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW