Maryland case law › Attorney Grievance Commission v. Edwards

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Edwards

284 Md. 687 (1979) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: Other✓ Good law
HoldingThe Attorney Grievance Commission, through Bar Counsel, charged Victor LeRoy Edwards with violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102 and 7-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Per Curiam. The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Victor LeRoy Edwards, alleging violation of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and specifically Disciplinary Rules 1-102 and 7-102. We referred the charges to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to be heard and determined by a three-judge panel in accordance with the then applicable Maryland BV Rules. The panel, after conducting an evidentiary hearing, made findings of fact from which it concluded that Edwards had violated the disciplinary rules as charged.

It recommended disbarment. Edwards filed exceptions to the panel’s findings of fact and recommendation of disbarment. The exceptions were based on an alleged lack of legally sufficient evidence to support the panel’s factual findings and to justify its recommendation of disbarment. We scheduled the matter for oral argument on Edwards’ exceptions, but he failed to appear in support of his position.

We have given careful consideration to Edwards’ exceptions. Clearly, there was legally sufficient evidence to support the panel’s findings of fact, and we adopt and include them in this opinion. ((* * * “Victor LeRoy Edwards, respondent, was admitted to the Bar of the State of Maryland in November, 1960 and practiced in this state until September of 1974. In the spring of 1974, respondent was retained by a Mrs. Mary Hayes (Hayes) to investigate the possibility of getting necessary legislative and administrative approval for the 689 construction of a new hospital facility in the area of Clinton, Maryland, a southern portion of Prince George’s County.

At that time, Hayes was the majority stockholder in the Clinton Community Hospital Corporation (Clinton Hospital), a small private hospital in Clinton, Maryland. “Respondent and Hayes both realized that they had formidable problems to overcome in that all necessary authorization and permits needed for the construction of the hospital had already been procured by Frank P. Chiaramonte, M.D. (Chiaramonte), part owner of the Southern Maryland Hospital Center (Southern). Inasmuch as only one new hospital facility was to be built, it was apparent to respondent that his task was rather dubious from the start. This task was to somehow discredit Chiaramonte or Southern so that the permits and authorization received by Chiaramonte to construct the hospital might be transferred to Hayes. “Initially, respondent contacted Mr. Jerris E. Bragan (Bragan), a private investigator with whom he had dealt on previous business matters.

Sometime in the latter part of June, 1974, respondent asked Bragan if he could arrange to have an operative placed in Chiaramonte’s office. Bragan would receive a Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) fee for this service. He earned his fee by getting employment for his wife in Chiaramonte’s office. Mrs. Bragan’s purpose was to attempt to receive or intercept any damaging or unfavorable information about Chiaramonte which could be used to discredit him or Southern. “Subsequent to the above events, respondent, from time to time, met with Bragan, Hayes and a Mr. Laurence Hampton, who was the general administrator at Clinton Hospital.

Hayes testified that a number of the conversations at these meetings centered upon the possibility of simulating some sort of airplane crash at or near the proposed 690 site of Chiaramonte’s new hospital. Flying high upon this wing and a prayer, respondent hoped to demonstrate the relative danger of the proposed hospital site in that it lay under the flight path of at least one of the runways of the nearby Andrews Air Force Base. “Perhaps swayed by the sheer nonsense of such an idea, and not satisfied with the information received by Mrs. Bragan, respondent, still undaunted, went on to pursue more viable methods in attempting to tarnish Chiaramonte. On August 21, 1974, respondent met with Bragan and Mr. Frederick E. Davis (Davis), who represented himself to the respondent as being Bragan’s brother. In fact, Davis was an undercover Maryland State Police officer.

This meeting took place in Trader Vic’s Television Sales and Service store, owned by respondent and located in Hillcrest Heights, Maryland. “At that meeting, Bragan and Davis stated that they had stolen from Chiaramonte’s office a letter written by Chiaramonte to his attorney, Paul Nussbaum (Nussbaum). They presented the document to respondent, who immediately called Hayes. Shortly thereafter, respondent and Hayes met at the Pagoda Seven Restaurant (Pagoda Seven) in Hillcrest Heights, Maryland. “Bragan and Davis followed respondent to the Pagoda Seven and conversed with respondent after he had talked to Hayes. Respondent and Hayes agreed that an illegal entry into Chiaramonte’s office was necessary.

It was then that respondent conveyed to Bragan and Davis that he and Hayes wanted them to break into Chiaramonte’s office. Bragan and Davis were instructed to concentrate their search for materials relating to Nussbaum, Rental Securities, a business operated by Chiaramonte, and Louis

This is a preview of Attorney Grievance Commission v. Edwards. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.