Attorney Grievance Commission v. Finlayson

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We shall attempt in this attorney disciplinary proceeding to use procedures directed at rehabilitation of the attorney which are similar to those we tried, albeit unsuccessfully, in Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Bailey, 286 Md. 630 , 408 A.2d 1330 (1979). Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to the provisions of Maryland Rule BV9, filed a petition with us on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking disciplinary action against Joseph A. Finlayson, Jr., a member of the Maryland Bar since June 22, 1970.

The petition alleged five instances ¹⁵⁷ of professional misconduct which essentially involved neglect. Pursuant to Rule BV9 b, we referred the matter for hearing to a judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. He heard live testimony, and considered the transcript of the hearing before the inquiry panel and a deposition of Finlayson, both of which were admitted in evidence without objection by Finlayson. In his findings of fact and conclusions of law the trial judge "note[d] that very little ha[d] been contested by either party in the way of factual allegations ... .” The complaints cover instances between April 1978 and January 1981.

He found clear and convincing evidence that Finlayson violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) (1) (a lawyer shall not violate a disciplinary rule); Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) (5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice); Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) (6) (a lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law); Disciplinary Rule 2-110 (A) (3) (concerning a lawyer’s withdrawing from employment and his then responsibilities); Disciplinary Rule 6-101 (A) (3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him); and Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A) (relative to representing one’s client zealously). The trial judge set forth certain of Finlayson’s background: "The Respondent, Joseph A. Finlayson, was born on March 14,1933. He was admitted to the Bar in 1970 and obtained a JD Degree from the University of Baltimore in Baltimore, Maryland. He worked for a number of years for the Western Electric Corporation in the capacity of patent attorney, primarily located in Arlington, Virginia.

He has apparent skill in the field of patent law. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in Ceramic Engineering from Alfred University and a Bachelor’s Degree in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University and ¹⁵⁸ a Master’s in Material Sciences from Alfred University in Alfred, New York. * * * "The Respondent is a confessed alcoholic. He is being treated for his condition by Richard Vincent, Director of the Lawyers’ Counseling Program from the Maryland State Bar Association. The Respondent has spent twenty-eight (28) days in the Pilot House Program for alcoholics located in Pikesville, Maryland and is currently enrolled in the Alcoholics Anonymous program.

The Court finds that Richard Vincent is a qualified expert in the field of treatment of alcoholics. All of the aforesaid factual findings relate to all of the specific cases hereinafter addressed by the Court.” The misconduct included not completing work relative to patents concerning which he was retained, not proceeding with dispatch in a divorce case, and failing to appear on a client’s behalf in certain juvenile proceedings. The trial judge concluded his report to us by saying in pertinent part: "In summary, the Court finds that this Respondent had at one time been a very active and able member of the Bar. Somewhat due to his domestic problems, but primarily due to his becoming an out-and-out alcoholic, the Respondent was guilty of violating the aforementioned issues.

The Court is informed that this is the very first case in the State of Maryland, and, therefore, a case of first impression, wherein the Director of the Lawyers’ Counseling Program for the Maryland State Bar Association has appeared before the Court on behalf of an attorney in an Attorney Grievance proceeding. The Court, therefore, feels that his entire testimony should be considered. . . . A summation of ¹⁵⁹ Mr. Richard Vincent’s testimony is to the effect that Mr. Finlayson is an alcoholic. The problems described in the