Attorney Grievance Commission v. Freedman

Per Curiam: The Attorney Grievance Commission, through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 against Michael Alvin Freedman, alleging violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The matter was referred to Judge Martin B. Greenfeld of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City to make findings of fact and conclusions of ²⁹⁹ law. After conducting a hearing and considering the petition, answer, respondent’s answer to the Commission’s request for admission of facts and genuineness of documents and a letter from the United States Attorney’s office regarding the respondent and the respondent’s own testimony, Judge Greenfeld filed his findings and conclusions as follows: Findings of Fact “The Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Maryland on 9/12/67. He will be 37 years of age on 3/3/79.

Pursuant to a grant of use immunity by the United States Attorney’s office, the Respondent testified on 12/21/77 in the United States District Court criminal trial of one Earl Williams that during 1971 Williams, who is not an attorney, referred personal injury cases to the Respondent involving ‘somewhere between 50 and 71 people’; that the Respondent paid Williams amounts ranging from $75 to $125 for each client ‘depending upon the severity of the case’; that these payments were made to Williams in cash and ‘would have averaged out between [$]5,000 and [$]7,500’ during 1971; and that the Respondent stopped using Williams’ services in late 1971 or early 1972 because he ‘didn’t particularly think that that was the way I should be running my business — and that’s why I stopped.’ A mistrial was declared (for reasons not here germane) and the Respondent testified to these same matters at Williams’ retrial. The Federal prosecutor has written that the Respondent ‘has been most cooperative and to our knowledge has provided information which is both complete and truthful’. “Federal