Attorney Grievance Commission v. Haupt

Per Curiam: The Attorney Grievance Commission, through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Bruce Widenor Haupt, alleging that he violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We referred the charge to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to be heard 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 Haupt had violated the disciplinary rules as charged. It recommended that he be suspended from the ⁴⁰ practice of law for ninety days.

The panel outlined the reasons for its action, as follows: “The Petition charges the respondent with violating Disciplinary Rule 1-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states: ‘(A) A lawyer shall not: (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.’ In support of this charge* of misconduct, the Petition essentially makes the following allegations: “1. On June 3, 1975, Mr. Haupt was at the Sixth District Court of Maryland in Rockville in order to represent or consult with a client, Bruce M. McMurray, who was in the custody of the Montgomery County Sheriffs’ Department. After Mr. McMurray was returned to the lock-up area in the courthouse, Mr. Haupt, accompanied by a young woman, requested admittance to the cellblock in order to see his client. “2. When asked the identity of the woman, Mr. Haupt responded that she was his ‘assistant’ or used words to similar effect to identify her.

As a result of his response, the sheriff at the door was instructed by his superior to admit both the respondent and the woman to the lock-up area to see Mr. McMurray. “3. Subsequently, Mr. McMurray was observed reaching through the bars of his cell, touching and caressing the woman under circumstances indicating her apparent consent. “4. After Mr. Haupt and the woman left the lock-up area, it was learned that she was Mr. McMurray’s girlfriend, not an employee or assistant, paid or unpaid, of the respondent. If not for his identification of her as an assistant, she would not have been permitted in the lock-up area, but rather would have been told to visit Mr. McMurray at another location where he was to be transferred later that day. “The Attorney Grievance Commission presented its evidence through the written admissions of the respondent and the testimony of Jeffrey L. Ward, Chief Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Maryland for the Sixth District; Sergeant Thomas Catón of the Montgomery County Sheriffs’ ⁴¹ Department; Deputy Sheriff Robert Stultz, and Helen Byrnes McMurray, Mr. McMurray’s fiancee on June 3, 1975, who subsequently married, and then separated from, him.

Much of this testimony was not disputed by the respondent who testified himself, but did not call any other witnesses. “The undisputed evidence established the following facts. On June 3, 1975, Mr. Haupt was in the Sixth District courthouse corridor with Mrs. McMurray and two other friends of his client, Bruce McMurray. The respondent and Mrs. McMurray went to the lock-up area where Mr. McMurray was being held. Sergeant Catón stopped them at the door and a short conversation ensued in which Mr. Haupt identified Mrs. McMurray as his assistant.

Then, based upon what the respondent had said to the sergeant, Deputy Stultz, who was in charge of the cellblock that day, instructed Sergeant Catón to admit both people. Shortly after they were admitted, Mr. McMurray was observed touching Mrs. McMurray through the bars of his cell without any opposition from her. The touching continued for a short period of time, and then Mr. Haupt and Mrs. McMurray left the lock-up area. When Mr. Ward and Sergeant Catón spoke with the respondent in the corridor after he had left the lock-up, he maintained that he had taken Mrs. McMurray with him to assist him in consulting with his client.

If Mr. Haupt had told the sergeant that Mrs. McMurray was Mr. McMurray’s fiancee or girlfriend, she would not have been admitted to the lock-up. “There was conflicting testimony, however, as to whether Mr. Haupt actually took Mrs. McMurray with him to assist with the interview. Mrs. McMurray testified that she did not consider herself to be an assistant on June 3, 1975, that she did not assist with the interview, and that she had not assisted Mr. Haupt before that date. The respondent, on the other hand, testified that he regarded her as his assistant and that he had told her before they went to the lock-up that she should encourage Mr. McMurray to tell the truth. Mr. Haupt additionally stated that friends and family members of previous clients had helped him in that manner. “The testimony also differed concerning what was said by Mr. Haupt in order to persuade Sergeant Catón to admit Mrs. ⁴² McMurray.

The sergeant testified that the respondent not only said that she was his assistant, but that he also impressed upon the sergeant that she was needed to take notes. Mr. Haupt, on the other hand, denied telling the sergeant that Mrs. McMurray would take notes. “If Mr. Haupt did not take Mrs. McMurray with him to aid with his interview, then he clearly violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 by representing her as his assistant. Similarly, if the respondent told Sergeant Catón that Mrs. McMurray would assist by taking notes, then that statement, too, was a clear violation of the rule. There was no evidence that Mrs. McMurray ever took any notes on June 3,1975, that she