Attorney Grievance Commission v. Larsen

MURPHY, Chief Judge. By an unreported opinion dated November 28, 1989, we found that Peter Larsen, a member of the Maryland Bar since 1963, had violated various provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility prior to January 1, 1987, and of the Rules of Professional Conduct for misconduct subsequent to that date. We imposed an indefinite suspension for Larsen’s misconduct, without prejudice to his right to apply immediately for reinstatement upon acceptance of a number of conditions, one of which required that he agree to have his practice monitored by a member of the bar approved by Bar Counsel for a period of two years; that the monitor co-sign all escrow checks drawn by Larsen and report promptly to Bar Counsel should he fail to act promptly or properly on behalf of his clients; that the monitor have access to all of Larsen’s files and financial records; and that Larsen’s clients be given notice of the monitor’s purpose and agree to an examination by him of their files. Larsen applied for reinstatement on December 21, 1989, agreeing to be bound by the conditions imposed by the Court.

By order dated January 23, 1990, we reinstated Larsen upon his agreement to comply with the conditions imposed by the Court. In our order, we cautioned Larsen that a violation of any of the conditions might result in a renewal of the indefinite suspension. On March 1, 1991, Bar Counsel petitioned this Court to reimpose the indefinite suspension, claiming that Larsen had breached several of the conditions which we had imposed upon him. He recited that while Larsen had made known to his monitor, J. Brian Tansey, the requisite information concerning his practice in Montgomery County, he did not advise Tansey that he had taken over the practice of a disbarred lawyer in Baltimore, nor did he comply with the ¹¹⁶ conditions pertaining to the monitoring of his practice in that jurisdiction.

On April 1,1991, we referred the matter to Judge William D. Missouri of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to determine, after an evidentiary hearing, whether Larsen had violated the conditions of his reinstatement. On July 18,1991, Judge Missouri held a hearing, focusing in particular upon Larsen’s alleged failure in his Baltimore practice to have his monitor co-sign checks on his escrow account and to include in his retainer agreement, as previously approved by Bar Counsel, a provision which allowed his monitor to have access to his files, as well as requiring that his clients be informed that he had a monitor. The evidence at the hearing disclosed that Larsen, whose practice was centered in Montgomery County, had opened the Baltimore office in February of 1990. Tansey, the monitor, testified that he did not know about the Baltimore office until he received a letter from Larsen, dated January 25, 1991, asking him to consult with him about his Baltimore practice.

Tansey said that he was never asked to be a co-signer with Larsen on his escrow account used in association with his Baltimore office. In addition, Tansey stated that the retainer agreement used by Larsen in the Baltimore office was not the same retainer agreement approved by Bar Counsel for use in his Montgomery County office. The court noted that the retainer agreement used in Baltimore did not mention that Larsen’s practice was being monitored by Tansey. Larsen testified that he opened the Baltimore office, taking over the practice of a disbarred lawyer, because he “saw an opportunity to take over that practice and make some money.” Larsen claimed that he did not tell Tansey because “he felt that Tansey was overburdened with many personnel problems he had in [his] Riverdale [office].” Larsen acknowledged that he was required to have Tansey cosign all his escrow checks but failed to do so.

Asked whether it was a condition of his reinstatement that the ¹¹⁷ retainer agreement name Tansey as his monitor, Larsen again acknowledged that