Attorney Grievance Commission v. Maxwell

ADKINS, Judge. As a result of proceedings initiated by petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, pursuant to Md.Rule BV9, Judge Marshall Levin of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City concluded that respondent, Edward ⁶⁰¹ Thomas Maxwell, Jr., had violated Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1) and (4) and 7-102(A)(5). 1 We shall suspend Maxwell from the practice of law for a period of 90 days. Neither party has excepted to any of Judge Levin’s findings of fact or conclusions of law, and after independent review of the record, we adopt them. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Babbitt, 300 Md. 637, 641-642 , 479 A.2d 1372, 1375 (1984).

The only issue before us is the discipline to be imposed. The Commission recommends a 180-day suspension. Maxwell submits that a reprimand would be sufficient. To place these contentions in context, we summarize the factual basis for the violations.

Maxwell, who specializes in criminal law, was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1957. In 1980 Richard Fortman retained Maxwell to form a corporation, Jaxson and Associates, Inc., to purchase land in Dorchester County. The principals in the corporation were Fortman and two other men, Larkin and Taylor. Maxwell prepared articles of incorporation.

The property was purchased in the spring of 1980. Later in 1980 Fortman, whom Maxwell had represented in another matter, called Maxwell to advise that a Jeff Edwards, a man named Fannon, and others had been charged with “drug trafficking” in Florida. At Fortman’s request, Maxwell undertook to represent them, and participated actively in the case, together with Florida counsel. The bail set for Edwards and Fannon was $500,000 each, for a total ⁶⁰² of $1,000,000.

Efforts were made to obtain this bail through London, a Baltimore bondsman. Fortman and Larkin met with London, who agreed to furnish a bail bond upon receipt of a 10 percent non-refundable premium of $100,000, 50 percent “cash collateral” ($500,000), and some “property.” Fortman and Larkin told London they had Eastern Shore property worth $250,000, although it was not in their names. They assured him they would put this property up, but they did not want the collateral recorded. London agreed.

A few days later Maxwell called London, said he was the lawyer in the case, and would facilitate provision of the property collateral. In due course, London received the “cash collateral” and the cash premium. He posted the bond; Edwards and Fannon were released. The deed for the property, however, was not forthcoming.

In several conversations between London and Maxwell, the latter assured the bondsman that he was working on the matter and that the deed would be produced. Eventually Maxwell delivered a deed to London. It purported to convey land in Dorchester County from Jaxson and Associates, Inc., to London’s principal. It contained a purported signature of “Ronald Jaxson.” It was witnessed by Maxwell who, in his capacity as notary public, also certified: “That on this 19th day of February, 1981, before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland ... personally appeared Ronald Jaxson President of Jaxson and Associates, Inc., known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained, and in my presence signed and sealed the same.” In point of fact, Judge Levin found, there was no such person as “Ronald Jaxson.” Fortman, and not “Jaxson,” signed the deed in Maxwell’s presence.

Judge Levin further found that Maxwell knowingly made a false notariza ⁶⁰³ tion, and falsely witnessed the deed. He concluded that Maxwell had engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation, (DR 1-102(A)(4)) and that in his representation of his clients, Edwards and Fannon, Maxwell had made a false statement of fact (DR 7-102(A)(5)). Accordingly, he further concluded that Maxwell had violated a disciplinary rule (DR 1-102(A)(1)). On this state of the record the Commission, as we have seen, seeks a 180-day suspension.

It cites, among other cases, Attorney Grievance Commission v. Myers, 302 Md. 571 , 490 A.2d 231 (1985) and Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sherman, 295 Md. 229 , 454 A.2d 359 (1983). Myers prepared a will improperly and later lied to a Commission investigator and an inquiry panel in an effort to cover up his incompetent work. He received a three-year suspension. Sherman had abandoned a client’s cause and later made wilful misrepresentations to a court.

He received a three-year suspension. There are, however, significant distinctions between Myers and Sherman and the case before us. In each of those cases the deceit was particularly self-serving in that it involved the lawyer’s efforts to conceal his misdeeds. That factor is not present