Attorney Grievance Commission v. Miles

Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In January 1976, petitioner Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed in this Court a petition for disciplinary action against respondent Stephen L. Miles, a member of the bar of Maryland since 1969. The petition was predicated upon three charges of professional misconduct: (i) that Miles, in concert with Robert Frank, a former member of the Maryland bar, in June of 1973 had destroyed a tape ⁶⁸² cassette containing conversations between Miles and John E. (Liddy) Jones, which was relevant to the Baltimore County Grand Jury’s investigation of charges of alleged corruption in the office of the Baltimore County State’s Attorney; (ii) that Miles, in July 1972, at the request of Stuart Hirsch, a former member of the Maryland bar, who at the time was Deputy State’s Attorney for Baltimore County, had signed his name as counsel to a petition prepared by Hirsch on behalf of Kneass Chester Harrington, which had as its purpose the expungement of Harrington’s arrest records, at a time when Miles had never met Harrington and had not been retained by him; 1 and (iii) that Miles, in December 1972, had undertaken to represent Larry S. Portney in a criminal matter in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for a fee of $500, of which $100 was paid as a retainer, the balance to be paid before trial; that the balance was paid in April 1973, and that shortly thereafter, Miles told Portney that the criminal charges would be dropped if an additional fee of $500 were paid, when, in fact, the charge had been nolle prossed in March of 1973.

In February 1976, as provided by Maryland Rule BV9, we referred the matter for hearing and determination to a three-judge panel consisting of The Honorable Shirley B. Jones of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, The Honorable Edward D. Higinbothom of the Third Judicial Circuit, and The Honorable Martin A. Kircher of the District Court of Maryland. After an evidentiary hearing, the panel filed its Findings and Recommendation. It concluded in respect to the first charge, the “tapes matter,” that while there was no question that Miles and Robert Frank had destroyed the tape, there was no credible evidence that Miles knew or should have known at the time the tape was destroyed that it was being sought by the Grand Jury. Regarding the second charge, “the Harrington matter,” the panel concluded ⁶⁸³ that Miles’ signing the petition for expungement under the circumstances constituted a violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) (4), which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” In considering the third charge, “the Portney matter,” the panel concluded that the determination of that issue depended upon the credibility of the witnesses and found the testimony of Norman Portney, the father of Larry Portney, the criminal defendant, to be “convincing, consistent and ... credible.” Based on this testimony, the panel determined that Miles’ conduct was a violation of subsections (3), (4), (5), and (6) of Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) 2 and of Disciplinary Rule 9-101 (C). 3 The panel recommended the dismissal of charges in the tapes matter, but based on the evidence before it in the Harrington and Portney matters, recommended that the respondent be disbarred.

Miles excepted to the recommendation of the three-judge panel, and his exceptions were considered by this Court on October 22, 1976. By then, there had become available, as a result of criminal proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland involving the bombing of an automobile belonging to one Joseph Dobb, information that Norman Portney was implicated in an attempt to extort $2,000 from Dobb in return for the identification of his assailant. We granted Miles’ motion that the disciplinary case be remanded to the three-judge panel for consideration in the light of the newly discovered evidence, and ordered a remand “for further proceedings including the consideration of such additional evidence as may be introduced by counsel ⁶⁸⁴ for the respondent and Bar Counsel on any of the charges heretofore considered ....” After an evidentiary hearing, the panel filed its second Findings and Recommendation, noting that no additional evidence had been presented regarding either the tapes matter or the Harrington matter. As a consequence, the panel reaffirmed the factual determinations set forth in its original Findings and Recommendation as to both charges.

With respect to the Portney matter, the panel concluded that the additional evidence presented at the hearing on remand “cast considerable doubt on the