Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sperling

Per Curiam: The Attorney Grievance Commission, through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Lawrence Sperling, alleging that he violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 1 ⁵⁷⁷ We referred the matter to Judge William M. Cave of the Sixth Judicial Circuit to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, Judge Cave filed a memorandum setting forth his finding that Sperling had been convicted of two misdemeanors involving moral turpitude in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A). The record discloses that Sperling was charged by a multi-count indictment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on November 3, 1978. On April 23, 1979, Sperling was convicted by a jury of one count of the indictment, the misdemeanor of attempting to obtain money by false pretenses with intent to defraud. 2 See Maryland Code (1957, 1970 Repl.

Vol.) Art. 27, § 140. He was sentenced to a term of two years’ imprisonment which was suspended; he was placed on probation for two years and ordered to pay court costs. On March 16, 1979, Sperling was charged with violating Code, Art. 27, § 142, obtaining goods of the value of $150 by means of a bad check with intent to defraud. On July 12, 1979, he entered a guilty plea to this offense in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. 3 He was given a one-year suspended sentence and ordered to pay a fine of $500 and court costs.

Sperling failed to appear before Judge Cave at the evidentiary hearing on the disciplinary petition, and he ⁵⁷⁸ filed no exceptions to Judge Cave’s findings. We scheduled the matter for oral argument to determine the appropriate sanction to be imposed for Sperling’s misconduct.