Attorney Grievance Commission v. Swerdloff

ORDER This Court having considered the recommendation of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City and the record filed in the above entitled matter, and no exceptions having been filed, it is this 1st day of February, 1977 ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the recommendation be adopted and that Matthew Swerdloff be, and he is hereby, disbarred from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further ORDERED that the clerk of this Court shall forthwith strike the name of Matthew Swerdloff from the register of attorneys and shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the ²⁹⁷ Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State in accordance with Rule BV13. Filed: February 1, 1977 /s/ James H. Norris, Jr. Clerk Court of Appeals of Maryland /s/ Robert C. Murphy_ /s/ Frederick J. Singley, Jr. /s/ Marvin H. Smith /s/ J. Dudley Digges /s/ Irving A. Levine_ /s/ John C. Eldridge_ /s/ Charles E. Orth, Jr. MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9, the Court of Appeals of Maryland designated the undersigned judges as a panel for the hearing of charges brought against the Respondent by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland. A hearing was held before the panel on November 24, 1976. FINDINGS OF FACTS On December 11, 1975, Respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to the charge of falsely and fraudulently subscribing to a joint income tax return by willfully and knowingly, under penalty of perjury, understating his gross income for the year 1973 by $3,300.

The remaining 17 counts of the pertinent indictment were nolle pressed by the United States Attorney pursuant to a plea bargain. On February 18, 1976, Respondent received a two-year sentence, of which 179 days were to be in confinement, and the balance of the term was suspended. Approximately 10 months before Respondent pleaded guilty, he was tried on mail fraud charges. This resulted in a ²⁹⁸ mistrial because Respondent suffered a coronary attack during the tenth day of trial.

While in the hospital, Respondent also suffered a “cerebral vascular accident.” Respondent was reindicted, and he went to trial on December 3, 1975. His heart had to be monitored regularly during the trial by a portable EKG unit, and he was also under prescribed medication. After the prosecution finished its case, Respondent pleaded guilty as previously mentioned. Respondent asserted at this Disciplinary Hearing that he pleaded guilty because of the danger of aggravating his already precarious physical condition by continuing with the trial, where he would shortly have been subjected to rigorous, strenuous and lengthy cross-examination.

Respondent further testified, however, that he was in fact guilty of this tax fraud charge. Respondent further conceded that this conviction was of a crime involving moral turpitude. Respondent has been a member of the Maryland Bar since 1956, and no further examples of Respondent’s misconduct were brought to the panel’s attention. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent first contends that his criminal conduct “did not so adversely bear upon his moral fitness to practice law so as to warrant disbarment or render him incapable of maintaining the