Attorney Grievance Commission v. Taylor

PER CURIAM. The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Paul B. Taylor, alleging violations of the disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We referred the matter, pursuant to Md.Rule BV9 b, to Judge Richard M. Pollitt of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, Judge Pollitt filed findings and conclusions as follows: “By Order dated February 27, 1985, the Court of Appeals directed that the charges herein be transmitted to and heard by this Court.

Pursuant to that Order, all the above documents were served on Taylor by the Sheriff of Wicomico County on March 1, 1985, directing him to respond to the charges within 15 days from the date of service in accordance with Rule BV9 e 2. Taylor did not respond. On March 20, 1985, this Court signed an Order of Default and set the matter for hearing on April 29, 1985. Taylor did appear at the hearing and participated therein. ¹¹⁶ We heard’ testimony from Victor H. Laws, Esquire, and Mr. Richard C. Bauer, Jr., an investigator with the Attorney Grievance Commission.

Received in evidence as exhibits were (1) the Request for Admission of Facts (deemed admitted by Rule 2-424(b) and Rule BV10(a)), and (2) the complete file in No. 8409 Civil Cases in the Circuit Court for Worcester County. Mr. Taylor cross-examined the witnesses and addressed the Court at great length. Findings of Fact From all the pleadings, admissions, testimony and exhibits, we find by clear and convincing evidence the following facts. 1 Paul B. Taylor, a member of the Bar of the Court of Appeals for more than twenty years, represented for several years prior to 1975 Peninsula Service Bureau, Inc. (hereinafter “PSB”), a collection agency engaged in the business of collecting delinquent accounts due its customers. The standard financial arrangement between PSB and Taylor had been a three-way division of all net collections; 50% to the PSB customer whose account was collected; 25% to Taylor; and 25% to PSB.

Taylor would remit all collections to PSB which then made the distribution of funds set out above. On or about June 30, 1975, J. William Benjamin purchased all the stock of PSB and took over its management. Benjamin and Taylor orally agreed to continue the same financial arrangements and did so until late 1978, when PSB failed and went out of business. After PSB had closed, Taylor was still engaged in the collection of judgments he had obtained for some 40 or 50 customers of PSB.

Since PSB was no longer in business, Taylor notified those customers that he would now make the distributions for ¹¹⁷ merly made by PSB. He continued to make collections and distributed 50% to the customer and 25% to himself. The remaining 25%, representing the amounts due PSB, he retained in an escrow account. His accounting, filed under oath in the Worcester County civil case, and admitted as genuine in this case by his failure to deny it, shows that he retained the sum of $25,200.00, which earned interest and dividends of $5,000.00, for a total of $30,200.00.

These funds were periodically withdrawn from his escrow account and were either deposited in other accounts in his own name or were spent by him. Peninsula Bank, a creditor of PSB, filed attachment proceedings against the successors in interest to PSB, naming Taylor as garnishee, and Taylor was ordered by the Circuit Court to deliver the above assets to the Clerk of the Court for the benefit of the garnishor. After various other proceedings, including Taylor’s incarceration for contempt of the Circuit Court, he paid into court the proceeds of a Nationwide Mutual Fund in the amount of $9,334.78, and a $5,000.00 bond issued by the Alaska Highway Authority, thus accounting for $14,334.78 of the funds due PSB. There has been no accounting as to the balance of the $30,200.00 retained.

Conclusions of Law The above facts clearly demonstrate that respondent has violated the following Disciplinary Rules as set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility, Appendix F, of Maryland Rule 1230. DR 1-102 — Misconduct. (A) A lawyer shall not: (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule. (3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.

(4) Engage in conduct involving