Attorney Grievance v. Vasiliades

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Christopher Edward Vasiliades, Misc. Docket AG No. 10, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Hotten, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – DISBARMENT. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an attorney who violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-308.1(b), 19-308.4(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).

Respondent’s conduct included intentional dishonesty during the bar admission process; criminal infractions and violation of protective orders that were not reported to the Attorney Grievance Commission; and disturbing content reflected in social media accounts linked to his professional profile. Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. C-03-CV-20-001702 Argued: May 6, 2021 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 10 September Term, 2020 __________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. CHRISTOPHER EDWARD VASILIADES __________________________________ Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran, JJ. __________________________________ Opinion by Hotten, J. __________________________________ Filed: August 16, 2021 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-08-16 13:52-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel (“Petitioner”), directed that charges be filed against Christopher Edward Vasiliades (“Respondent”), pursuant to Md. Rule 19-721.1 The charges stemmed from Respondent’s responses and omissions during the process of his admission to the Maryland Bar, as well as personal misconduct arising thereafter. On April 7, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent.

By order dated April 17, 2020, pursuant to Md. Rule 19-722(a),2 we assigned the matter to the Honorable Colleen A. Cavanaugh (“hearing judge”) of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, to conduct a hearing and render findings of fact and conclusions of law.3 The hearing judge conducted a hearing on October 26 and 27, 2020 and entered her findings of fact and conclusions of law on December 16, 2020. Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional 1 Maryland Rule 19-721(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part: “Upon approval or direction of the Commission, Bar Counsel, on behalf of the Commission, shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals.” 2 Maryland Rule 19-722(a) provides, in pertinent part: “Upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the Court of Appeals may enter an order designating (1) a judge of any circuit court to hear the action, and (2) the clerk responsible for maintaining the record.” 3 Initially, on April 14, 2020, we issued an order transmitting this matter to the Honorable C. Carey Deeley, Jr. for a hearing, but in light of a conflict of interest, we reassigned the matter to Judge Cavanaugh. Conduct (“MARPC”)4 19-308.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19- 308.4(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) (Misconduct). The hearing judge also found certain aggravating and mitigating factors.

On January 12, 2021, Respondent filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons expressed below, we disbar Respondent from the practice of law in this state. THE HEARING JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT We republish the relevant portions of the hearing judge’s findings of fact below. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keating, 471 Md. 614, 622 , 243 A.3d 520, 525 (2020); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gracey, 448 Md. 1, 9 , 136 A.3d 798, 803 (2016).

Background From 2012 to 2016, the Respondent attended the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law as an evening student. The Respondent worked for Paul J. Duffy, Esquire as a law clerk from April 2013 through December 2016. The Respondent was admitted to the Bar of Maryland on December 14, 2016. Since 2018, he has maintained a solo law practice in Baltimore County focused on criminal defense.

Admission to the Bar of Maryland On March 23, 2016, the Respondent submitted his Application for Admission to the Bar of Maryland (“Bar Application”) to the State Board of Law Examiners (“SBLE”). The Bar Application stated, in part: “I do solemnly declare and affirm under penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing petition are true and correct[,]” and was signed by the Respondent on March 23, 2016. Part II of the Bar Application, the Character Questionnaire, contained 20 questions, some with subparts. The Character Questionnaire required the disclosure of information related to the Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 4 (“MLRPC”) were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and re-codified in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules, without substantive change. 2 Respondent’s character and fitness to practice law including, but not limited to, information regarding education, employment, contacts with the legal system, financial obligations, and any conditions and/or impairments that could affect the practice of law.

Question 15(a)(i) of the Character Questionnaire states: Do you have any condition or impairment (such as substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional, nervous, or behavioral disorder or condition) that in any way currently affects, or, if untreated or not otherwise actively managed, could affect your ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner? In this question “currently” means recently enough that the condition could reasonably have an impact on your ability to function as a lawyer. “Actively managed” means that you receive the appropriate therapy, participate in supervised monitoring and/or recognized peer support program, or utilize other appropriate support systems to cope with your condition or impairment. The next question, Question 15(a)(ii), states: If your answer to (a)(i) of this question is “yes”, are the limitations caused by your disorder, condition, or substance abuse problem reduced or ameliorated because you receive ongoing therapy or treatment (with or without medication) or because you participate in a monitoring program or another support system (including A.A., N.A., etc.)? If you answer “Yes” explain briefly describing any treatment or therapy you received in the past year or receive now[.] The Respondent answered “No” to Questions 15(a)(i) and 15(a)(ii).

Question 20 on the Bar Application is titled “Affirmation of Applicant’s Duty of Full, Candid Disclosure and Applicant’s Continuing Duty to Submit Written Notice of Changes to Information Sought by the Application” (“Affirmation of Continuing Duty to Disclose”) and states, in part: I understand that the required disclosures in this questionnaire are of a continuing nature. I hereby acknowledge my duty to respond fully and candidly to each question or required disclosure and to ensure that my responses are accurate and current at all times until I am formally admitted to the bar of 3 the State of Maryland. I will advise the Board immediately and in writing of any changes in the information disclosed in or sought by this questionnaire, including any pertinent facts developed after the initial filing of this application and the facts of any incident occurring subsequent to the initial filing of this application. The Respondent signed the Affirmation of Continuing Duty to Disclose on January 13, 2016.

The Respondent submitted his Bar Application on March 23, 2016. On May 11, 2016, the Respondent supplemented his Bar Application to include information responsive to Question 8.[5] The Respondent also supplemented his response to Question 12[6] when he received a traffic citation after submitting his Bar Application online. The Court [found] that the Respondent was aware of his continuing duty to update the information disclosed on his Bar Application after its submission. After the Respondent submitted his Bar Application, he, like all applicants, was required to be interviewed by an Investigator with the Character Committee of the SBLE.

In June 2016, Augustus F. Brown, Chair of the Second Circuit of the Character Committee, assigned the Honorable C. Carey Deeley, Jr.[7] as the Character Committee Investigator for the Respondent. [Mr.] Deeley’s role was to investigate the Respondent’s character and fitness 5 Question 8 states: Have you ever resigned from or been charged, reprimanded or otherwise disciplined by any school, college, or university, or by any trade or professional organization, at any time for any reason? If so, identify the institution or organization, state the cause, circumstances, date and outcome of each such occurrence. Do so by attachment to this Application. 6 Question 12 states, in relevant part: (a) The following is a complete record of all criminal proceedings (including traffic citations, arrests, summonses) to which I am or have ever been a party. I have listed here all motor vehicle citations for moving violations (including all speeding citations) and excluded only occasional parking violations. 7 All of the Respondent’s relevant interactions with Judge Deeley took place prior to his [appointment] to the bench on December 15, 2016. [We will refer to him as Mr. Deeley during the period of his communications with Respondent.] 4 to practice law and make a recommendation as to whether the Respondent should be admitted to the Maryland Bar.

In June 2016, Mr. Brown forwarded to [Mr.] Deeley a Memorandum from the SBLE which noted specific issues to investigate related to the Respondent. The issues to be investigated included 1) an incident involving the Respondent urinating in public; 2) numerous criminal/traffic proceedings in which the Respondent was involved; and 3) a surety bond. Upon receiving the SBLE Memorandum, [Mr.] Deeley reviewed the Respondent’s Bar Application and contacted the Respondent to gather additional information. The numerous criminal and traffic proceedings referenced in the SBLE Memorandum referred to the Respondent’s response to Question 12(a).

The incidents disclosed were as follows: 1. Alcohol Beverage Open Container in Public – 2007 2. Disorderly Conduct, Failure to Obey Lawful Order – 2007 3. Possession of Alcohol Under Age 21 – 2007 4.

Driving Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol – 2007 5. Urinating in Public – 2010 6. Driving Vehicle While Impaired by Alcohol – 2011 7. Driving While License Suspended/Revoked – 2011 8.

Second Degree Assault – 2014 9. Driver Using Handheld Device While Vehicle in Motion – 2014 10. Driver Using Handheld Device While Vehicle in Motion – 2015 11. Driver Failure to Obey Properly placed Traffic Control Device - 2016 Due to the Respondent’s lengthy criminal and traffic history, [Mr.] Deeley and the Respondent met six times over the course of three months. [Mr.] Deeley was concerned that the Respondent had a problem with alcohol as more than half of the criminal and traffic proceedings disclosed on his Bar Application involved alcohol use. [Mr.] Deeley testified that it was his practice to inquire as to an applicant’s character, which included determining whether an applicant had past or current alcohol and/or drug abuse issues. [Mr.] Deeley further testified that he reviewed his file on the Respondent prior to trial and from that review, “it’s clear that we discussed drugs and alcohol.” The Respondent admits that he and [Mr.] Deeley discussed his prior and current habits with alcohol and his prior behavior and decision- making. 5 On November 21, 2016, [Mr.] Deeley submitted his recommendation to Mr. Brown and the Character Committee. [Mr.] Deeley wrote, in part: “I don’t believe [the Respondent] has a substance abuse problem at present; he credibly reports minimally using alcohol.” In the letter, [Mr.] Deeley recommended that the Respondent be admitted to the Bar because he believed that the Respondent had been honest with him and had taken responsibility for his poor judgment during his “growing up years.” After receiving [Mr.] Deeley’s recommendation, Mr. Brown requested that [Mr.] Deeley explain in greater detail his reasons for recommending the Respondent for admission to the Bar.

Thereafter, [Mr.] Deeley sent the Respondent to be evaluated by James Quinn, then-Director of the Lawyers Assistance Program of the Maryland State Bar Association. On December 1, 2016, Mr. Quinn wrote to [Mr.] Deeley and stated, in part: [The Respondent] made full disclosure to me of all issues and problems, including his substance abuse history and treatment. I found that [the Respondent] accepts responsibility for his past negative behavior and poor judgment. [The Respondent] has matured. . . [.] Today, [the Respondent] is implementing positive coping skills and is using sound judgment. [The Respondent] has completed alcohol education/treatment programs in the past and I do not find it necessary to recommend treatment at this time. ([E]mphasis added).

Mr. Quinn believed that the Respondent had fully disclosed his substance abuse history and treatment during their meeting. Relying upon this belief, Mr. Quinn wrote to [Mr.] Deeley and concluded, in his professional opinion, that the Respondent’s “conduct, general moral character and standards are very good.” Relying upon Mr. Quinn’s “favorable report,” [Mr.] Deeley wrote Mr. Brown a more detailed explanation for why he believed the Respondent should be admitted to the Bar. [Mr.] Deeley stated, in part: Admittedly, when I first received [the Respondent’s] materials, I was less than impressed. He has more contacts with the court system than anyone I have previously interviewed. His description of his prior twists and turns is less than clear.

And, frankly, I worried that [the Respondent] may have an alcohol problem. 6 For that reason, I did what I have done with others similarly situated. I met with him multiple times in an effort to make an informed judgment, over time, on whether to recommend him, based not only on the paperwork, but also on personal contact.[] Since 2011, [the Respondent] has progressed. He no longer appears to abuse alcohol (or drugs—his alcohol assessment for one of the DWIs makes mention of prior cannabis use, which [the Respondent] explained as having experimented in high school and occasional use in college).[] He showed up on time, every time I asked him to come in. He never evidenced frustration at the repeated requests to return.

He worked hard to produce a readable, in-depth summary of his prior indiscretions. [Mr.] Deeley recommended that the Respondent be admitted to the Bar because he believed the Respondent had been honest during their six meetings. On December 14, 2016, the Respondent was admitted to the Bar. In his sworn statement to Bar Counsel, Respondent admits that, by his final semester of law school in 2016, he had become addicted to Percocet. At the height of his use, the Respondent was taking up to 90 milligrams of Percocet per day and 30 milligrams of Adderall per day.

The Respondent admits that he did not have a prescription for either Percocet or Adderall and that he obtained the substances illegally from an ex-girlfriend. The Respondent attempted to stop taking Percocet on his own, but experienced negative physical symptoms and continued to abuse Percocet until he completed the Bar Examination. In his sworn statement to Bar Counsel, Respondent testified about his drug use during the Spring and Summer of 2016: And I think during that time is when I got addicted. I knew I had a problem.

I was denying it to myself, quite frankly. I was like I don’t have a problem, I don’t have a problem, I can kick this, I just got to finish. I would always put like a, all right, I’m going to finish it, once I’m done finishing law school, once I’m done with my finals, and then, okay, I’m going to finish it once I’m done doing this. And I always put up these arbitrary timelines.

I didn’t really, I couldn’t because I was hooked and 7 I would start to feel aches, couldn’t sleep. My diet was off. I gained weight. I was gaining a lot of weight during that time.[] So finally, you know, after the bar, I don’t want to jolt anything.

I wanted to finish the bar exam, get it out of the way, and then get back, you know, getting help. And then I got help, I went to the doctor . . . . ([E]mphasis added). In contrast, at that trial of this matter the Respondent maintained that he was not using Percocet and Adderall in his final semester of law school; specifically, when he completed his Bar Application.

He testified instead that his use of these substances was limited to the one month immediately preceding the Bar exam because the drugs “helped [him] get into the zone.” The Respondent sat for the Bar Examination at the end of July 2016. Shortly thereafter, Respondent stopped taking Adderall and Percocet and suffered from insomnia and other ill effects. Respondent “knew about Suboxone and what it does” so he went to his primary care physician who prescribed daily Suboxone. Since the summer of 2016, the Respondent has been prescribed Suboxone which he currently takes two times per day.

The Respondent admits that he never disclosed to [Mr.] Deeley or Mr. Quinn his prior use of Adderall and Percocet, his addiction to Percocet, or his daily use of Suboxone. The Respondent maintains that he did not disclose his prior substance use and/or addiction because he was never “specifically” asked about it. The Court finds that the Respondent’s testimony on this point lacks credibility. [Mr.] Deeley referred the Respondent to Mr. Quinn for the express purpose of a substance abuse evaluation. Although the Respondent may not have appreciated his dependence on Percocet when he completed his Bar Application in early 2016, he certainly understood that he had a recent addiction that required treatment when he met with [Mr.] Deeley and Mr. Quinn.

J.T. In June 2017, the Respondent became acquainted with J.T.[8] when she frequented his family’s restaurant in Glen Burnie, Maryland. The Respondent later hired J.T. to work in the family restaurant and, in November 2017, the Respondent and J.T. began a romantic relationship. At the time, J.T. was 17 years old and a senior in high school and the Respondent was 29 years old. In December 2018, the romantic relationship ended.

On or about 8 J.T. is referred to by her initials out of respect for her privacy. 8 early January 2019, the Respondent believed that he and J.T. had reconciled their relationship. On the morning of January 8, 2019, J.T. called the Respondent and told him she was having a panic attack. The Respondent went to pick up J.T. and bring her back to his house. According to the Respondent, J.T. admitted to him that she recently dated a man in exchange for money.

The Respondent testified that this upset him and that, throughout the day on January 8, 2019, he and J.T. argued sporadically about their relationship. At some point that day, the Respondent and J.T. met with the Respondent’s ex-girlfriend who provided the Respondent with multiple Xanax pills. The Respondent later “took some of the Xanax” because he “was hurting” and “wanted something to numb [the] pain.” Around 8:30 P.M., the Respondent began drinking whiskey and, by 10:30 P.M., he was under the influence of alcohol. Around 10:30 P.M. on January 8, 2019, the Respondent’s father, Louis Vasiliades, and his brother, Nicholas Vasiliades, arrived at the house.[9] The Respondent testified that he became upset and angry when he observed J.T. interacting with his family as they all seemed happy to see each other.

The Respondent admits that he yelled at J.T., called her a “f[---]ing w[----]” and then squeezed a yogurt on top of her head. J.T. called the police, who subsequently arrived at the house and spoke to those present. The Respondent denied to police that he squeezed yogurt onto J.T.’s head. In his sworn statement to Bar Counsel, Respondent initially admitted that he lied to police, but then clarified that he was never directly asked about pouring yogurt on J.T. so his failure to tell police what happened was not a lie but a failure to elaborate.

The police arranged for Louis Vasiliades to drive J.T. home. On January 9, 2019, J.T. filed criminal charges against the Respondent in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore County in Case Number 6C470959 (“Assault Case”). That same day, the Respondent was charged with two counts of second-degree assault and one count of fourth-degree sex offense – sexual contact; a warrant for his arrest was issued. The trial in the Assault Case was scheduled for May 1, 2019.

On January 9, 2019, J.T. also petitioned for a temporary protective order against the Respondent in the District Court of Maryland for Anne Arundel County in Case Number D-07-FM-19-807269 (“Protective Order Case”). That day, J.T. appeared before the Honorable Eileen A. Riley who granted 9 During the relevant time period, the Respondent [resided] with his father, brother and, at times, J.T. 9 the temporary protective order and ordered the Respondent not to “contact, attempt to contact, or harass (in person, by telephone, in writing or by any other means)” J.T. The temporary protective order was in effect until January 17, 2019. On January 10, 2019, the Respondent was arrested (and later released) in the Assault Case. While in custody on January 10, 2019, the Respondent was served with the temporary protective order.

The temporary protective order was later extended and remained in effect until February 6, 2019, the date of the final protective order hearing. On January 23, 2019, the Respondent, in violation of the protective order, sent J.T. an email and a text message. At trial, the Respondent attempted to minimize the violation of the protective order by explaining that the communications were “business related” and somehow justifiable because he had a missed call from J.T.’s number earlier in the day. However, Respondent admits that when he sent the email to J.T. he changed her last name to that of the man that J.T. admitted to dating during their relationship.

The [c]ourt rejects the Respondent’s explanations and excuses for contacting J.T. and finds that the Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated the temporary protective order on January 23, 2019. On or about January 29, 2019, the Respondent was charged in the District Court of Maryland for Anne Arundel County in Case Number D-07-CR-19- 002186 for violating the temporary protective order on January 23, 2019 (“Violation of Protective Order Case”). Trial in the Violation of Protective Order Case was set for May 9, 2019. On February 6, 2019, J.T. appeared before the Honorable Thomas V. Miller for the final protective order hearing.

The Respondent chose not to appear, and Judge Miller entered a final protective order. The final protective order was to remain in effect until February 6, 2020. The final protective order contained the same “no contact” provisions as the prior, temporary protective orders. Between February 6, 2019, when the final protective order was entered, and June 13, 2019, when the order was rescinded, the Respondent had multiple contacts with J.T. in violation of the order.

In March 2019, J.T. contacted the Respondent to discuss their relationship. The Respondent described the contact as follows: She reached out the first time at the end of March to me. She called from a different number basically. And basically, we just, you know, we talked about everything because I guess everything, how it ended was shocking to me.

And basically, 10 we talked about everything and then from that point from March until June basically she would call me and text me and stuff and we would talk and then she asked to see me. We did see each other a couple times, too. In March 2019, the Respondent and J.T. discussed the Assault Case. The Respondent claims that J.T. wanted to “drop the charges” and that he told J.T. that it was her decision whether to appear in court.

On May 1, 2019, the Respondent and his counsel appeared for trial in the Assault Case. When J.T. did not appear, the State requested a postponement, which was denied, and the case was dismissed. Later that day, J.T. called the Respondent who informed her that the case was dismissed. In advance of the May 9, 2019 trial date in the Violation of the Protective Order Case, the Respondent and J.T. discussed that J.T. was not planning to appear for the trial.

On May 9, 2019, the Respondent and his counsel appeared for trial in the Violation of the Protective Order Case. When J.T. did not appear, the State dismissed the case. After leaving the courthouse, the Respondent met J.T. at a nearby restaurant for lunch. The Respondent brought with him a blank petition to rescind the final protective order which he helped J.T. complete.

When asked how he assisted J.T., the Respondent testified as follows: She asked what she should say as the reason for rescinding it and I told her that, you know, basically I said, [“]Because you’re not scared of me.[”] Basically. On June 13, 2019, J.T. filed the petition to rescind the final protective order, which was granted. Social Media In 2018, the Respondent opened his law firm, “Vas Law, LLC,” in Baltimore County, Maryland. Sometime thereafter, the Respondent created a website for his law firm, “vaslawllc.com,” and began to advertise his services.

As of September 2019, the Respondent maintained Twitter and Instagram accounts. As of September 2019, the Respondent’s Instagram username was “chris__law__.” The Respondent’s biography for his Instagram account stated, in part: Christopher Vasiliades, Esq. 11 Download the Vas Law Accident App. Legal Representation for Auto Accidents. Criminal Defense. Call 1-833-C-LAW- 123.

DM for advice. Se habla espanol. www.vaslawllc.com As of September 2019, the Respondent’s Twitter username was “@THE_Chris_Law.” The Respondent’s biography for his Twitter account featured “VASLAW, LLC” in large and bold font and stated, in part: Chris Law @ THE_Chris_Law Download the Vas Law Accident App. Dauntless legal representation for auto accidents, criminal defense. Call 1-833-C-LAW-123. Baltimore, MD vaslawllc.com As of September 2019, the Respondent’s social media accounts contained the following posts and comments: 1.

A comment, authored by the Respondent, stating: “@tep_time coming from the fat married n[----] who can’t go to a ballgame without his girl’s permission” 2. A comment, authored by the Respondent, stating: “Real n[- ---] s[---]” 3. A post, shared by the Respondent, discussing out-of- wedlock birth statistics. The Respondent commented on the post, “[a]ttention broke b[-----]s.

Y’all getting knocked up thinking he’ll stick around is literally not working. Here’s statistical proof” 4. A post, authored by the Respondent, stating: “B[----]es are so wack. You have to act like you don’t give AF about them for them to really like you.

You act like you care; they s[---] on you. But then they cry because you don’t give them enough attention. They are ALL insecure AF” 5. A post, authored by the Respondent, stating, “[h]umans aren’t meant to be happy sweetie.

Especially women lol” 6. A post authored by username “lil duval,” that was re- tweeted[10] by the Respondent stating: “Ladies always remember, you are who you let f[---] you” 10 At trial, the Respondent defined “retweeting” as “an endorsement of another statement made by somebody else.” 12 7. A post authored by username “lil duval,” that was re- tweeted by the Respondent stating: “Ladies y’all might wanna stop showing who y’all f[---]ing cuz it might make a better n[----] not even wanna f[---] wit u.” 8. A post authored by another user, that was re-tweeted by the Respondent and commented on by the Respondent with a laughing and a thumbs up emoji.

The post by the other user stated, “everytime a DC n[----] tell me ‘I’m too cute to be from Baltimore’ I tell him he’s to straight to be from DC. fomf f[--]got” The social media accounts on which these posts and comments appeared were linked to the Respondent’s law firm website and were accessible by the public without privacy restrictions. The Respondent also used his social media accounts to advertise his services and provide legal information. (Citations omitted). THE HEARING JUDGE’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-308.1(b) and 19-308.4(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).

MARPC 19-308.1 – Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters (“Rule 8.1”)11 The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) by answering “No” to Question 15(a)(i) & (ii) on his initial bar application, Question 6 on the affirmation, 11 Rule 8.1(b) provides: An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not: . . . (b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 19-301.6 (1.6). 13 and failing to supplement his application materials to include information relating to his addiction to Percocet and use of Suboxone.12 The hearing judge determined that Respondent understood the duty to supplement his answers, as demonstrated by his supplements to other portions of the application. The hearing judge noted that Mr. Deeley and Mr. Quinn were undeniably interested in Respondent’s history of substance use. The hearing judge rejected Respondent’s defense that he failed to disclose the information because he was not specifically asked about it as disingenuous and unbelievable.

MARPC 19-308.4 – Misconduct (“Rule 8.4”) The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(a) for his violations of Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(b), (c), (d), and (e).13 12 “Suboxone is the brand name for a prescription medication used in treating those addicted to opioids, illegal or prescription.” Jeffery Juergens, What is Suboxone?, Addiction Center (June 17, 2021), https://www.addictioncenter.com/treatment/medication s/suboxone/, archived at https://perma.cc/2BYV-2QT6. 13 Rule 8.4 provides, in pertinent part: It is professional misconduct for an attorney to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as an attorney in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) knowingly manifest by words or conduct when acting in a professional capacity bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status when such action is prejudicial to the administration of justice, provided, however, that legitimate advocacy is not a violation of this section[.] 14 The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) through his criminal assault of J.T. and violation of a protective order. The hearing judge found that Respondent committed a second-degree assault by causing offensive physical contact to J.T. in squeezing yogurt on her head. The hearing judge also found that Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated the various protective orders through his: January 23, 2019 email to J.T.; January 23, 2019 text message to J.T.; March 2019 telephone conversation with J.T.; May 1, 2019 telephone conversation with J.T.; and May 9, 2019 meeting with J.T. The hearing judge opined that Respondent’s actions indicated a lack of the characteristics relevant to the practice of law because they involved violence, dishonesty, interference with the administration of justice, and indifference to legal obligation. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) by engaging in conduct involving deceit or misrepresentation.

Specifically, the hearing judge found that Respondent failed to correct his answers to Questions 15(a)(i) and (ii) and failed to disclose his substance abuse and addiction to Mr. Deeley and Mr. Quinn. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d) as a result of the criminal conduct which violated Rule 8.4(b). The hearing judge opined that Respondent’s many acts of misconduct, including the conduct violative of Rules 8.1 and 8.4, demonstrated a disregard for the law and brought the legal profession into disrepute. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(e) for authoring and sharing biased and prejudicial language on his public social media accounts which he also used to advertise his legal practice.

The hearing judge noted that the words used and shared 15 by Respondent “speak for themselves” and are replete with racial, homophobic, and sexist slurs, frequently demeaning women. The hearing judge determined that the content was prejudicial to the administration of justice, because it reflected poorly on the legal profession in the eyes of a reasonable member of the public. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent was acting in his professional capacity with respect to his social media use and violated Rule 8.4(e). THE HEARING JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS We have long identified several aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in attorney grievance matters.

Aggravating factors include: (1) prior attorney discipline; (2) a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) a pattern of misconduct; (4) multiple violations of the MARPC; (5) bad faith obstruction of the attorney discipline proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the Maryland Rules or orders of this Court; (6) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the attorney discipline proceeding; (7) a refusal to acknowledge the misconduct’s wrongful nature; (8) the victim’s vulnerability; (9) substantial experience in the practice of law; (10) indifference to making restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s consequences; (11) illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled substances; and (12) likelihood of repetition of the misconduct. Keating, 471 Md. at 639 , 243 A.3d at 535 (citation and other markings omitted). Mitigating factors include: [(1)] absence of a prior disciplinary record; [(2)] absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; [(3)] personal or emotional problems; [(4)] timely good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct; [(5)] full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; [(6)] inexperience in the practice of law; [(7)] character or reputation; [(8)] physical or mental disability or impairment; [(9)] delay in disciplinary proceedings; [(10)] interim rehabilitation; [(11)] imposition of other penalties or sanctions; [(12)] remorse; and [(13)] remoteness of prior offenses. 16 Keating, 471 Md. at 639–40, 243 A.3d at 536 (citation omitted). Aggravating Factors The hearing judge found the presence of the following aggravating factors: dishonest or selfish motive; pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct.

The hearing judge found that Respondent demonstrated a dishonest or selfish motive by failing to disclose his addiction to Percocet and illegal purchase of other drugs during the Bar admission process, or to Mr. Deeley or Mr. Quinn. The hearing judge also found that Respondent demonstrated a pattern of misconduct during the Bar admission process, through his repeated violations of the temporary and final protective orders, and the numerous social media posts or comments containing biased and prejudicial language. The hearing judge found that Respondent refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct throughout the disciplinary proceedings. As an example, the hearing judge noted that Respondent attempted to minimize the violation of the protective order on January 23, 2019 by explaining that the communications were “business related” and somehow justifiable because he had a missed call from J.T.’s number earlier that day.

The hearing judge compared Respondent’s assertions—that his use of Percocet was never an impairment that would affect his ability to practice law—to a drunk driver who points to his lack of accidents as justification for his behavior. The hearing judge opined that the “Respondent clearly could benefit from addiction counseling; however, he continues to deny a substance abuse problem.” 17 Mitigating Factors The hearing judge found the following mitigating factors to be present: absence of prior disciplinary record; personal and emotional problems; timely good-faith efforts to rectify the consequences of his misconduct; cooperative attitude toward the proceedings; positive reputation in the legal community; and interim rehabilitation. First, the hearing judge found that Respondent had no prior disciplinary record. Second, the hearing judge found that Respondent experienced personal and emotional problems that affected his judgment and behavior.

The hearing judge credited the testimony of Ms. Markus, a licensed clinical social worker who saw Respondent on a regular basis for a few months beginning in April 2019, and again in October 2019 for regular therapy through April 2020. Ms. Markus testified that the spring 2019 therapy sessions were