In Re the Petition for Reinstatement to the Bar of Siegel

⁶³⁶ ORDER. Smith and Eldridge, JJ., dissent. Smith, J., would have denied readmission. Eldridge, J., filed a dissenting opinion at page 637 infra.

ORDER The Court having disbarred Maurice T. Siegel on July 14, 1975 following his conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland of the felony of wilful evasion of federal income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (Bar Ass’n of Balto. City v. Siegel, 275 Md. 521 , 340 A.2d 710 (1975)); and Maurice T. Siegel having filed a petition on April 3, 1981 for reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland, and the petition having been referred by the Court to an Inquiry Panel of the Attorney Grievance Commission; and The Inquiry Panel having conducted an evidentiary hearing and recommended that the petitioner be reinstated to the Bar of this State upon satisfactory completion of an intensified legal education course in criminal law and procedure, this being the petitioner’s specialty prior to his disbarment; and The Inquiry Panel having also recommended that upon reinstatement the petitioner be supervised in his practice for a period of time, as may be determined by the Court, by other counsel satisfactory to Bar Counsel; and The Review Board of the Attorney Grievance Commission having concurred in the recommendations of the Inquiry Panel; and The Court having conducted a hearing upon the petition for reinstatement and been advised that the petitioner is agreeable to the conditions recommended by the Inquiry Panel, and would also agree to limit his practice to the field of criminal law; and The Court having reviewed the evidence adduced before the Inquiry Panel, and having considered the principles governing readmission to the bar as set forth in In re ⁶³⁷ Braverman, 271 Md. 196 , 316 A.2d 246 (1974) and In re Barton, 291 Md. 61 , 432 A.2d 1335 (1981); and The Court having concluded that the petition for reinstatement should be granted upon satisfactory compliance with the condition precedent recommended by the Inquiry Panel and Review Board, it is this 22nd day of November, 1982, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that action on the petition for reinstatement be deferred pending completion by the petitioner of an intensified legal education course in criminal law and procedure, as may be selected by the petitioner with the approval of Bar Counsel; and it is further ORDERED that upon satisfactory completion by the petitioner of such intensified legal education course, and notification thereof to this Court, the petitioner will be readmitted to the bar upon the conditions above set forth, subject to further Order of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that the petitioner pay the costs of these proceedings prior to reinstatement. Judge Smith would have denied readmission. 294 Md. 635 (1982) 452 A.2d 414 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND OF MAURICE T. SIEGEL [Misc. (BV) No. 6, September Term, 1981.] Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Decided November 22, 1982. The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ. Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., for petitioner. Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, for respondent. ⁶³⁶ ORDER.

SMITH and ELDRIDGE, J.,J., dissent. SMITH, J., would have denied readmission. ELDRIDGE, J., filed a dissenting opinion at page 637 infra. ORDER The Court having disbarred Maurice T. Siegel on July 14, 1975 following his conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland of the felony of wilful evasion of federal income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 ( Bar Ass'n of Balto.

City v. Siegel, 275 Md. 521 , 340 A.2d 710 (1975)); and Maurice T. Siegel having filed a petition on April 3, 1981 for reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland, and the petition having been referred by the Court to an Inquiry Panel of the Attorney Grievance Commission; and The Inquiry Panel having conducted an evidentiary hearing and recommended that the petitioner be reinstated to the Bar of this State upon satisfactory completion of an intensified legal education course in criminal law and procedure, this being the petitioner's specialty prior to his disbarment; and The Inquiry Panel having also recommended that upon reinstatement the petitioner be supervised in his practice for a period of time, as may be determined by the Court, by other counsel satisfactory to Bar Counsel; and The Review Board of the Attorney Grievance Commission having concurred in the recommendations of the Inquiry Panel; and The Court having conducted a hearing upon the petition for reinstatement and been advised that the petitioner is agreeable to the conditions recommended by the Inquiry Panel, and would also agree to limit his practice to the field of criminal law; and The Court having reviewed the evidence adduced before the Inquiry Panel, and having considered the principles governing readmission to the bar as set forth in In re ⁶³⁷ Braverman, 271 Md. 196 , 316 A.2d 246 (1974) and In re Barton, 291 Md. 61 , 432 A.2d 1335 (1981); and The Court having concluded that the petition for reinstatement should be granted upon satisfactory compliance with the condition precedent recommended by the Inquiry Panel and Review Board, it is this 22nd day of November, 1982, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that action on the petition for reinstatement be deferred pending completion by the petitioner of an intensified legal education course in criminal law and procedure, as may be selected by the petitioner with the approval of Bar Counsel; and it is further ORDERED that upon satisfactory completion by the petitioner of such intensified legal education course, and notification thereof to this Court, the petitioner will be readmitted to the bar upon the conditions above set forth, subject to further Order of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that the petitioner pay the costs of these proceedings prior to reinstatement. Judge Smith would have denied readmission. Eldridge, J., dissenting: In 1972, upon a plea of nolo contendere, Maurice T. Siegel was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on one count of income tax evasion. Two United States Attorneys for the District of Maryland had recommended that the tax prosecution be dropped, but the Department of Justice in Washington overruled the recommendations.

One of the United States Attorneys, who is presently the Attorney General of Maryland, called the government's case "very thin" and "weak." Mr. Siegel's attorney in the tax case also believed that the government's case was tenuous, but he recommended that Mr. Siegel plead nolo contendere because of the adverse effect of a trial upon Mr. Siegel's health. A heart specialist was also fearful of the toll on Mr. Siegel's health that might be exacted by a trial. A ⁶³⁸ detailed account of the tax prosecution, Mr. Siegel's health at the time, and other pertinent extenuating circumstances, is set forth in Bar Ass'n of Balto. City v. Siegel, 275 Md. 521, 529-533 , 340 A.2d 710, 714-717 (1975) (LEVINE, J., dissenting).

After the conviction in the tax case, a three-judge panel of trial judges recommended to this Court that Mr. Siegel not be disbarred and that his license to practice law be suspended for one year. The recommendation was based upon the extenuating circumstances with regard to the tax conviction. This Court, by a 4-3 vote after a reargument, rejected the recommendation of the three-judge panel and disbarred Mr. Siegel. [1] The majority, taking an