Prince George's County Bar Ass'n v. Blanchard

Per Curiam Order. The Court having considered the opinion and recommendation of the panel of Judges that Elmer Francis Blanchard be reprimanded, the exceptions to the recommendation filed by the Bar Association, the exceptions filed by the respondent to the refusal of the panel to grant his motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds of laches and of a denial of due process, the answers thereto and arguments of counsel, it is, this 10th day of October, 1975, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the exceptions filed by the respondent to the refusal of the panel to grant his motion to dismiss being without merit, are hereby overruled; see Anne Arundel Co. Bar Ass’n v. Collins, 272 Md. 578 , 325 A. 2d 724 (1974); and it is further ORDERED, that the recommendation of the panel be, and it is hereby, adopted, and it is further ORDERED, that Elmer Francis Blanchard be, and he is hereby, reprimanded. OPINION AND ORDER OF PANEL This case comes before the Court sitting as a three judge panel pursuant to Rules under the BV section of Maryland Rules of Procedure. The panel is to make factual finding with recommendation on said facts to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the tribunal which finally acts in disciplinary matters.

Mr. Blanchard is charged with conduct which constitutes a violation of Canon 1, Disciplinary Rule 1-102A (4) in that the respondent has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. Other than testimony on character and integrity offered by the respondent in his defense, all of the testimony presented by the bar association consisted of reading answers to certain interrogatories propounded to Mr. Blanchard and the reading of portions of a deposition of the respondent. In the ²⁰⁹ nature of cross examination, the defense read other portions of this same deposition. Thus all of the testimony concerning the charges against Mr. Blanchard consists of Mr. Blanchard’s own statements as to what he did and why.

Mr. Blanchard is a member of the Maryland Bar practicing law in Prince George’s County with a specialty in real estate title and settlement work. It is in connection with this real estate settlement work that the alleged improper conduct arose. The sum of this alleged improper conduct is that during the period extending from April or May of 1969 until January of 1972, Mr. Blanchard handled approximately 1,826 cases in which charges were made for survey work done by one Roger Vales out of which Mr. Blanchard remitted to Mr. Vales about $17,090.00 less than Mr. Blanchard had charged his various clients in these 1,826 cases. It appears that on the settlement sheet, Mr. Blanchard listed a survey charge of $55.00, but instead of paying this full $55.00 to Mr. Vales for which Mr. Vales had submitted a bill, Mr. Blanchard would only pay Mr. Vales $45.00.

There is nothing in the record to show the bill was ever shown to the client. In some cases instead of holding back $10.00 there would be instances when only $5.00 was retained. In any event, there was no disclosure made to the client at settlement that any portion of this “survey” charge was not being paid to the surveyor. Notwithstanding the fact there was no disclosure of this so-called rebate, the $55.00 survey charge which Mr. Blanchard made was apparently $5.00 less than the customary charge being made by other surveyors.

All of this developed in 1969 when Mr. Blanchard being in need of a surveyor to expeditiously make house location surveys for his settlements came into contact