Reinstatement of Fox

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION * IN THE FOR REINSTATEMENT OF MATTHEW EVAN FOX TO THE * COURT OF APPEALS BAR OF MARYLAND * OF MARYLAND * Misc. Docket AG No. 11 * September Term, 2022 CORRECTED ORDER Upon consideration of the Verified Petition for Reinstatement filed by Matthew Evan Fox, Petitioner, on July 22, 2022, and the Response to Verified Petition for Reinstatement filed by Bar Counsel on September 21, 2022, WHEREAS, by Order entered December 4, 2013, this Court indefinitely suspended Matthew E. Fox, Petitioner, by consent; WHEREAS, in the Response to Verified Petition for Reinstatement, Bar Counsel objected to Petitioner’s reinstatement on the grounds that: (1) Petitioner allegedly made a false statement in the Petition by stating he had complied with the requirements of Maryland Rule 19-741 when at the time of his suspension, almost nine years ago, Petitioner had failed to submit to Bar Counsel the affidavit required under Maryland Rule 16-760 (the earlier version of Rule 19-741); (2) Petitioner failed to timely file income tax returns for tax years 2015-2018 (having filed the income tax returns in 2020); and (3) Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he has kept informed about recent developments in the law and that he is competent to practice law as required under Maryland Rule 19-752(h)(2)(G); WHEREAS, Bar Counsel states that Petitioner’s alleged false statement with respect to submission of an affidavit could form the basis of additional violations of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and cites Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, 477 Md. 482, 499-500 , 270 A.3d 917, 927-28 (2022) as “concluding attorney who falsely stated in her petition for reinstatement that she had complied with then-Rule 19-742, despite knowing that she had not filed the required affidavit, violated Rule 3.1(a)(1) and 8.4(a)-(d) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct”; WHEREAS, in Collins, 477 Md. at 499, 501 , 270 A.3d at 927, 928 , although this Court determined that the hearing judge’s conclusion that Collin’s statement in a petition for reinstatement that she had complied with Maryland Rule 19-742 “was knowingly and intentionally false” and therefore a violation of MARPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c) was supported by the record, this Court observed that “Collins’s testimony in mitigation [did] not foreclose the possibility that she was, as she indicated, confused about the requirements of Maryland Rule 19-742 and of the opinion that she was not required to submit to Bar Counsel information under Maryland Rule 19-742[,]” and that “Collins was precluded from giving testimony as to the merits in her own defense”; WHEREAS, in Collins, 477 Md. at 499 , 270 A.3d at 927 , this Court cautioned Bar Counsel that, “[i]n determining whether to seek the Commission’s authorization for the filing of a petition for disciplinary or remedial action alleging that an attorney has knowingly made a false statement in connection with a petition for reinstatement, Bar Counsel must be watchful for cases in which attorneys are