Case Title: Attorney Greiv. Comm. v. Hallmon

Citation: 343 Md. 390

Docket Number: 13m/95

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 1996-08-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Morgan Joseph Hallmon,
Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 13, September Term, 1995.
[Attorney Did Not Evaluate LaypersonUs Preparation Of Presentation
For Special Exception And, At Hearing, Looked To Layperson For
Presentation.  Held:  Attorney Assisted Unlicensed Person In The
Unauthorized Practice Of Law.]
Circuit Court for Prince 
GeorgeUs County Case #CAE95-10482
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV)
No. 13
September Term, 1995
____________________________________
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v.
MORGAN JOSEPH HALLMON
____________________________________
Murphy, C.J.
Eldridge
Rodowsky
Chasanow
Karwacki
Bell
Raker, 
JJ. 
____________________________________
Opinion by Rodowsky, J.
____________________________________
Filed:
     Maryland LawyersU Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.5 in
1
relevant part reads:
"A lawyer shall not:
....
(b) assist a person who is not a member of the
bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the
unauthorized practice of law."
In this opinion all references to a "Rule" are to the Maryland
LawyersU Rules of Professional Conduct.
     Rule 8.1 in relevant part provides:
2
"[A] lawyer ... in connection with a disciplinary matter,
shall not:
....
(b) ... knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand
for information from a[] ... disciplinary authority,
except that this Rule does not require disclosure of
information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 [client
confidences]."
     BOP § 10-301(d) defines "trust money" to mean money "that a
3
person entrusts to a lawyer to hold for the benefit of a client or
The respondent, Morgan Joseph Hallmon (Hallmon), has been
found to have assisted an unlicensed person in the unauthorized
practice of law in violation of the Maryland LawyersU Rules of
Professional Conduct, Rule 5.5(b).   That violation involved a
1
hearing before a Zoning Hearing Officer for Prince GeorgeUs County.
Investigation of that complaint led to further charges and findings
of violations, namely, failure to respond to a demand for
information by Bar Counsel in violation of Rule 8.1(b),  and
2
failing to maintain an escrow account in violation of various
requirements, including Maryland Code (1989, 1995 Repl. Vol.),
§§ 10-302, 10-304 and 10-307 of the Business Occupations and
Professions Article (BOP).   
3
2
a beneficial owner."  A lawyer is prohibited by BOP § 10-302(a)
from accepting trust money "[u]nless [the] lawyer or the firm of
the lawyer maintains an attorney trust account in accordance with"
the trust money subtitle of Title 10, "Lawyers," of BOP.  A
violation of the attorney trust accounts part of the trust money
subtitle subjects the lawyer to disciplinary proceedings.  BOP
§ 10-307. 
     The Henderson of Cloud & Henderson is Ronald E. Henderson, a
4
relative of Cloud, who was admitted to the Ohio bar.  Other than in
the firm name, HendersonUs name does not appear on the Cloud &
Henderson stationery that is in evidence in the instant matter.
Henderson is not in any way involved in the events underlying the
charges against Hallmon.  
Hallmon was admitted to the District of Columbia bar in 1989
and to the bar of this Court in 1990.  For approximately eighteen
months ending in December 1990 Hallmon was employed as counsel for
a non-profit organization in the District of Columbia.  During that
employment Hallmon had met W. Eric Cloud, an attorney admitted in
the District of Columbia and in Pennsylvania.  Eric Cloud practiced
law under the apparent firm name of Cloud & Henderson.   Eric
4
CloudUs legal stationery lists an address in Largo, Maryland as his
principal office for the practice of law.  In the right-hand margin
that stationery also shows an address on Bladensburg Road, N.E., as
the location of CloudUs District of Columbia office.  The Largo
address seems to be the residence of Eric Cloud and his wife,
Carole.  
Carole Cloud is a law school graduate who is not admitted to
practice in any jurisdiction, although not for want of having
tried.  She is the self-described office manager and coordinator
for her husbandUs practice.  
3
In early 1991 Eric Cloud and Hallmon entered into an
arrangement under which Hallmon would represent the clients of Eric
Cloud who required counsel admitted in Maryland.  One of Eric
CloudUs clients was The Church of the Great Commission (the Church)
where the Clouds were members of the congregation.  The Church is
located in the municipality of District Heights, Prince GeorgeUs
County, where the Church also operates a small day school and a day
care nursery on its premises.  In 1986 when it was named Parkway
Baptist Church, the Church had obtained a special exception for
those operations, following a zoning hearing at which Eric Cloud,
accompanied by a Maryland attorney, had appeared on behalf of the
Church.  
For the school year beginning in September 1992 the Church
sought to increase its enrollment to sixty-two day care children
and thirty-eight private school students.  This plan necessitated
a "departure" from parking space requirements amounting to nineteen
spaces over and above such departures previously approved.  
The hearing on the requested special exception was held in
September 1992 before Richard A. Romine (Romine), a Zoning Hearing
Examiner for Prince GeorgeUs County.  Hallmon appeared at that
hearing as counsel for the Church.  There was no fee to Hallmon or
to Eric Cloud for the representation.  There was no opposition to
the requested departure.  District Heights supported the
application, subject to a condition that was unobjectionable to the
Church.  The technical staff of the National Capital Park and
4
Planning Commission (the Commission) recommended approval of the
proposal, and the Prince GeorgeUs County Planning Board agreed with
the staffUs recommendation.  The special exception was recommended
by the hearing examiner, whose decision became final in March 1993
in accordance with § 27-312 of the Prince GeorgeUs County Code. 
Shortly after the hearing before him, Romine filed a complaint
with Bar Counsel raising the issue of unauthorized practice of law
by Carole Cloud in connection with the ChurchUs 1992 special
exception proceedings.  Charges flowing out of that conduct,
together with the additional charges developed in the course of the
investigation, were referred for hearing to Judge Graydon S. McKee,
III of the Circuit Court for Prince GeorgeUs County.  Judge McKee
found that Hallmon committed the charged violations.  The matter is
now before this Court on HallmonUs exceptions to Judge McKeeUs
report.
I
Assisting Unauthorized Practice
BOP § 10-101(h)(1) defines "Practice law" to mean
"to engage in any of the following activities:
(i)
giving legal advice;
(ii) representing another person before a unit of
the State government or of a political subdivision; or
(iii) performing any other service that the Court of
Appeals defines as practicing law."
In the instant matter Carole Cloud prepared the application
for special exception, signing HallmonUs name and placing her
initials behind that signature.  She prepared the statement of
5
justification for the special exception, and she prepared and
signed in HallmonUs name a letter requesting expedited handling of
the application.  Hallmon testified that he approved "most of" the
papers filed in the case after reviewing them over the telephone
with Carole Cloud whom he then authorized to sign his name.  After
reviewing this evidence, Judge McKee made no finding rejecting
HallmonUs testimony.  It is undisputed that Carole Cloud met with
the representatives of the Church and was the person who met on
behalf of the Church with the technical staff of the Commission.
None of the foregoing, in and of itself, supports finding a
violation of Rule 5.5.  
The finding is supported, however, by the transcript of the
hearing before Examiner Romine.  Before addressing that evidence it
will be helpful to review the current state of the law concerning
the use by attorneys of laypersons in roles commonly described as
"law clerks," "paralegals," or "legal assistants."  
This Court has always found it difficult to craft an all
encompassing definition of the "practice of law."  To determine
what is the practice of law we must look at the facts of each case
and determine whether they "U"fall[] within the fair intendment of
the term."U"  In re Application of Mark W., 303 Md. 1, 8, 491 A.2d
576, 579 (1985) (quoting Grievance Comm. v. Payne, 128 Conn. 325,
329, 22 A.2d 623, 625 (1941)).  The purpose of Rule 5.5 "is to
protect the public from being preyed upon by those not competent to
6
practice law--from incompetent, unethical, or irresponsible
representation."  In re Application of R.G.S., 312 Md. 626, 638,
541 A.2d 977, 983 (1988).  That "goal ... is achieved, in general,
by emphasizing the insulation of the unlicensed person from the
public and from tribunals such as courts and certain administrative
agencies."  Id.
To determine whether an individual has engaged in the practice
of law, the focus of the inquiry should "be on whether the activity
in question required legal knowledge and skill in order to apply
legal principles and precedent."  In re Discipio, 163 Ill. 2d 515,
645 N.E.2d 906, 910 (1994); Louisiana State Bar AssUn v. Edwins, 540
So. 2d 294, 299 (La. 1989) ("Functionally, the practice of law
relates to the rendition of services for others that call for the
professional judgment of a lawyer.").  "Where trial work is not
involved 
but 
the 
preparation 
of 
legal 
documents, 
their
interpretation, the giving of legal advice, or the application of
legal principles to problems of any complexity, is involved, these
activities are still the practice of law."  Lukas v. Bar AssUn of
Montgomery County, 35 Md. App. 442, 448, 371 A.2d 669, 673, cert.
denied, 280 Md. 733 (1977) (quoting F.T. vom Baur, Administrative
Agencies and Unauthorized Practice of Law, 48 A.B.A. J. 715, 716
(1962)).
Both Rule 5.5 and case law allow lawyers to employ law clerks
and paralegals without the lawyersU assisting in the unauthorized
7
practice of law.  The Rule 5.5 comment states that the rule "does
not 
prohibit 
a 
lawyer 
from 
employing 
the 
services 
of
paraprofessionals and delegating functions to them, so long as the
lawyer supervises the delegated work and retains responsibility for
their work."  In addition, this Court has rejected a restrictive
approach under which "[l]aw clerks ... who undertake various tasks
under the supervision of licensed lawyers" might be engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.  In re Application of R.G.S., 312 Md.
at 636, 639-40, 541 A.2d at 982, 983-84. 
The legal profession has a long history of utilizing the
services of knowledgeable secretaries and of law clerks.  But the
view has always been that a legal assistantUs 
"work [is] of a preparatory nature, such as research,
investigation of details, the assemblage of data and
other necessary information, and such other work as will
assist the employing attorney in carrying the matter to
a completed product, either by his personal examination
and approval thereof or by additional effort on his part.
The work must be such, however, as loses its separate
identity and becomes either the product, or else merged
in the product, of the attorney himself."
Ferris v. Snively, 172 Wash. 167, 176-77, 19 P.2d 942, 945-46
(1933).
The American Bar Association similarly stresses the importance
of attorney supervision of paraprofessionals in its definition of
a legal assistant.
"UA Legal Assistant is a person, qualified through
education, training, or work experience, who is employed
or retained by a lawyer, law office, governmental agency,
or other entity in a capacity or function which involves
8
the performance, under the ultimate direction and
supervision of an attorney, of specifically-delegated
substantive legal work, which work, for the most part,
requires a sufficient knowledge of legal concepts that,
absent such assistant, the attorney would perform the
task.U"
NonLawyer Activity in Law-Related Situations 52 (A.B.A. CommUn on
NonLaw. Prac. ed. 1995) (quoting A.B.A., Minutes of the Board of
Governors 5 (Feb. 6-7, 1986)) (emphasis added).
Those who advocate the expanded use of legal assistants
acknowledge 
that 
"[a]dequate 
supervision 
is 
an 
ethical
requirement."  A.G. Greene & K. Williams-Fortin, Expanding the Role
of the Legal Assistant--Why Do It?, in Leveraging With Legal
Assistants 6, 8 (A.B.A. Sec. of Law Prac. Mgmt., A.G. Greene ed.,
1993).  "The level of supervision may vary, depending on the type
of work involved and the competence of the legal assistant, but it
must always be present."  Id.
The New Jersey Supreme Court made a detailed analysis of the
work of paralegals in In re Opinion No. 24 of the Comm. on the
Unauthorized Practice of Law, 128 N.J. 114, 607 A.2d 962 (1992).
The court stated that "[t]here is no question that paralegalsU work
constitutes the practice of law."  607 A.2d at 966.  Whether
paralegals engage in the unauthorized practice of law depends on
whether they are adequately supervised by an attorney.  Id. at 963,
969.  In New Jersey attorneys may delegate legal work to paralegals
"if they maintain direct relationships with their clients,
9
supervise the paralegalUs work and remain responsible for the work
product."  Id. at 969.  If the "attorney is not directly
supervising [the paralegalUs work,]" or "the supervision is illusory
because the attorney knows nothing about the field in which the
paralegal is working," the paralegal is engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law.  Id.
That New Jersey opinion also cites guidelines that several
states had adopted.  For example, in Colorado, a paralegalUs work
is not the unauthorized practice of law if "the lawyer establishes
the attorney-client relationship, ... maintains control of all
client matters[,]" supervises performance of the paralegalUs duties,
and reviews the paralegalUs work product, and if the paralegalUs work
"merge[s] with and becomes part of the attorneyUs work product,"
without the paralegalUs exercising unsupervised legal judgment.  Id.
at 972.  Colorado allows client contact by the paralegal "once the
attorney-client relationship has been established."  Id. at 973.
The New Jersey court noted that the Bars of Michigan, Missouri and
New York had adopted similar requirements.  Id.
Law clerks and paralegals perform a variety of services for
attorneys but they may not give legal advice, accept cases, set
fees, appear in court, plan strategy, make legal decisions, or
"chart the direction of a case."  A.G. Greene & K. Williams-Fortin,
Expanding the Role of the Legal Assistant--How Do You Make It
Work?, in Leveraging With Legal Assistants at 18, 19.  The authors
10
opine that under the supervision of a licensed attorney, a legal
assistant, for example, may obtain facts from the client,
communicate information to the client, interview witnesses,
"perform[] limited research to assist the lawyer with the legal
analysis," obtain documents, obtain photographs, prepare summaries,
prepare chronologies, prepare itemization of claims, prepare drafts
of pleadings, prepare drafts of interrogatories and of production
of document requests, prepare drafts of responses to discovery
requests, prepare outlines for the lawyer to use in deposing a
witness, index deposition transcripts, and prepare summaries of the
evidence.  Id. at 20.
The key in all of these examples is supervision.  The attorney
may "not under any circumstance delegate to [a law clerk] the
exercise of the lawyerUs professional judgment in behalf of the
client ...."  Louisiana State Bar AssUn v. Edwins, 540 So. 2d at
300.  Thus, in Attorney Grievance CommUn v. James, 340 Md. 318, 666
A.2d 1246 (1995), where we found that a suspended attorney was
practicing law as a purported paralegal, we held that the record
supported the hearing judgeUs rejection of the contention that the
purported employer was "the supervising attorney" and that the
suspended attorney was the paralegal.  Id. at 332-33, 666 A.2d at
1252-53. 
An essential function of the lawyer in a special exception
application of the subject type is evaluation of the data that has
11
been gathered by lay assistants, by the client, and by the
CommissionUs staff in order for the lawyer to determine whether the
data presents a sufficient and persuasive case.  Here the
information-gathering and communicating contacts by Carole Cloud
with the client and with the Commission staff were not the practice
of law.  Nevertheless, the record before Examiner Romine supports
finding that Hallmon never applied his legal knowledge and training
to evaluating the presentation that had been worked up by Carole
Cloud.  We quote liberally from the transcript.
"EXAMINER:  ...  Who is here on behalf of the
applicant?
"MR. HALLMON:  We all are.  I am Morgan Hallmon, the
supervising attorney representing the Church of the Great
Commission.  And, in addition, I have my law clerk and
associate, Carole Cloud, who has been handling the day-
to-day details; Mr. Gibson, who is the overseer of the
actual project at the ... church.
"EXAMINER:  Okay.  Well, you can set up as you wish.
"MR. HALLMON:  Thank you.  
"EXAMINER:  Just give me a short-line appearance,
you know, of your appearance in the record.  Give me your
address and your phone number.  ... And we will mark Mr.
HallmonUs entrance of his appearance as Exhibit R-25.
Okay, Mr. Hallmon.
"MR. HALLMON:  I will defer to my associate, Ms.
Cloud.
"EXAMINER:  Are you an attorney?
"MS. CLOUD:  I am not licensed in Maryland.
"EXAMINER:  Are you licensed anywhere?
"MS. CLOUD:  No .... 
12
.... 
"MR. HALLMON:  However, I am licensed to practice in
the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia.
"EXAMINER:  Is that your signature?
"MR. HALLMON:  I have authorized my law clerk to --
.... 
"MR. HALLMON:  But I am Morgan Hallmon.  If you
would like, I shall show you my Bar card, and you can
check with the Maryland Bar with respect to my admission
to --
"EXAMINER:  I already have, Mr. Hallmon.
"MR. HALLMON:  Okay, thank you.
"EXAMINER:  And I have already checked on you too,
Ms. Cloud.
"MS. CLOUD:  All right, and I have initialed
everything too.
"MR. HALLMON:  With all due respect, I am not quite
sure if I understand the purpose of the previous
exercise.  Can you clarify that for the record?
"EXAMINER:  Well, I just like to know who is doing
business before me.
"MR. HALLMON:  Okay, all right.  Okay.
"EXAMINER:  Okay.  Now you may proceed as you wish.
"MR. HALLMON:  Thank you.  I will defer to my law
clerk, Ms. Cloud.
"EXAMINER:  As for what?
"MS. CLOUD:  Coordinator.
"MR. HALLMON:  As coordinator.
"EXAMINER:  For what?
13
"MR. HALLMON:  Well --
"EXAMINER:  Is she going to be a witness?
"MR. HALLMON:  No.  Let me point out that this is my
first time attending such a hearing.  Therefore, I am not
familiar with the procedure.  It was my understanding
that there would be a Staff Report and that we would be
apprised of the findings, and if there were questions
which you had, we would answer those.  I was not aware of
the fact that we were expected to make a presentation,
but if that is your request, then we shall proceed.  We
have an application before the Commission, and we are
here to respond to any questions that you may have.
"EXAMINER:  I take it, Mr. Hallmon, then that you
have had very little involvement with the case until
today?
"MR. HALLMON:  With respect to day-to-day matters,
I have been aware of what has been going on in the case.
That is correct.  Yes, I have deferred to Ms. Cloud,
giving her responsibility for that and she has kept up
with that."
The examiner then sought to elicit from Hallmon the specifics of
the latterUs participation in the case preparation.
"MR. HALLMON:  Well, my -- as a matter of fact,
until you [tell] me the purpose, IUm sorry.  I decline to
answer the question.
"EXAMINER:  ThatUs fine, good.  Okay.  Now you may
proceed however you want to proceed.
"MR. HALLMON:  Okay.  How would you like us to
proceed?
"EXAMINER:  Mr. Hallmon, you are the attorney for
the applicant.
"MR. HALLMON:  Mr. Romine, I will defer to my client
who is prepared to answer any questions that the
Commission may have with respect to our application, and
I assume --
14
"EXAMINER:  Ms. Cloud is your client?  You said
defer to your client and you --
"MR. HALLMON:  Wait a minute.  My understanding with
respect to this hearing is to address any concerns that
the Commission may have with respect to the churchUs
application.  If that is not my understanding -- if my
understanding is incorrect, I would like to be apprised
of that at this time.
"EXAMINER:  Well, it is obvious that you know
nothing about our proceedings.
"MR. HALLMON:  It is obvious that I know absolutely
nothing about your proceedings, and I so stated that when
I sat down.
"EXAMINER:  Okay.  The applicant has a burden of
proof, the same as in any adversarial proceeding.
"MR. HALLMON:  Okay.
"EXAMINER:  The applicant has the burden of proving
their case.  That case can be proved by you relying upon
the record as it exists now, or you can present other
evidence if you wish to present other evidence.
"MR. HALLMON:  Okay.
"EXAMINER:  It is the same as a courtroom
proceeding.
"MR. HALLMON:  And so there will be no staff
presentation or recommendation?
"EXAMINER:  Not except what is in the file.
"MR. HALLMON:  So the only purpose of this session
today is to obtain additional information that the
applicant is willing to present.  Is that correct?
"EXAMINER:  Or if there is someone who wishes to
testify in opposition, they can come and testify in
opposition.
.... 
15
"MR. HALLMON:  ...  Okay.  I do not believe that we
are at this point submitting any additional information.
We have reviewed the findings, and we have addressed the
concerns that are so stated.  However, since I did not
talk to my client prior to coming to the session this
morning, it is quite possible that there might be one or
two comments that they would like to make.  And I will
defer to Ms. Cloud in the event that she -- and she has
been in contact with the client prior to this morning --
to ascertain whether or not there is any additional
information that the church would like to submit, either
orally or in writing, this morning.
"MS. CLOUD:  Okay.  For the record, my name is
Carole Cloud.  I am the law clerk and office manager at
the office.  I coordinate --
"EXAMINER:  Where is the office?
"MS. CLOUD:  Law firm of Cloud and Henderson in
Largo, Maryland, and in Washington, D.C.  I coordinate
and manage the office.  I interview the clients.  I
prepare a lot of drafts and documents prior to their
submission to the attorneys.  I am mainly in contact with
most clients on a regular and daily basis.  Then I submit
my information to the attorneys at our meetings, at our
meetings on the client file, on a regular basis.  I am
constantly working under the supervision of Mr. Morgan
Hallmon and Mr. W. Eric Cloud.  Because I have been an
office manager and worked with the attorneys for close to
10 years now, they rely on me to handle most of the
office work while they are in court, so that the clients
regularly stay in touch with me, and then I gather all of
that information and I report that to the attorneys.  In
this particular instance, I was the contact person
between the church and the Park and Planning Commission,
and the overseer of the church properties.  I gathered
all of the information.  I contacted the surveyors.
"I was in contact with [the staff] on a regular
basis and pretty much pulled the whole program together,
and when things were in order, then I would present them
to Mr. Hallmon.  He would then discuss them with me.  We
determined whether there are any problems, additional
problems that need to be addressed, and if there were,
then I would have my work cut out for me to go and try to
clear up any matters and concerns that had been
determined.  So I was in a day-to-day contact with the
16
Park and Planning Commission and in a coordinating and
document-preparation capacity.  And only after completing
most of the detailed work, Mr. Hallmon would then be
apprised of what was done.
"The document preparation was prepared by me.  Mr.
Hallmon and Mr. Cloud would only review the documents
after I prepared them.  Many motions are prepared by me
that go to court.  Only after it is reviewed by the
attorneys are the documents submitted.  And that is
fairly much how this process proceeded as well, and it is
pretty much how the day-to-day operation of our office
runs.
"I just wanted to make that fairly clear.  Because
the clients cannot be in touch, we are a very small law
firm, and cannot be in touch regularly with Mr. Hallmon
and with Mr. Cloud.  I am the person that has to
coordinate pretty much everything that goes on in the
office.  But I cannot practice law.  I do not practice
law.  Everything must be supervised and submitted to the
attorneys prior to any documentation being submitted to
this body or to the court body.
"MR. HALLMON:  Is there anything that we would like
to add regarding this particular application?
"MS. CLOUD:  Regarding this particular application,
after it had been reviewed, let the client, the
applicant, the Church of the Great Commission has
reviewed the application, and I have been there with the
president to review the application, we find that the
comments and the recommendations were reasonable.  I
submitted those to Mr. Hallmon, and it was his
understanding that the client, the Church of the Great
Commission, felt that they were reasonable and not
anything out of the ordinary that the church could not
comply 
with. 
 
A lot 
of 
the 
comments 
and 
the
recommendations -- well, some of the comments and
recommendations that have been made by the Staff Report
-- the applicant has already proceeded with making the
necessary corrections or following through and complying
with the Staff Report.
"If there is anything in addition to what was
submitted in the Staff Report, the client, the applicant
is not aware at this time.  But I must say that the
surveyors have not been contacted regarding a lot of the
17
changes yet that have to be made on the Site Plan.  Those
will be submitted to the surveyor this week so that all
of the Site Plan can be brought up to date according to
the Staff Report."
(Emphasis added).
This record demonstrates, to the standard of clear and
convincing evidence, the lack of supervision of Carole Cloud by
Hallmon.  Hallmon did not know whether the strategy was to rest on
the record or whether a presentation, in addition to the clientUs
previously filed justification and the technical staffUs report,
would be made at the hearing.  It is also apparent from HallmonUs
immediate and later deferrals to Carole Cloud that Hallmon did not
know how to respond to any questions that the examiner may have
had.  The hearing record demonstrates by clear and convincing
evidence an abdication of supervision by Hallmon and that the lay
legal assistant was unauthorizedly practicing law.
The petition for disciplinary action also charged that Hallmon
violated Rule 1.1 by failing to handle the ChurchUs zoning
application with competence.  Under the facts of this case the
alleged lack of competence is simply a byproduct of HallmonUs lack
of supervision of the legal assistant.  The conduct underlying the
charges of violating Rules 1.1 and 5.5 is the same.  For purposes
of an appropriate sanction we consider the Rule 5.5 violation to be
the more serious under these facts.
18
II
The facts concerning the charge of HallmonUs violating Rule
8.1(b) begin with RomineUs written complaint to Bar Counsel dated
September 21, 1992.  By letter of September 25, 1992, an Assistant
Bar Counsel requested that Hallmon explain precisely his
relationship with Eric Cloud.  After receiving certain of the
exhibits to RomineUs complaint, Hallmon, on October 15, 1992, wrote
a two-page, single-spaced letter, the gist of which was the
following:  
"If the client has a matter in Maryland, the case is
referred to me.  Under my direct supervision, most
pleadings are prepared by the Clouds and reviewed and
approved by me before filing."
Thereafter, on November 2, 1992, Hallmon wrote a twelve-page,
point-by-point critique of RomineUs letter of complaint.  In his
response Hallmon stated that he had reviewed the findings of the
Commission staff with the client and that he did not believe that
a presentation was required at the September 1992 zoning hearing
because of the presentation that had been made supporting the
original application in 1986.
In response to a November 9 inquiry from an Assistant Bar
Counsel, Hallmon on November 30 advised that he did not use
timesheets, and he furnished Bar Counsel with a list of the matters
that he had handled for Cloud & Henderson.  
In the spring of 1993 an investigator from Bar CounselUs office
had been interviewing individuals involved in the Romine complaint.
19
The investigator then telephoned Hallmon seeking an appointment to
interview him.  The investigator explained that some of the
information that Hallmon had furnished in his written responses to
Bar Counsel did not coincide with some of what the interviewees had
stated.  Hallmon expressed confusion about the process to the
investigator.  Hallmon took the position that Bar Counsel should
request the interview and also assure Hallmon that he had received
all that he was entitled to receive from Bar CounselUs file.  An
Assistant Bar Counsel, by letter of June 3, 1993, wrote to Hallmon
requesting that Hallmon meet with the investigator to discuss
HallmonUs "relationship and arrangements with Mr. Cloud generally
and the zoning hearing matter specifically."  Assistant Bar Counsel
advised that, if the interview were denied, he would recommend an
Inquiry Panel which could subpoena Hallmon.  In a two-page, single-
spaced letter of June 11, Hallmon declined to be interviewed.  He
stated that his submitting to an interview would not advance the
matter procedurally, but that convening an Inquiry Panel would
provide him the opportunity to clear his name.  
There is a strong inference that Bar CounselUs desire to
interview Hallmon had as much, or more, to do with an investigation
by Bar Counsel of Eric Cloud than it did with the specifics of the
Romine complaint.  Even if we assume that the purpose of the
interview was primarily an investigation of Eric Cloud, that is not
defensive to the charge of violating Rule 8.1(b).  A demand by a
disciplinary authority for information, the refusal of which is
20
sanctionable under Rule 8.1(b), may relate to the conduct of the
lawyer from whom the information is sought, or it may relate to the
conduct of another lawyer.  Comment to Rule 8.1 ("The duty imposed
by this Rule applies to a lawyerUs own ... discipline as well as
that of others"); see Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics § 12.10.2
(1986).  Further, Hallmon has raised no issue of client
confidentiality or of self-incrimination.
HallmonUs exceptions related to the Rule 8.1(b) violation are
overruled.
III
At the Inquiry Panel hearing Hallmon testified that, from an
office in his home, he represented clients who had come to him
directly, in addition to the services that he performed for clients
of Eric Cloud.  The matters of most of HallmonUs personal clients
were contingent fee cases.  Hallmon admitted to the Panel that he
did not have a trust account with "the Clouds."  Nor in his own
practice did Hallmon "set up a trust account because [he] didnUt
have any client funds to maintain."  He further admitted to the
Panel, however, that he had received fees in advance, for work to
be done, and that under those circumstances he deposited the funds
into his own private account.
At the Inquiry Panel hearing Hallmon was also asked the
following:
"If Bar Counsel were to come in, knock on your door
today and say where are your records showing all the
21
money that clients from the day you hung up your shingle
through today, where are your records showing all the
money that clients have given you?  Give me those
records.  Could you give me those records?"
HallmonUs response was, "No."  
Consequently, the charges involving the failure to maintain a
trust account were established.
IV
Hallmon excepts generally to Judge McKeeUs report, alleging
that the hearing was unfair.  In support of that contention Hallmon
argues that Judge McKee refused to permit Hallmon to call as a
witness the Assistant Bar Counsel who presented the case in support
of the charges against Hallmon.  HallmonUs exception is overruled
for two reasons.  First, Judge McKeeUs ruling is not erroneous.  Bar
Counsel had argued that HallmonUs attempt to make Bar Counsel a
witness was for the purpose of excluding Bar Counsel from further
participation as an advocate in the proceeding.  See Rule 3.7.
Judge McKee thereupon required Hallmon to make a proffer
demonstrating the necessity for Bar CounselUs testimony, but Hallmon
was unable adequately to do so.  Second, even if we assume that
Judge McKeeUs ruling was erroneous, the error was not prejudicial
to Hallmon.  Hallmon sought to interrogate the Assistant Bar
Counsel about a different complaint from that of Romine that was
also heard before Judge McKee in the same proceedings.  Judge McKee
found that Bar Counsel had not established the violation charged in
the other complaint.  
22
V
We now consider the appropriate sanction.  Hallmon has no
record of prior disciplinary violations, but he has managed to
commit three relatively serious violations very early in his legal
career.  In acting as counsel for himself in the defense of these
disciplinary charges Hallmon has followed the strategy of pointing
to the mote in the eye of his accusers, without recognizing his own
shortcomings.  Blending all of these factors, we impose the
following sanction.
1.
Hallmon is suspended from the practice of law for ninety
days, effective beginning thirty days after the filing of this
opinion.
2.
Hallmon shall:
(a)
Within five days from the date of filing of this
opinion provide Bar Counsel with the names and addresses of
respondentUs current clients and identify client matters currently
pending in court; and 
(b)
Within fifteen days from the date of filing of this
opinion provide Bar Counsel with a copy of a letter mailed by
Hallmon to each such client, and to counsel for any adverse party
or to any unrepresented adverse party, notifying them of this
suspension.
3.
Termination of HallmonUs suspension is further subject to
HallmonUs having satisfied Bar Counsel that the following conditions
have been met: 
23
(a)
Hallmon shall have registered, and prepaid the
tuition, at an accredited law school for a course on the Maryland
LawyersU Rules of Professional Conduct, or other Legal Ethics
course, and Hallmon shall have represented and warranted to Bar
Counsel, and thereby, to this Court, that Hallmon will diligently
pursue and successfully complete that course.  Breach of this
representation and warranty may be considered to be a violation of
one or more of the Maryland LawyersU Rules of Professional Conduct;
(b)
Hallmon shall have registered, and prepaid the
tuition, for a course, approved by Bar Counsel, on law office
management, including training in accounting for escrow funds, and
Hallmon shall have represented and warranted to Bar Counsel, and
thereby, to this Court, that Hallmon will diligently pursue and
successfully complete that course.  Breach of this representation
and warranty may be considered to be a violation of one or more of
the Maryland LawyersU Rules of Professional Conduct;
(c)
Hallmon shall have engaged, at his expense, a
monitor, acceptable to Bar Counsel, who will oversee both HallmonUs
practice of law and HallmonUs accounting for funds entrusted to him,
subject to further order of this Court;
(d)
Hallmon shall have complied with paragraph 2 of this
order; and
(e)
Hallmon shall have paid all costs assessed pursuant
to the mandate in this matter.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL
PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK
OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING THE COSTS
OF ALL TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO
MARYLAND RULE BV15 c FOR WHICH SUM
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF
MARYLAND 
AGAINST 
MORGAN 
JOSEPH
HALLMON.