Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Oswinkle

Citation: 364 Md. 182

Docket Number: 3ag/00

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 24-C-00-001664
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket AG No. 3
September Term, 2000
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v.
GEORGE MILTON OSWINKLE
Bell, C.J.
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (retired, specially 
assigned)
JJ.
Opinion by Raker, J.
Filed:   May 11, 2001
The Attorney Grievance Commission, through Bar Counsel, charged Respondent,
George Milton Oswinkle, with violating Rule 8.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional
1Maryland Rule 8.1 (Bar Admissions and Disciplinary Matters) states, in relevant part:
[A] lawyer 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 1.6.
Conduct.1  Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-709(b), we referred the charge to Judge M. Brooke
Murdock of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to conduct a hearing and make findings of
fact and conclusions of law.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing judge concluded that
Respondent had violated Rule 8.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. 
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition and four exceptions to the hearing judge’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
I.
We set forth Judge Murdock’s findings of fact and conclusions of law below.
FINDINGS OF FACT
“The Court finds that the following facts have been established by clear
and convincing evidence: 1
______________________
1 The exhibits submitted by Petitioner and Respondent are listed in Appendix A attached to this Opinion.
-2-
“In 1988, Oswinkle represented Denise Kaspar in connection with her
personal bankruptcy.  Contemporaneously, Ms. Kaspar was involved in a
contested divorce proceeding, but Oswinkle was not her counsel.  On April 15,
1998, at a confirmation hearing in Bankruptcy Court, Ms. Kaspar’s ex-husband’s
attorney objected to the court confirming Ms. Kaspar’s financial plan.  At the
conclusion of the proceeding, the attorney approached Ms. Kaspar about matters
relating to the divorce case.2  Ms. Kaspar was upset by the questioning and
believed that her ex-husband’s attorney should have spoken to Oswinkle before
approaching her.  When Ms. Kaspar complained to him about opposing
counsel’s conduct, Oswinkle advised her that she could, if she wished, write a
letter to the Attorney Grievance Commission.  The client lodged a complaint
against her ex-husband’s attorney with the Attorney Grievance Commission and
a file was opened.  
________________________
2 Mr. Oswinkle testified that he believed that counsel for the ex-husband in the family law matters knew Oswinkle was not handling
the family law case.
“On August 13, 1998, Assistant Bar Counsel, John C. Broderick, Esq.
sent a letter to Oswinkle and requested that he contact Mr. Broderick.3
Thereafter, Mr. Broderick and his investigator, John W. Reburn, made several
 additional efforts to reach Oswinkle on October 6, 1998,4 November 5, 1998,5
and January 15, 1999.6  Additionally, Assistant Bar Counsel attempted to contact
Oswinkle by telephone on January 12, 1998, January 13, 1998 and February 16,
-3-
1999.  Oswinkle did not respond to Assistant Bar Counsel or the investigator as
requested.
__________________________
3 Plaintiff’s Exhibit #1
4 Plaintiff’s Exhibit #2
5 Plaintiff’s Exhibit #3
6 Plaintiff’s Exhibit #5
“On March 16, 1999, Bar Counsel wrote and advised Oswinkle that, based
on his failure to respond in connection with the previously described matter, a
file had been opened naming him as the respondent.7  In the letter, Bar Counsel
alleged that Oswinkle was in violation of the Maryland Rules of Professional
Conduct 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) because he had failed to respond to a lawful demand
for information from a disciplinary authority and his “conduct was prejudicial
to the administration of justice.”  Oswinkle did not respond to the March 16,
1999 letter.  Bar Counsel sent another letter on April 6, 1999, by certified mail,
informing Oswinkle that if a response was not received within ten days, the
matter would be forwarded to an Inquiry Panel.8  Oswinkle called Bar Counsel
on April 23, 1999 and April 26, 1999.9  Bar Counsel returned the call on April
27, 1999, but was unable to reach Oswinkle until April 28, 1999.10  At that time,
Oswinkle told Bar Counsel that he was overwhelmed by work and would respond
to Bar Counsel’s letter sometime during the week of May 3, 1999.11  When no
response was received from Oswinkle, an Inquiry Panel was convened on
-4-
November 15, 1999.12  The Inquiry Panel hearing resulted in a recommendation
that charges pursuant to Rule 8.1(b) be filed against Oswinkle.
______________________
7 Plaintiff’s Exhibit #7
8 Plaintiff’s Exhibit #8
9 Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9
10 Plaintiff’s Exhibits #10
11 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10
12 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11
“Oswinkle testified before the grievance panel that at the time he was
receiving communications from Petitioner, he did not realize how serious a
complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission was.  Moreover, he hoped
that Ms. Kaspar’s original complaint and the subsequent complaint against him
“would go away.”13
______________________
13 Inquiry Panel Transcript p.5/Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11
“The evidence at the hearing before this Court revealed that Oswinkle
graduated from the University of Baltimore School of Law in 1975 and was
admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1979.  Oswinkle worked as a probation agent
for the State of Maryland between 1970 and 1990.  Presently, he practices law
and handles general litigation matters for the law firm of Mazelis and
Werthamer, P.A. 
-5-
“At the hearing before this Court, it was clear that Oswinkle was
embarrassed by the charges and now recognizes the importance of cooperating
with Bar Counsel in its investigation of complaints against attorneys.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“The Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.1(b) provides, in
relevant part, that a lawyer shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand
for information from a disciplinary authority.  While there are exceptions, none
were asserted or apply to the facts of this case.14  Further, the obligation to
cooperate with an Attorney Grievance Commission investigation extends to acts
against others, as well as to complaints against oneself.  Attorney Grievance
Commission v. Hallmon, 343 Md. 390 (1996).
_________________________
14 At the Inquiry Panel, Oswinkle did express a concern that any statement he made to the investigator may be in violation of the
attorney/client privilege.  However, at the hearing before this Court, Oswinkle conceded that he should have written to Bar Counsel
stating that he could not comment because of concerns for his client if that was the case. 
“Respondent maintains that while his actions may have been inappropriate
and ill-considered, he did not intend to obstruct or interfere with the
investigation.  The facts prove otherwise.  It was Respondent who indicated to
Ms. Kaspar that if she was concerned about the conduct of a member of the Bar,
she could report that person to the Attorney Grievance Commission.  Then
Respondent proceeds to prevent Petitioner from conducting the very
-6-
2Respondent was never charged with a violation of Rule 8.4 (Misconduct).
investigation he had suggested initially.  If the complaint was meritless, as
Respondent alleges, then an expeditious resolution of the matter was in the best
interest of the public and the attorney against whom the complaint had been
made.  Respondent’s repeated refusal to cooperate demonstrated a disregard of
the spirit and intent of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.  Therefore, this
Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that in failing to respond to
repeated inquiries of Bar Counsel, Respondent has violated Maryland Rule of
Professional Conduct 8.1(b).”
II.
A.  Respondent’s Pro Se Motion to Dismiss
In this Court, Respondent filed a pro se motion to dismiss the petition for failure to
state a cause of action.  He asserts that the petition fails to allege any fact that Respondent
failed to disclose that was necessary to correct a misapprehension in any matter or that
Respondent had any information pertinent to Bar Counsel’s request.  He also maintains that the
petition does not allege any willful misconduct as defined in Rule 8.4.2
We deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss.  Rule 8.1(b) sanctions two distinct types of
conduct.  First, it is a violation of the rule to fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a
misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter.  See Rule 8.1(b).  Second,
-7-
it is a violation of the rule to knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information
from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that the rule does not require disclosure
of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information).  In the
present case, the petition is based on the second prong of the rule, Respondent’s alleged failure
to respond to lawful demands of Bar Counsel.  Therefore, the petition need not allege that
Respondent failed to disclose any fact necessary to correct a misapprehension since that is not
the basis for the complaint.  Nor must the petition allege willful misconduct; Rule 8.1(b)
requires only that the failure to respond be knowing.  See id. 
B.  Respondent’s Exceptions
We turn next to Respondent’s exceptions.  He excepts to the conclusion that his failure
to respond to Bar Counsel’s demands for information was sufficient conduct to violate Rule
8.1.
Rule 8.1 places an obligation on an attorney to respond to a lawful demand from Bar
Counsel.  The rule does not distinguish between attorneys who fail to respond to lawful
demands due to dilatoriness, on the one hand, and those on the other hand, who intentionally
fail to respond.  Moreover, the ultimate resolution of the complaint does not affect the
determination of whether the rule has been violated.  An attorney’s obligation to respond to
lawful demands of Bar Counsel applies when the attorney upon whom the demand is made is
the focus of the investigation or when the investigation relates to the conduct of another
attorney.  We made that point in Attorney Griev. Comm. v. Hallmon, 343 Md. 390, 681 A.2d
510 (1996), when we stated:
-8-
A demand by a disciplinary authority for information, the refusal
of which is 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 lawyer’s own . .
. discipline as well as that of others”); see Wolfram, Modern
Legal Ethics § 12.10.2 (1986).
Id. at 408, 681 A.2d at 519.  See also In re Ojala, 89 N.W.2d 108 (Minn. 1979).  The hearing
judge found that Respondent failed to respond to five letters and three telephone calls from
Assistant Bar Counsel and the investigator.  The hearing judge’s factual findings are prima facie
correct and will not be disturbed on review unless clearly erroneous.  See Attorney Grievance
v. Koven, 361 Md. 337, 342, 761 A.2d 881, 883-84 (2000).  The findings are not clearly
erroneous where they are based on clear and convincing evidence. See id.  We find that clear
and convincing evidence exists to support Judge Murdock’s findings.  Thus, Respondent’s
exception is overruled.
Respondent has filed three additional exceptions.  First, Respondent excepts to the
finding that he “intended to obstruct or interfere with Bar Counsel’s investigation.”  Second,
Respondent excepts to the finding that he “prevent[ed] [Bar Counsel] from conducting the very
investigation he suggested.”  Third, Respondent contends that Judge Murdock erred in finding
that Ms. Trageser was prejudiced by Respondent’s failure to respond to Bar Counsel. 
It is unclear whether Respondent’s exceptions are directed towards the merits of the
petition or to the appropriate sanction to be imposed.  In considering whether Rule 8.1 has been
violated, it is irrelevant whether Respondent intended to obstruct or interfere with Bar
Counsel’s investigation.  Nor does it matter whether Respondent prevented Bar Counsel from
-9-
investigating or, indeed, whether the attorney under investigation was prejudiced by
Respondent’s conduct.  Respondent did not respond to a lawful request from Bar Counsel and
has violated Rule 8.1.  Respondent’s state of mind and the impact of his conduct may be
relevant, however, when we consider an appropriate sanction.
III.
We turn now to the sanction.  In so doing, we are mindful that the purposes of sanctions
are to protect the public, to deter violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and to
maintain the integrity of the legal profession, not to punish the errant attorney.  See Attorney
Grievance v. Cassidy, 362 Md. 689, 698, 766 A.2d 632, 637 (2001); Attorney Grievance v.
Fezell, 361 Md. 234, 254, 760 A.2d 1108, 1109 (2000).  The severity of the sanction depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case.  See Attorney Grievance v. Atkinson, 357 Md.
646, 656, 745 A.2d 1086, 1092 (2000).
Bar Counsel recommends that Respondent be suspended for a period of no less than
sixty days.  Bar Counsel argues that Respondent failed to respond to lawful demands for
information not only in connection with his own complaint, but also with an earlier complaint
against another attorney in which his cooperation was sought.  Respondent requests that we
dismiss the charges.  He argues that he was merely dilatory in responding to Bar Counsel due
to a good faith belief that the investigation should be concluded without his involvement.
Respondent further argues that he did not intend to interfere with Bar Counsel’s investigation
and that his actions did not harm any clients or other attorneys.  Respondent also notes that he
-10-
has been a member of the Maryland Bar since 1979 and has no prior history of discipline for
professional misconduct.
We conclude that suspension is inappropriate, but that discipline is warranted for
Respondent’s refusal to cooperate with Bar Counsel’s investigation.  See Fezell, 361 Md. at
255, 760 A.2d at 1119.  We find it significant, however, that this is Respondent’s only
disciplinary proceeding, that he did not intend to frustrate the investigation, and that no one was
actually prejudiced by his conduct.  Under the circumstances presented herein, a reprimand is
the appropriate sanction.  See Attorney Grievance v. Bridges, 360 Md. 489, 759 A.2d 233
(2000); Attorney Grievance v. Tolar, 357 Md. 569, 745 A.2d 1045 (2000).
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 
16-715(C), 
FOR
WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED
IN 
FAVOR 
OF 
THE 
ATTORNEY
GRIEVANCE 
COMMISSION 
OF
MARYLAND 
AGAINST 
GEORGE
MILTON OSWINKLE.