Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Butler

Citation: 

Docket Number: 14ag/16

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2017-10-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lance Butler, III, Misc. Docket AG No. 14, September 
Term 2016 
 
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT — DISCIPLINE — DISBARMENT — Respondent, 
Lance Butler, III, violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 and 
8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d).  These violations stemmed from Respondent’s conduct in falsifying 
and failing to file tax forms for multiple tax years; intentionally misrepresenting to his 
government employer the existence of, and earnings from, his private law practice and job 
as a personal trainer; misrepresenting his employment status to obtain a loan deferral; and 
lying under oath at a deposition and hearing in a prior attorney discipline proceeding.  
Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct. 
 
 
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County 
 
Case No. CAE16-25945 
Argued:  September 7, 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. Docket AG No. 14 
 
September Term, 2016 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 
COMMISSION OF MARYLAND 
 
v. 
 
LANCE BUTLER, III 
 
 
 
 
Barbera, C.J., 
 
Greene 
Adkins 
McDonald 
Watts 
Hotten 
Getty, 
 
               JJ. 
 
 
 
                 Opinion by Barbera, C.J. 
 
 
 
 
 
Filed:  October 23, 2017
 
 
 
On June 22, 2016, Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland 
(“AGC”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or 
Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Respondent, Lance Butler, III.  The Petition alleged 
violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 3.3 
(Candor Toward the Tribunal) and 8.4 (Misconduct).1  Those violations stemmed from 
Respondent materially misrepresenting the existence of his private law practice and the 
status of his personal finances; falsifying his time sheets at his job with a federal agency; 
submitting false testimony during his deposition and hearing in a prior disciplinary 
proceeding; making material misrepresentations to the Inspector General of the federal 
agency at which Respondent was employed; and, for multiple years, failing to file certain 
tax returns and making misrepresentations on others. 
Pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-752(a) and 16-757, this Court designated the 
Honorable Beverly J. Woodard (“the hearing judge”) to hold an evidentiary hearing and 
make findings of fact and conclusions of law.  On September 6, 2016, Respondent was 
served, pursuant to Rule 19-723(b), with the Petition and “Petitioner’s Request for 
Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents.”  Respondent failed to respond to 
either.  On October 6, 2016, Bar Counsel filed a Motion for Order of Default and Military 
Service Affidavit.  On November 28, 2016, the hearing judge entered an Order of Default 
                                              
1 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 
(“MLRPC”) were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and 
recodified, without substantive change, in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules.  Because we 
judge Respondent’s conduct against the extant law at the time of his actions, we refer to 
the MLRPC throughout. 
 
2 
and mailed a copy to Respondent.  The order included notice to the parties of the scheduled 
hearing.  Respondent did not move to vacate the Order of Default. 
The hearing judge held a hearing on January 13, 2017.  Respondent did not appear 
at that hearing.  The hearing judge deemed Respondent to have admitted both the averments 
in the Petition and the facts set forth in Exhibits 1–37 attached to Bar Counsel’s Request 
for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, and treated all matters admitted as 
conclusively established.  See Md. Rules 2-323(e), 2-424(b), (d); Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Bellamy, 453 Md. 377, 385 (2017); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harmon, 
433 Md. 612, 619 (2013).  The hearing judge issued written findings of fact and proposed 
conclusions of law, concluding that Respondent had violated MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4(a), (b), 
(c), and (d). 
No exceptions were filed.  Respondent made no written recommendation regarding 
sanction; Bar Counsel recommended disbarment.  On September 7, 2017, we heard oral 
argument, at which only Bar Counsel appeared.  On that same date, we issued a per curiam 
order disbarring Respondent.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, ___ Md. ___ (2017), 
2017 WL 3910147, at *1 (Md. Sept. 7, 2017).  We explain in this opinion the reasons for 
that action. 
I 
A.  The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact 
1.  Background 
In 1984, when he was seventeen years old, Respondent began working for the 
United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) as a typist.  From 1984 
 
3 
to 2015, he held various non-legal positions at USAID.  He continued to work in a non-
legal capacity at USAID while attending law school and after being admitted to the Bar of 
Maryland in 2007 and the District of Columbia Bar in 2010. 
In addition to his employment at USAID, Respondent maintained a law office in 
Prince George’s County, Maryland.  Respondent was temporarily suspended from the 
practice of law in Maryland on March 20, 2014, for failure to pay the required annual Client 
Protection Fund and AGC assessments.  He remained in that status at the time of the hearing. 
2.  The First AGC Complaint 
In April 2012, the USAID Office of the Inspector General received a complaint 
about Respondent.  The complaint, which was submitted anonymously, alleged, among 
other things, that Respondent falsified his time sheets and purported to attend fabricated 
USAID meetings in order to spend time furthering his private law practice; improperly 
rendered, and received payment for, legal advice to his co-workers during work hours; 
provided false information about unemployment to his federal loan servicer to obtain a 
deferral; and failed to pay back income taxes. 
The Inspector General referred the matter to the AGC, which sought to contact 
Respondent to elicit a reply to the allegations.  After multiple attempts over many months, 
Bar Counsel’s investigator finally made contact.  Bar Counsel subsequently charged 
Respondent with violating MLRPC 8.1(b)2 for knowingly failing to respond to a 
                                              
2 MLRPC 8.1(b) provides, in pertinent part, that “a lawyer . . . in connection with a 
disciplinary matter, shall not . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for 
information from . . . [a] disciplinary authority[.]” 
 
4 
disciplinary authority.  Following an evidentiary hearing in January 2014, the hearing judge 
found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated MLRPC 8.1.  In an 
opinion filed on January 27, 2015, this Court reprimanded Respondent.  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, 441 Md. 352 (2015).  As we shall see, the substance of the 
allegations in the anonymous complaint, rather than Respondent’s failure to reply to Bar 
Counsel’s inquiries regarding that complaint, are the subject of the current proceeding. 
3.  The USAID Inspector General’s Investigation 
In April 2014, while the prior AGC proceedings were ongoing, the Inspector 
General began its own investigation of Respondent’s conduct.  The Reporting Agent 
assigned to the case reviewed documents and records and conducted interviews related to 
the allegations.  Among those documents and records analyzed were Respondent’s OGE 
Form 450 (“Confidential Financial Disclosure Report”); search results from Maryland 
Judiciary Case Search and Public Access Court Electronic Records (PACER); the websites 
of the District of Columbia and Maryland State Bar Associations; documents provided by 
Access Group, Inc., the federal loan processing company referenced in the anonymous 
complaint; documents, emails, and personal tax return forms found on Respondent’s 
government computer; data from Respondent’s parking logs; and records from 
Respondent’s personnel security file at USAID.  The Reporting Agent interviewed 
numerous witnesses, including Respondent’s former clients and employees of USAID. 
On March 10, 2015, the Reporting Agent interviewed Respondent.  During the first 
hour, Respondent made multiple material misrepresentations to the Reporting Agent.  The 
Reporting Agent then revealed that she had been investigating Respondent since early 2014 
 
5 
and asked if he would like to revise his prior statements.  Respondent admitted that he had 
provided untruthful answers. 
After its investigation was complete, the Inspector General transmitted a final report 
to the AGC. 
4.  Additional Findings 
a.  Financial disclosure form 
From 2007 to 2014, in addition to being employed full time by USAID, Respondent 
maintained a private law practice in Maryland and represented clients in roughly fifty 
separate matters in court.  Respondent also worked part time as a personal fitness trainer 
from 2010 to 2014. 
As a federal government employee, Respondent was required to file an annual ethics 
disclosure form with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics to report certain financial 
information and outside activities that might present a conflict of interest.  On February 16, 
2012, he signed and filed a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report in which he falsely 
stated that he had no reportable assets or sources of income, liabilities, outside positions, 
agreements, or arrangements for himself outside of USAID, and he certified that those 
statements were “true, complete, and correct to the best of [his] knowledge.”  Moreover, 
he failed to file the required financial disclosure reports for the years 2010, 2011, 2013, 
and 2014. 
b.  Unemployment deferment request 
In June 2014, the Inspector General reviewed documents provided by Access 
Group, Inc., Respondent’s student loan servicer.  In September 2010, Respondent became 
 
6 
delinquent on his student loan payments.  He filled out and signed an Unemployment 
Deferment Request, which indicated that as of September 25, 2010, he qualified to have his 
payments deferred because he “became unemployed or began working less than full time” 
and was “diligently seeking but unable to find full-time employment in the United States . . . 
in any field or at any salary or responsibility level.”  Respondent also certified that he had 
“made at least 6 diligent attempts to find full-time employment in the most recent 6 months.” 
In January 2011, Respondent faxed a copy of the Request to Access Group, Inc.  He 
certified that the information he provided was “true and correct,” despite a clear warning 
on the form that “[a]ny person who knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation 
on this form” would be “subject to penalties that may include fines, imprisonment, or 
both[.]”  Respondent later admitted to the Reporting Agent that he was employed full-time 
when he filled out the form and that he knew it was illegal to falsify information on a 
federal loan document. 
c.  Tax returns 
Respondent “intentionally failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 
2008, 2009 and 2010.”  He also “failed to disclose to USAID that he had not filed state 
income tax returns for tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010,” and he “intentionally failed to pay 
his income taxes for tax years including 2009, 2010 and 2013.”  On November 20, 2012, 
Respondent falsely stated to the USAID Office of Security that he had rectified his 
delinquent tax filings and payments.  The hearing judge further found: 
In July 2013, the Respondent hand-delivered federal tax returns for 2009 and 
2010 to the Office of Security.  There was no evidence that the returns had 
actually been filed.  The Respondent failed to claim his law practice on his 
 
7 
2009 return and misrepresented his associated earnings on his 2010 return.  
In August 2013, the Adjudications Chief of the Office of Security issued the 
Respondent a letter notifying him that his security clearance had been 
downgraded to “conditional” due to the Respondent having over $100,000.00 
in delinquent debt and $1,127.93 in tax debt.  The Chief advised the 
Respondent that he was to provide proof of filing his federal returns for tax 
years 2009 and 2010 and state returns for tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010 by 
August 31, 2013.  The Respondent failed to provide the requested 
documentation. 
 
In his interview with the Reporting Agent on March 10, 2015, Respondent admitted to 
knowingly falsifying his tax returns. 
d.  National security questionnaire 
Respondent also intentionally misrepresented his financial status on a Questionnaire 
for National Security Positions, Standard Form 86, on September 12, 2012.  In particular, 
he did not disclose that of forty-one active accounts, ten were in collection status, totaling 
over $100,000 in past due accounts.  Further, Respondent did not disclose his failure to file 
federal or state income tax returns for tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010. 
e.  Theft of services 
Respondent falsified numerous time sheets and submitted them to USAID.  
Specifically, the hearing judge found: 
A review of the Respondent’s time and attendance sheets, as compared to his 
court appearances and estimated transit time, revealed that approximately 
200 hours in which the Respondent claimed to be working at USAID, on sick 
leave, or on jury duty[,] he was, in fact, working as an attorney for his private 
law practice.  The number of hours amounted to a loss of approximately 
$9,500 to the government.  Additionally, the Respondent used his 
government computer for his private law practice and worked for his private 
clients while present at USAID. 
 
 
8 
(Citations omitted).  The documents recovered from Respondent’s government computer 
and email account revealed numerous files concerning Respondent’s private law practice 
and Maryland court cases in which Respondent was identified as the representing attorney. 
f.  False testimony 
On January 10, 2014, Respondent was deposed by Bar Counsel in his prior 
disciplinary matter, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, 441 Md. 352 (2015).  
Respondent testified in the deposition that he had reported Bar Counsel’s investigation to 
the Inspector General.  Respondent then testified at the hearing on the charged violations 
of the MLRPC on January 15, 2014, that he “self-reported [the AGC’s investigation] to the 
[Inspector General]” and that there were “[n]o issues.”  In his interview with the Reporting 
Agent on March 10, 2015, Respondent admitted that he never reported the AGC’s 
investigation to the Inspector General and that his testimony stating otherwise was false. 
g.  Bar Counsel’s investigation 
USAID suspended Respondent’s security clearance on March 16, 2015.  Shortly 
thereafter, Respondent resigned from USAID.  On August 13, 2015, Bar Counsel received 
a complaint from the Office of the Inspector General.  On August 28, 2015, Bar Counsel 
sent a letter to Respondent at the address listed in the Client Protection Fund and requested 
a reply.  The letter was returned as undeliverable.  Bar Counsel then attempted to serve 
Respondent at all known addresses but was unsuccessful. 
B.  The Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law 
Based on the record and the above-summarized findings of fact, the hearing judge 
concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated MLRPC 3.3 and 
 
9 
8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). 
II 
Standard of Review 
“In attorney discipline proceedings, this Court has original and complete jurisdiction 
and conducts an independent review of the record.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Good, 
445 Md. 490, 512 (2015) (citation omitted).  We accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact 
unless we determine that those findings are clearly erroneous.  Id.  “A hearing judge’s 
factual finding is not clearly erroneous if there is any competent material evidence to 
support it.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136, 169 (2014) (citation 
omitted). Neither party filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  We may “treat the findings of fact as established[.]”  Md. Rule 16-
759(b)(2)(A).3  We review de novo the hearing judge’s conclusions of law, and we 
ultimately decide the appropriate sanction for an attorney’s alleged misconduct.  Md. Rule 
16-759(b)(1), (c); Good, 445 Md. at 512. 
III 
Based on our independent review of the record, we agree with the hearing judge that 
Respondent violated MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). 
Rule 3.3:  Candor Toward the Tribunal 
 
Rule 3.3, in pertinent part, provides the following: 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: 
                                              
3 Maryland Rule 16-759 has been recodified without substantive change as Maryland Rule 
19-741. 
 
10 
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false 
statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the 
lawyer[.] 
 
In other words, an attorney “must be candid at all times with a tribunal or inquiry board.”  
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Joseph, 422 Md. 670, 699 (2011).  Accordingly, a lawyer 
violates Rule 3.3 when he or she gives “false and misleading testimony.”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. White, 354 Md. 346, 365 (1999). 
The record is clear that Respondent violated Rule 3.3(a)(1).  In March 2015, 
Respondent admitted to the Reporting Agent that he falsely testified, at his January 2014 
disciplinary hearing, about having self-reported Bar Counsel’s investigation to the 
Inspector General at USAID.  Such testimony constituted a knowing and intentional 
misrepresentation of fact to the tribunal.  Therefore, we agree with the hearing judge and 
conclude that Respondent violated Rule 3.3. 
Rule 8.4:  Misconduct 
Rule 8.4, in relevant part, provides the following: 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional 
Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through 
the acts of another; 
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; 
(c) engage 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation; 
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.] 
 
As the hearing judge correctly found, Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) by committing 
multiple criminal acts reflecting unfavorably on his honesty.  On February 16, 2012, 
 
11 
Respondent violated 18 U.S.C. § 10014 when he submitted a Confidential Financial 
Disclosure Report that he knew contained false information.  Respondent also violated 
§ 1001 by making material misrepresentations to the Reporting Agent on March 10, 2015. 
Respondent committed multiple violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7203.5  First, he 
intentionally failed to file income tax returns for tax years 2009, 2010, and 2013.  
                                              
4 In pertinent part, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, “Statements or entries generally,” provides the 
following: 
(a) [W]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, 
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, 
knowingly and willfully— 
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a 
material fact; 
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or 
representation; or 
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to 
contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or 
entry; 
shall be fined under this title [or] imprisoned not more than 5 years[.] 
 
5 26 U.S.C. § 7203, “Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax,” provides 
the following: 
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or 
required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make 
a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to 
pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply 
such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, 
in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor 
and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 
in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, 
together with the costs of prosecution.  In the case of any person with respect 
to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not 
apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax 
under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a 
willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this 
section shall be applied by substituting “felony” for “misdemeanor” and “5 
years” for “1 year”. 
 
 
12 
Respondent also made material misrepresentations and omissions in his tax returns in other 
years:  he failed to disclose income from personal training for tax years 1989 to 2000 or 
2002; he failed to disclose the existence of, or income from, his private law practice for tax 
year 2009, and he incorrectly reported his income from that practice in tax years 2010 and 
2011; he intentionally failed to timely file his federal and state income tax returns for tax 
years 2009, 2010, and 2013 and intentionally failed to fully pay taxes in those years; and 
he knowingly misstated to the USAID Office of Security the status of his federal and state 
income tax returns. 
In addition, Respondent violated 20 U.S.C. § 10976 when he knowingly 
misrepresented his employment status in the Unemployment Deferment Request, dated 
October 25, 2010, and submitted to Access Group, Inc., in January 2011.  That submission 
was also a violation of the perjury provision of Maryland Code Annotated, Criminal Law 
§ 9-101.7  Respondent further violated § 9-101 by filing his falsified Confidential Financial 
                                              
6 In relevant part, 20 U.S.C. § 1097, “Criminal penalties,” provides the following: 
(a) In general 
Any person who knowingly and willfully embezzles, misapplies, steals, 
obtains by fraud, false statement, or forgery, or fails to refund any funds, 
assets, or property provided or insured under this subchapter . . . or attempts 
to so embezzle, misapply, steal, obtain by fraud, false statement or forgery, 
or fail to refund any funds, assets, or property, shall be fined not more than 
$20,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, except if the 
amount so embezzled, misapplied, stolen, obtained by fraud, false statement, 
or forgery, or failed to be refunded does not exceed $200, then the fine shall 
not be more than $5,000 and imprisonment shall not exceed one year, or both. 
 
7 In pertinent part, Maryland Code Annotated, Criminal Law § 9-101, “Perjury,” provides 
the following: 
(a) Prohibited.  —  A person may not willfully and falsely make an oath or 
affirmation as to a material fact: 
 
13 
Disclosure Report; by testifying falsely on January 10, 2014, during his deposition; and by 
testifying falsely on January 15, 2014, at his hearing. 
These transgressions, taken either separately or together, constitute clear and 
convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) by engaging in criminal activity 
that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and general fitness to act as a 
representative of the legal profession. 
Bar Counsel also charged Respondent with violating 8.4(c).  “As used in this Rule, 
a misrepresentation is made when the attorney knows the statement is false, and cannot be 
the product of mistake, misunderstanding, or inadvertency.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n 
v. Dore, 433 Md. 685, 698 (2013) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zeiger, 428 Md. 
546, 556 (2012)).  Respondent admitted that on multiple occasions he knew that he was 
submitting false information.  We therefore agree with the hearing judge that Respondent 
violated Rule 8.4(c); each contravention of Rule 8.4(b) described above also constitutes a 
violation of 8.4(c) because each act involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pak, 400 Md. 567, 606 (2007) 
(“Willfully providing false information in a deposition or in courtroom proceedings is a 
clear violation of [Rule 8.4(c)].”); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Worsham, 441 Md. 105, 
                                              
(1) if the false swearing is perjury at common law; 
(2) in an affidavit required by any state, federal, or local law; 
(3) in an affidavit made to induce a court or officer to pass an account or 
claim; 
(4) in an affidavit required by any state, federal, or local government or 
governmental official with legal authority to require the issuance of 
an affidavit; or 
(5) in an affidavit or affirmation made under the Maryland Rules. 
 
14 
129 (2014) (“[T]he repeated failure to file income tax returns is ‘a dishonest act, and 
reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law.’” 
(quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Atkinson, 357 Md. 646, 655 (2000)).  Moreover, 
Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) by submitting falsified timesheets to USAID. 
In light of the above, we have no difficulty concluding that Respondent’s conduct 
was also prejudicial to the administration of justice and brought the legal profession into 
disrepute, in violation of Rule 8.4(d).  See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rand, 411 
Md. 83, 96 (2009) (“In general, an attorney violates [Rule] 8.4(d) when his or her conduct 
impacts negatively the public’s perception or efficacy of the courts or legal 
profession. . . .  Dishonest conduct by an attorney also may be prejudicial to the 
administration of justice.”); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507, 520 
(2009) (attorney violated Rule 8.4(d) by filing a false document with federal immigration 
authorities); Worsham, 441 Md. at 130 (“Even though it does not directly injure a client, 
the willful failure to file returns or pay taxes is also prejudicial to the administration of 
justice because it cheats and defrauds the government.” (citation omitted)). 
Finally, because we determine that Respondent violated multiple provisions of the 
MLRPC, Respondent necessarily committed several violations of Rule 8.4(a). 
IV 
The Sanction 
The fundamental aim of attorney discipline is well established—“to protect the 
public, not to punish the erring attorney.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rees, 396 Md. 
248, 254–55 (2006).  In these cases, “[w]e are guided by our ‘interest in protecting the 
 
15 
public and the public’s confidence in the legal profession.’”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n 
v. Lewis, 437 Md. 308, 329 (2014) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 
387 Md. 565, 595 (2005)).  The proper discipline for an attorney depends on the facts and 
circumstances of each case, and as such, sanctions should be “commensurate with the 
nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed.”  
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stein, 373 Md. 531, 537 (2003). 
Here, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s multiple violations 
of the MLRPC.  Among other violations, Respondent submitted false testimony on two 
occasions; falsified state and federal forms and disclosures; and lied to the USAID Office 
of the Inspector General to cover up his acts of deceit.  This Court has emphasized that 
“candor by a lawyer, in any capacity, is one of the most important character traits of a 
member of the Bar.”  Joseph, 422 Md. at 699 (citation omitted). 
Respondent’s prolonged course of dishonest and criminal behavior falls squarely on 
the spectrum of conduct for which disbarment is, and has been previously considered to 
be, appropriate.  See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barnett, 440 Md. 254, 270 
(2014) (“This Court has held that intentional dishonest conduct by an attorney is almost 
beyond excuse[.]” (citation omitted)).  In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Zodrow, we 
disbarred an attorney who, among other things, failed to make relevant disclosures and 
provided false testimony to the court during his personal bankruptcy proceeding.  419 Md. 
286, 299–300 (2011).  We also disbarred an attorney who repeatedly and intentionally 
failed to timely file federal tax returns over the course of roughly fourteen years.  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Katz, 443 Md. 389 (2015).  Respondent’s conduct, of which 
 
16 
repeatedly failing to file state and federal tax returns is but a part, goes far beyond the 
behavior held to warrant disbarment in Katz. 
Even considering that Respondent eventually admitted that he engaged in a 
prolonged course of fraudulent and criminal behavior, disbarment is generally the sanction 
for engaging in intentionally dishonest conduct.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418 (2001).  And, given that the dishonest behavior also 
involved falsely testifying before a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3, as was the case in 
Zodrow, disbarment is required. 
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we issued a per curiam order disbarring 
Respondent on September 7, 2017.