Case Title: Reinstatement of Wyatt

Citation: 342 Md. 117

Docket Number: 58m/92

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 1996-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF THE
:
IN THE 
  REINSTATEMENT OF
:
COURT OF APPEALS 
:
OF MARYLAND
MAURICE ROCHE WYATT
:
MISC. DOCKET (SUBTITLE BV)
:
NO. 58, SEPTEMBER TERM, 1992
 
            ORDER
On April 16, 1982, the Court disbarred the petitioner, Maurice
Roche Wyatt.  See Attorney Grievance CommUn v. Wyatt, 293 Md. 324,
443 A.2d 965 (1982).  On February 24, 1993, the petitioner filed a
petition for reinstatement.  Thereafter, on March 11, 1993, the
Court referred the petition to the Attorney Grievance Commission to
conduct an appropriate investigation and to submit a report and
recommendation as to whether petitioner should be reinstated.
On September 29, 1995, the Inquiry Panel and Review Board of
the Attorney Grievance Commission filed in this Court separate
reports in which the Inquiry Panel unanimously recommended that the
petitioner be reinstated and the Review Board unanimously
recommended against petitionerUs reinstatement.  Based on these
reports, Bar Counsel on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission
has recommended that, if the petitioner is reinstated, the
petitioner should be required to attend the professionalism course.
After the petitioner submitted a response urging that he be
reinstated, the Court conducted a hearing on the matter.
The Court has carefully considered the arguments of counsel
presented at the hearing as well as the report and recommendation
-2-
of the Attorney Grievance Commission and the reports of the Inquiry
Panel and Review Board.
The Court has also evaluated the essential factors to be
considered in any reinstatement proceeding which are:  (1) the
nature and circumstances of the petitionerUs original misconduct;
(2) the petitionerUs subsequent conduct and reformation; (3) the
petitionerUs present character; and (4) the petitionerUs present
qualifications and competence to practice law.  In re Braverman,
271 Md. 196, 199-200, 316 A.2d 246 (1974); Matter of Murray, 316
Md. 303, 305, 558 A.2d 710 (1989).  Upon a review of these factors,
the Court, with a majority of the Court concurring, is satisfied
that petitioner has made a clear and convincing showing of
rehabilitation and of legal competence, borne out by his conduct
over a long period of time.  Matter of Murray, 316 Md. at 305.  
Judge Bell is of the opinion that restoration of the
petitionerUs eligibility to practice law is required as a result of
the petitionerUs gubernatorial pardon.  Accordingly, Judge Bell
concludes that it is unnecessary for him to opine on the foregoing
factors.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is this 2nd day of April, 1996,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the petition
for reinstatement be, and it is hereby, granted and the petitioner,
Maurice Roche Wyatt, upon taking in open court and subscribing to
the oath of attorneys required by Md. Code (1995), Business
-3-
Occupations and Professions Article, § 10-212, is reinstated as a
member of the Bar of Maryland under the following conditions:
1.  Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Admission to
the Bar of Maryland, the petitioner shall satisfactorily complete
the professionalism course to be given in the spring of 1996 by the
Maryland State Bar Association.  
2.  Petitioner shall pay the costs of these reinstatement
proceedings amounting to $1,226.95.
_________________________________________
         PRESIDING JUDGE
-4-