Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Gore

Citation: 380 Md. 455

Docket Number: 7ag/03

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gore,
Miscellaneous Docket AG No. 7, September Term, 2003
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE – INTENTIONAL MISAPPROPRIATION –
CRIMINAL CONDUCT – FAILURE TO FILE SALES TAX RETURNS OR TO
PAY SALES TAXES
An attorney was disbarred for failure to file District of Columbia sales tax returns or to
pay sales taxes due for a restaurant he owned and managed in Washington, D.C.  He had
been warned by D.C. authorities of the potential consequences of his conduct, but
continued to collect sales taxes in the course of business while failing to pay sales taxes
due or to file returns.  He gave D.C. authorities a series of checks which purported to pay
part of the taxes due, but were drawn on an account that he knew or should have known
had insufficient funds with which to cover the amounts drawn by the checks.  This
misconduct violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and
8.4(d).
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case # C-2003-89181.AG
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
Misc. Docket  AG
No. 7
September Term, 2003
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v.
JAMES GRAFTON GORE, JR.
Bell, C.J.
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
           Greene,
JJ.
Opinion by Harrell, J.
Filed: April 5, 2004
1 Prior to the lodging of the charges in this Court by the Commission, Gore was
charged in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under D.C. Code Ann. § 47-2028
(1997 Repl.):
(a) Any person required to file a return or report or perform any act under the
provisions of this chapter who shall fail or neglect to file such return or report
or perform such act within the time required shall, upon conviction thereof, be
fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or
both, for each and every failure or neglect. The penalty provided herein shall
be in addition to the other penalties provided in this chapter.
(b) Any person required to file a return or report or perform any act under the
provisions of this chapter who willfully fails or refuses to file such return or
report or perform such act within the time required shall, upon conviction
thereof, be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned for not more than 1
year, or both. The penalty provided herein shall be in addition to the other
penalties provided in this chapter.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term “person” also includes any officer of
a corporation, and any employee of a corporation responsible for the
performance of any act under the provisions of this chapter and any member
of a partnership or association responsible for performance of any act under
the provisions of this chapter.
This statute, enacted by 1996 District of Columbia Laws 11-254 (Act 11-518), Chapter 20,
since has been repealed by 2000 District of Columbia Laws 13-204 (Act 13-359).  Gore pled
guilty to non-willful failure to file returns or pay sales taxes, was convicted, and served
(continued...)
I.
James Grafton Gore was admitted to the Maryland Bar on 21 June 1984.  He also is
admitted to the Bars of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.  The Attorney
Grievance Commission (“the Commission”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for
disciplinary or remedial action on 5 May 2003, based on Gore’s repeated failures to file sales
tax returns or remit collected sales taxes regarding a restaurant he owned and managed in the
District of Columbia.1  The Commission alleges that Gore violated Maryland Rules of
1(...continued)
forty-five days in jail.
2 “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to...commit a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects...”
3 “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to...engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation...”
4 “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to...engage in conduct that is prejudicial
to the administration of justice...”
2
Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) Rules 8.4(b),2 8.4(c)3 and 8.4(d).4   Judge Michele Jaklitsch
of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, to whom we assigned this matter for hearing
and factfinding, made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law (some footnotes
omitted and others altered as to number):
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
“Respondent was pro se.  Upon consideration of the parties’
memoranda, exhibits, witness testimony and arguments of both parties, this
Court makes the following written statement of findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact
“The Respondent, James G. Gore, Jr., was admitted as a member of the
Maryland Bar on June 21, 1984.  Respondent is also admitted to the Bars of
Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.  Respondent is on
inactive status in Pennsylvania.  He does not maintain an office for the
practice of law.
“On October 1, 1998, Respondent , who was President of Chinatown
Restaurants, Inc. and Coco Loco Management, Inc., became the owner of
Coco Loco restaurant in Washington, D.C.  Respondent operated the
restaurant through these corporations.  Coco Loco restaurant was already
facing financial problems when the Respondent became the owner of the
restaurant.  The Respondent had knowledge of Coco Loco’s financial
3
problems.  As owner, Respondent was at the restaurant on a regular basis.
“Respondent admitted that he was responsible for filing sales taxes,
collected by Coco Loco restaurant, with the District of Columbia.  Pursuant
to D.C. Code Ann. § 47-2015(a) (1997 Repl.), sales tax returns are due on the
twentieth day of each month.  The reporting period for each return is the
preceding month.  The Respondent complied with his obligation to collect
taxes on the restaurant’s sales pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 47-2015(a) (1997
Repl.).  However, the Respondent did not separate the sales tax money from
the non-sales tax money when depositing money into the corporations’ bank
accounts.  
“During the time the Respondent was an owner of Coco Loco
restaurant, he failed to file timely tax returns for the months of October 1998,
December 1998, the entire year of 1999 and the months of January, February,
and March 2000.  The October 1998 sales tax return, while filed late, did
include a payment.  During this time, Respondent only filed the November
1998 return in a timely fashion with payment.  Respondent did not pay any
other sales taxes through March 2000, even though the restaurant collected
sales taxes during this time period.
“On April 25, 2000, the Respondent met with Edmond Wybaillie, a
special agent with the Criminal Investigations Division of the D.C. Office of
Tax & Revenue regarding his lack of filing and remittance of sales tax returns.
During this meeting, Respondent had no explanation for his failure to file the
returns and for his failure to pay the taxes.  Respondent admitted during this
conversation that he knew the sales tax money belonged to the District of
Columbia and that his failure to remit the sales tax to the District of Columbia
was wrong.  Respondent explained during the interview that all of the money
owed to the District of Columbia was used to pay the restaurant’s debts and
did not go for his personal use.
“On or about April 27, 2000 the Respondent brought fifteen sales tax
returns for the months of January 1999 through March 2000 to the D.C. Office
of Tax and Revenue.  The total due on these returns was $181,915.76.
However, no payments were submitted with these returns.  Over the next
couple of months, Respondent paid $6,000 in payments, but no return had
been paid in full.
“On August 11, 2000, the Corporation Counsel for the District of
Columbia charged Respondent with one count of tax fraud - failure to pay, and
fifteen counts of tax fraud - failure to file sales tax returns.  These counts are
for violations of D.C. Code Ann. § 47-2028(b) (1998 Repl.).
“Between April 27, 2000 and June 4, 2001, Respondent did not file any
more sales tax returns for Coco Loco Restaurant.  On or about June 4, 2001,
5 The restaurant’s opening balance on this checking account was $86.06
as of June 1, 2001.  However, a $1,000 deposit was later made brining the
total amount from which funds could have been drawn up to $1,086.06.
6 For instance, for the month of March 2001, there were ten charges
incurred for insufficient funds.  In April 2001, there were twenty-one incurred
charges for overdrafts.  In the month of May 2001, there were four incurred
charges for overdrafts.  In June 2001, there were ten incurred charges for
overdrafts.  In July 2001, there were forty-nine incurred charges for
overdrafts.... 
4
Respondent filed sales tax returns that were due for January 2001, February
2001, March 2001, and April 2001.  With those four returns, Respondent
submitted four checks in the full amount shown to be due on each of the
returns.  Those four checks totaled $47,986.19.  The bank on which these
checks were drawn dishonored all of these checks for insufficient funds.5  To
date, this payment still has not been received by the District of Columbia
Government.
“On June 27, 2001, Respondent submitted sales tax returns for the
months of May, June, July, August, September, October, November and
December 2000.  With those returns, Respondent submitted eight checks
totaling $103,806.83, which represented the balance due on each return.  All
of these checks were dishonored for insufficient funds.  The balance in the
account from which these checks were written, for the entire month of June
2001, was at all times insufficient to pay even one of the checks the
Respondent submitted.
“At his deposition, Respondent testified that he believed the checks
were good when written or that they would be good when presented to the
bank.  At the time the checks were submitted, the balance in the account was
$87.28.  At trial the Respondent testified that the restaurant obtained a loan
from which the checks could have been paid, but he produced no evidence of
a loan.  Additionally, this same account had a history of overdrafts.6
“On November 16, 2001, the District of Columbia filed a second set of
charges against Respondent.  He was charged with twelve counts of willful
failure to file sales tax returns for the period of April 1, 2000 through March
31, 2001 in violation of D.C. Code Ann. § 47-2028(b) (1997 Repl.).  He was
also charged with twelve counts of willful failure to pay sales tax monies due
for the same time period in violation of D.C. Code Ann. § 47-2028(b) (1997
Repl.).  However, on December 13, 2001, the Respondent pled guilty in D.C.
Superior Court to two lesser amended charges of non-willful failure to file tax
5
returns in violation of D.C. Code Ann., § 47-2028(a) (1997 Repl.), one on
behalf of himself and one on behalf of the corporation.  The rest of the charges
were nol prossed.
“Although the Respondent pled guilty to the lesser amended charge of
non-willful failure to file tax returns, the Court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that Mr. Gore knew he was obligated to file sales tax returns and
remit payments and for a period of three years he consciously continued to
collect the sales tax but did not file returns or remit payment to the D.C.
Government.
“On February 28, 2002, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
sentenced Respondent to six months in jail, on each count, to run concurrently,
with all but 45 days suspended.  The Respondent was placed on three years of
supervised probation and was ordered to pay restitution of $885,848.00 for
back taxes, penalties and interests.
Standard
“At a hearing on a petition filed by the Attorney Grievance
Commission (“AGC”) under Md. Rule 16-757(b), the AGC has the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence, the averments of the petition.  The
Respondent, under Md. Rule 16-757(b), has the burden of proving an
affirmative defense or a matter of mitigation or extenuation by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Conclusions of Law
“The Respondent has been charged with violating Maryland Rules of
Professional Conduct 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).  This court finds that the
Respondent violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), 8.4(c),
and 8.4(d).  While the incident involving these violations occurred in the
District of Columbia, the Respondent is subject to the disciplinary authority
of the State of Maryland.  See, Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct Rule
8.5(a).
8.4(b)
“The Respondent admits to violating Rule 8.4(b) of the Maryland Rules
of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) in his response to the Attorney Grievance
Commission’s Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Measures and also in his
testimony before this Court.  Mr. Gore pled guilty on December 13, 2001 to
two counts of non-willful failure to file sales tax returns[7] in violation of D.C.
6
Code Ann. § 47-2028(a) (1997 Repl.).
“The charges brought against Mr. Gore stemmed from his failure to
timely file and pay sales tax returns on behalf of the restaurant Coco Loco for
the period of October 1998 through March 2000 (with the exception of
November 1998).  In April 2000, Mr. Gore acknowledged that his practice of
not filing the sales tax returns was wrong, yet he continued not to pay or file
sales tax returns for another year.  Mr. Gore ultimately pled guilty to two
lessor counts of non-willful failure to file sales tax returns in violation of D.C.
Code Ann. § 47-2028(a) (1997 Repl.) and was sentenced in D.C. Superior
Court to six months on each count, to run concurrent, with all but 45 days
suspended and he has to pay $885,848 for back taxes, penalties, and interest.
This reflects on the Respondent’s honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to
practice law.  For all of these reasons, the Court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that Mr. Gore violated Rule 8.4(b).
8.4(c)
“Mr. Gore denies that he violated MRPC 8.4(c), however, this Court
finds that Mr. Gore did violate MRPC 8.4(c).  In April 2000, Mr. Gore knew
that he was under a criminal investigation for failing to file and pay sales taxes
on the restaurant Coco Loco.  Yet, Mr. Gore still failed to file any sales tax
returns or pay sales taxes for Coco Loco between April 27, 2000 and June 4,
2001.  When Mr. Gore did file these tax returns and submit four checks
totaling $47,986.19 on or about June 4, 2001, the bank dishonored all four of
Mr. Gore’s checks since the balance from which money could be drawn from
the account was only $1,086.06.  Then, on June 27, 2001, Mr. Gore again
submitted eight separate tax returns and checks for eight months in the year
2000.  All eight of these checks were also dishonored for insufficient funds.
“While Mr. Gore pled guilty in his criminal matter to non-willful
failure to file sales tax returns, the Court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that Mr. Gore did willfully fail to file and remit sales tax returns to
                                    
[7]Only one of these two counts of non-willful failure to file sales tax
returns was personal.  The other was a plea on behalf of the Corporation of
which Mr. Gore is an officer.
7
the District of Columbia. At all times, Mr. Gore knew that he was obligated
to file and pay sales tax returns to the District of Columbia.  However, he
continued for a span of three years to fail to fulfill these obligations.  In this
proceeding, this failure is seen as willful.
“The Court finds that Mr. Gore’s failure to file the appropriate sales tax
returns and remit payments when due, and then to send checks when there
were insufficient funds to cover the checks violates MRPC 8.4(c).  See, e.g.,
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Angst, 369 Md. 404, 416 (2002) (attorney’s
failure to withhold employee’s state income taxes and to pay the appropriate
amounts owed to the Comptroller from March 1998 through May 31, 2001 as
well as his failure to file the appropriate returns when due violated 8.4(b), (c),
and (d)); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Atkinson, 357 Md. 646 (2000)
(Attorney knew she had failed to file tax returns and failed to act to remedy the
situation, which was, at best, dishonest).
“Angst involved a case where the Respondent filed Maryland
withholding tax returns late, failed to file tax returns, and failed to pay trust
fund income taxes withheld from employees’ wages.  The Court, in Angst,
found that the ‘Respondent’s failure to fulfill his statutory obligations as an
employer to withhold employees’ state income taxes and to pay the
appropriate amounts owed to the Comptroller from March 1998 through May
31, 2001 as well as his failure to file the appropriate returns when due violated
Rules 8.4(b) (c) and (d).’  369 Md. 404, 416 (2002).
“In Atkinson, the Respondent failed to file joint state and federal
income tax returns for the years 1988 to 1996.  In 1994, the Respondent went
to the I.R.S. and received several pamphlets.  However, she still failed to file
tax returns with this new found information.  With each passing year her tax
arrearages grew to the point where she could not afford to pay the back taxes.
However, she was aware of her legal obligation to file the tax returns.  In
1997, the I.R.S. contacted the Respondent regarding her failure to file and pay
tax returns.  The Respondent owed approximately $93,000 in back taxes and
had made one payment of about $15,546 toward the balance.  In Atkinson, the
Court stated that the “willful failure to file timely income tax returns also
violates Rule 8.4(c)...” 357 Md. 646, 650 (2000).  The Court found that
Respondent knew that she failed to file tax returns when she went to the I.R.S.
office in 1994 and that once she received information on how to resolve the
situation, she then again failed to act.  Id.
“Similarly, in the present case, Mr. Gore was well aware that he owed
a fiduciary duty to the District of Columbia to file sales tax returns and remit
the monies that were collected from patrons of the restaurant.  When
approached by agents of the District of Columbia in April 2000, Mr. Gore
acknowledged that his practice of not filing the sales tax returns was wrong,
8
yet he continued not to pay taxes or file sales tax returns for another year.
When he did finally remit filings and checks, it was drawn on an account
which had insufficient funds to cover the arrearage.
“For these reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Gore did willfully fail to
file sales tax returns and remit payments, and this is an act that reflects
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation
of Rule 8.4(c).
8.4(d)
“The Court finds there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Gore
violated MRPC 8.4(d).  Mr. Gore has already admitted to violating MRPC
8.4(b) and pled guilty to charges of non-willful failure to file sales tax returns.
The failure of an attorney to remit sales tax returns and payments is similar to
the cases involving an attorney’s failure to file income tax returns.  This
conduct, in its very nature, is prejudicial to the administration of justice.  See,
e.g. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Walman, 280 Md. 453, 462 (1977) (An
attorney failed to file income tax returns for a number of years which
represented conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); Attorney
Grievance Comm’n v. Atkinson, 357 Md. 646 (2000) (The crime of wilfully
and knowingly failing to file a federal income tax return represents conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice.)
“Mr. Gore knew that he was not filing sales tax returns for his business.
This reflects negatively on the legal profession and he is setting a bad example
for the public at large.  An attorney must uphold the law and administer
justice.
Mitigation
“The Respondent would like the Court of Appeals to consider several
factors when ultimately deciding sanctions.  Respondent states that he has had
no prior discipline in Maryland.  Bar Counsel has neither confirmed nor
denied this assertion.  Respondent seeks mitigation in his sanction since he has
been cooperative with Bar Counsel and has stipulated to the evidence.
Furthermore, the Respondent admits that he made a terrible business mistake
for which he has already been punished.  He also explains that this incident
had no connection to the practice of law.
Conclusion
“Wherefore, it is the 20th day of October 2003, found by the Circuit
9
Court of Anne Arundel County, for the reasons set forth herein, that the
Respondent, James G. Gore, Jr., had violated Maryland Code of Professional
Responsibility § 8.4(b), (c), and (d).”
Neither Gore nor the Commission filed any exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact
or conclusions of law.
II.
This Court exercises original jurisdiction over attorney discipline
proceedings.  We conduct an independent review of the record, accepting the
hearing judge's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.  We will not disturb
the factual findings of the hearing judge if they are based on clear and
convincing evidence.  Our review of the hearing judge's conclusions of law is
de novo.  
Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Davis, 375 Md. 131, 157-58, 825 A.2d 430, 445-46 (2003)
(citations omitted).  “A respondent who asserts an affirmative defense or a matter of
mitigation or extenuation has the burden of proving the defense or matter by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Md. Rule 16-757(b).
III.
No exceptions were filed in this case.  Md. Rule 16-759(b)(2)(A) provides: “If no
exceptions are filed, the Court may treat the findings of fact as established for the purpose
of determining appropriate sanctions, if any.”  Furthermore, after reviewing the record, we
conclude that ample evidence existed to support, by a clear and convincing standard, the
hearing judge’s findings of fact.  We also agree with the hearing judge that Gore violated
Rules 8.4(b), (c), and (d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.
10
Gore’s misconduct essentially may be characterized as a business decision, in his
capacity as the owner of a restaurant, that carrying on operation of his struggling business
justified his failure to fulfill his obligations under the District of Columbia sales tax laws.
Gore operated his restaurant without filing sales tax returns or paying those taxes as they
came due for more than thirty months, a period of time we find remarkable.  District of
Columbia authorities met with Gore on 25 April 2000 to discuss the potential consequences
of his failure to meet his tax obligations, and yet he continued his course of conduct for at
least another year.  On 28 February 2002, Gore was ordered to pay restitution of
$885,848.00.  We know of no payments Gore has made toward that obligation, nor has he
indicated that he has the intention (much less ability) to repay what is owed.
The Commission argues that Gore’s use of sales tax money in his business was
intentional misappropriation.  Intentional misappropriation is an “act infected with deceit and
dishonesty,” that is prohibited by Rule 8.4(c).  Attorney Griev. Comm'n of Maryland v.
Spery, 371 Md. 560, 568, 810 A.2d 487, 491-92 (2002).  Gore disputes this characterization
of his misconduct.  We conclude that Gore committed intentional misappropriation by
keeping the collected sales taxes he owed to the District of Columbia and using those funds
to support the restaurant in which he had a financial interest. 
The discussion during oral argument in this case centered on the question of whether
the willful failure to file sales tax returns or to pay sales taxes may be characterized as
intentional misappropriation.  Gore analogized sales taxes to income taxes.  He argued that
a person has the right to retain and use any receipts that are not earmarked to be withheld
11
from a paycheck, without incurring a violation of a duty to keep any part of those receipts
in trust for the government.  As his analogy went, a person may be required to pay income
taxes to the government on an annual basis, but there is no legal requirement that the person
separate those funds from his or her discretionary receipts prior to filing an income tax
return.  Gore then applied the example to his own situation, claiming that his restaurant had
the right to hold the funds in its general operating account until the taxes became due.  He
claimed that the funds were properly in the restaurant’s control, but they were never paid
over to the D.C. taxing authority.  According to Gore, this is not the same as taking funds
out of someone else’s account and using it for other purposes.
This analogy is specious and inapplicable to the present case.  Unlike income taxes,
the amount of sales taxes due to the government is apparent from the instant that revenues
are collected.  A person ordinarily cannot keep the precise value of income taxes in a
separate account in trust for the government from the time the income is earned until taxes
are due because the exact amount the person will owe ultimately is not knowable until the
person prepares his or her tax return retrospectively.  In contrast, each restaurant customer’s
bill separates the amount collected into three categories: the amount due for food and
beverages, which belongs to the restaurant; the sales tax, which belongs to the government;
and the gratuity, which belongs to the server.  The restaurant’s manager instantly knows how
much goes to the restaurant’s accounts, and how much belongs to others.
In this way, sales taxes are similar to Maryland employee withholding taxes, which
by law must be kept in a separate account in trust for the government.  In  Attorney Griev.
8 We do not suggest that sales taxes must be held in a separate account in trust for the
government absent a statutory or regulatory obligation to do so.
12
Comm’n v. Clark, 363 Md. 169, 767 A.2d 865 (2001), we held that failure to keep employee
withholding taxes in a separate account or to promptly remit those funds when due amounted
to misappropriation of third party funds.  363 Md. at 181-82, 767 A.2d at 872.  Likewise,
Gore’s willful failure to file sales tax returns or to pay the sales taxes the restaurant owed,
compounded by his use of those funds for personal business use, amounted to intentional
misappropriation of funds due to the D.C. government, in violation of Rule 8.4(c).8 
The dishonored checks Gore issued to District of Columbia taxation authorities gave
rise to a separate Rule 8.4(c) violation.  Gore represented to those authorities that the checks
could be drawn on sufficient funds to cover their face value.  In fact, Gore either knew or
should have known that the bank account against which those checks were drawn did not
have sufficient funds.  His representations to the contrary, both explicit and implicit in the
action of issuing the checks, were conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
The hearing judge found that Gore’s failure to file sales tax returns or pay the taxes
due was willful.  It is well settled that willful failure to pay taxes constitutes conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d).  See Attorney Griev.
Comm'n v. Thompson, 376 Md. 500, 515, 830 A.2d 474, 483 (2003); Attorney Griev.
Comm'n v. Angst, 369 Md. 404, 419-20, 800 A.2d 747, 756-57 (2002);  Clark, 363 Md. at
182-83, 767 A.2d at 873; Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Atkinson, 357 Md. 646, 656, 745 A.2d
13
1086, 1091 (2000); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Post, 350 Md. 85, 99, 710 A.2d 935, 942
(1998).
Gore was convicted in the District of Columbia of failure to file sales tax returns or
pay taxes when due, and was incarcerated for forty-five days.  Gore’s criminal actions were
coupled with intentional misappropriation, as well as his dishonest behavior in issuing bad
checks.  Moreover, despite being given several opportunities by the District of Columbia
taxation authorities to change his course of conduct, Gore persisted in operating his business
without filing sales tax returns or paying the taxes when due.  These criminal actions reflect
adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, including
his judgment, in violation of Rule 8.4(b).
IV.
The purpose of discipline under the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct is not
to punish the lawyer, but to protect the public and the public's confidence in the legal
profession.  Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Post, 379 Md. 60, 70, 839 A.2d 718, 724 (2003).
We protect the public through sanctions against offending attorneys in two ways: through
deterrence of “the type of conduct which will not be tolerated,” id., and by removing those
unfit to continue in the  practice of law from the rolls of those authorized to practice in this
State.  See Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Protokowicz, 326 Md. 714, 729, 607 A.2d 33, 40-41
(1992).  The public is protected when sanctions are imposed that are commensurate with the
nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed. Post,
379 Md. at 70-71, 839 A.2d at 724.
14
Intentional misappropriation, “by an attorney, of funds entrusted to his or her care is
an act infected with deceit and dishonesty and, in the absence of compelling extenuating
circumstances justifying a lesser sanction, will result in disbarment.”  Spery, 371 Md. at 568,
810 A.2d at 491-92.  “We see no significant moral distinction between willfully defrauding
and cheating for personal gain a client, an individual, or the government. Cheating one’s
client and defrauding the government are reprehensible in equal degree.”  Attorney Griev.
Comm’n v. Casalino, 335 Md. 446, 452, 644 A.2d 43, 45-46 (1994) (formatting omitted)
(quoting Maryland State. Bar Ass'n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 550, 318 A.2d 811, 815 (1974)).
Gore’s rationale for his decision to avoid filing returns or paying sales taxes was that
he needed to keep the business afloat.  
[I]n cases of intentional dishonesty, misappropriation cases, fraud, stealing,
serious criminal conduct and the like, we will not accept, as “compelling
extenuating circumstances,” anything less than the most serious and utterly
debilitating mental or physical health conditions, arising from any source that
is the “root cause” of the misconduct and that also result in an attorney's utter
inability to conform his or her conduct in accordance with the law and with the
MRPC. Only if the circumstances are that compelling, will we even consider
imposing less than the most severe sanction of disbarment in cases of stealing,
dishonesty, fraudulent conduct, the intentional misappropriation of funds or
other serious criminal conduct, whether occurring in the practice of law, or
otherwise. 
Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 413-14, 773 A.2d 463, 485 (2001).
Needless to say, the need to keep a restaurant in business neither justifies nor mitigates
Gore’s misconduct in this case.
Gore’s intentional misappropriation provides one rationale for this Court to impose
the ultimate sanction of disbarment; another is the fact that Gore’s willful failure to file
9 “We have held repeatedly that willful tax evasion is a crime infested with fraud,
deceit and dishonesty, and will result in automatic disbarment absent clear and convincing
evidence of a compelling reason to the contrary.” Casalino, 335 Md. at 452-53, 644 A.2d
at 46. 
15
returns or pay taxes amounted to a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.  Although Gore was convicted of
non-willful failure to file returns and pay sales taxes, the hearing judge found clear and
convincing evidence that his actions were willful.  That conclusion was correct.
“One of the most relevant considerations in determining a sanction for failure to file
income tax returns is the intention and motive of the respondent.  Because our failure to file
cases have dealt with attorneys with deceitful motives and attorneys without such motives,
over the years this Court has rendered diverse sanctions.”  Attorney Griev. Comm'n v.
Tayback, 378 Md. 578, 594-95, 837 A.2d 158, 168 (2003) (citation and formatting omitted).
Gore’s decision to give the D.C. taxation authorities checks that he either knew or should
have known would be dishonored by the bank makes this more than a simple failure-to-file
case.  This Court generally disbars attorneys who commit willful tax evasion.9  While the
record does not indicate that Gore filed any fraudulent returns, his decision to issue bad
checks reflects the same type of deceptive intent found in cases involving willful tax evasion.
Because of Gore’s deceptive actions and because of the large scale of Gore’s failure to fulfill
his tax obligations, both in terms of the large amounts of money involved and the long
period of time during which Gore continued his misconduct, this case would warrant
disbarment even had Gore not committed intentional misappropriation.
16
“A lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system
and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.
***
“A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law,
both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and
personal affairs.”
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble.
Through his actions, Gore has demonstrated himself unfit to continue to be authorized
to practice law in this State.  Gore placed himself and his business above the law.  His willful
refusal to file returns or pay sales taxes amounts to intentional misappropriation of funds
belonging to the District of Columbia.  These actions call into question his honesty and his
ability to be entrusted with client or third-party funds.  Gore compounded his misconduct
by writing a series of checks drawn on an account that he knew or should have known had
insufficient funds to cover the amount debited.  We hold that, under the circumstances, the
proper sanction is disbarment.
IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT
SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY
THE 
CLERK 
OF 
THIS 
COURT,
INCLUDING 
COSTS 
OF 
ALL
TRANSCRIPTS, 
PURSUANT 
TO
MARYLAND RULE 16-715(C), FOR
WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED
IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST
JAMES GRAFTON GORE, JR.