Title: Attorney Grievance v. Giannetti

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Attorney Grievance Commission v. John Alexander Giannetti, Jr., Misc. Docket AG No. 54, 
September Term 2016 
  
  
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION — DISCIPLINE — INDEFINITE 
SUSPENSION  
Respondent, John Alexander Giannetti, Jr., violated the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of 
Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d).  These violations stemmed from Respondent’s 
failure to file federal and state tax returns as well as satisfy his federal and state tax obligations 
for a seven-year period. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. Docket AG No. 54 
 
September Term, 2016 
 
______________________________________ 
  
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 
COMMISSION OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
v. 
 
JOHN ALEXANDER GIANNETTI, JR. 
 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
Greene, 
Adkins, 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Wilner, Alan M. (Senior Judge, Specially 
Assigned), 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Greene, J. 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed:    December 15, 2017
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County 
Case No. C02CV16003430 
Argued: November 7, 2017 
 
 
This attorney discipline case arises out of an attorney’s failure to file federal and 
state tax returns as well as his failure to satisfy federal and state tax obligations for a seven-
year period. 
 
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner” or “Commission”), 
acting through Bar Counsel, charged Respondent, John Alexander Giannetti, Jr., with 
several violations relating to his failure to file and pay federal and state incomes taxes for 
the years 2008 through 2015.  Specifically, the Commission charged Respondent with 
violating the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC” or “Rule”) 8.4 
(Misconduct),1 and the Commission filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action,  
pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751(a).   
This Court referred the matter to Judge Glenn L. Klavans (the “hearing judge”), of 
the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, on November 4, 2016, to conduct an 
evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The hearing judge 
scheduled the case for a hearing on April 28, 2017.   
 
Petitioner served Respondent with discovery requests in the form of Interrogatories, 
Request for Production of Documents and/or Electronically Stored Information, and 
Requests for Admissions of Fact and Genuineness of Documents.  Respondent failed to 
file any response.  Upon Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions Upon Failure to Provide 
                                                          
 
1 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 
(“MLRPC”) were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 
(“MARPC”) and re-codified, without substantive change, in Title 19 of the Maryland 
Rules.  Because we assess Respondent’s conduct against the extant law at the time of his 
actions, we refer to the MLRPC throughout. 
2 
 
Discovery, the hearing judge found that Respondent’s failure to respond was “without 
excuse or objection, was purposeful and willful, and that Respondent made no good faith 
effort to resolve the discovery dispute.”  As a result, the hearing judge deemed admitted 
Petitioner’s Requests for Admissions of Fact and Genuineness of Documents, and 
prohibited Respondent from testifying or introducing evidence in opposition to Petitioner’s 
claims.  Respondent was also prohibited from offering mitigation witnesses, other than his 
own personal testimony.  On the eve of trial, Respondent filed a Request for Postponement 
to Prepare Defense based on New Information and Other Facts, along with a Motion to 
Shorten Time for Petitioner’s Response.  The hearing judge heard the motion orally as a 
preliminary matter on the day of trial, April 28, 2017, and upon Respondent’s argument as 
well as Petitioner’s response, the hearing judge denied the motion.  The Circuit Court heard 
evidence from Petitioner, and although Respondent was permitted to testify on his behalf 
as to any mitigation evidence, he did not offer any mitigation evidence.  After the hearing, 
Judge Klavans issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in which he concluded 
that Respondent had violated Rule 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d).   
 
 
 
 
 
 
I. 
The Hearing Judge’s Findings 
 
The hearing judge made the following findings of fact by clear and convincing 
evidence.  See Md. Rule 19-727(c) (noting that “Bar Counsel has the burden of proving the 
averments of the petition by clear and convincing evidence.”).  Respondent was admitted 
to practice law in Maryland on April 6, 1995.  Beginning in January 2008 and continuing 
through December 2015, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Anne 
3 
 
Arundel County, Maryland, where he was self-employed and, therefore, was not working 
for an employer who withheld payroll taxes.  The hearing judge found that Respondent 
knew he had an obligation to file tax returns and pay taxes to both the federal and state 
governments.  With respect to the filing and payment of those federal and state tax 
obligations, the hearing judge found: 
4. Beginning on or about April 15, 2008 and continuing through April 15, 
2015, Respondent knowingly failed to timely file both federal and Maryland 
income tax returns.  Admission 5. 
 
5. In some years, Respondent requested and received extensions for filing his 
tax returns.  In the years Respondent requested and received extensions, 
Respondent did not file a return prior to the extended date.  Admission 6-7. 
 
6.  Respondent paid no Maryland State Income taxes for tax years 2008 
through 2014.  Admission 8.  
 
7.  On occasions when Respondent filed untimely federal and Maryland tax 
returns, he did not include payments for taxes owed.  Admission 9.  
 
8.  During the period 2008 through 2015, Respondent made one payment on 
his federal income tax liability.  Payment was made in 2011 and was applied 
to Respondent’s 2007 tax liability.  Admission 10-11.  
 
 
 
* 
* 
* 
* 
 
11.  Respondent did not keep accurate and complete financial records of his 
income during the years 2008 through 2015.  Admission 14.  
 
 
* 
* 
* 
* 
16.  The total amount owed by Respondent for federal income taxes, 
according to the records provided by Respondent, was $38,107.97, which 
included penalties and interest for failure to file and failure to pay as of 
February 26, 2016.  
 
17. The exact amount of Respondent’s income tax obligation to the State of 
Maryland cannot be determined by this [Circuit] Court, since Respondent 
provided no information regarding his state tax liability to Bar Counsel.  The 
State, however, has a tax lien in excess of $112,000.00 against Respondent.  
 
4 
 
 
Judge Klavans noted that Respondent “chose not to testify as to the presence of any 
physical and/or mental health problem and/or other mitigating factors related to his failure 
to file timely tax returns and pay his tax obligations.”  The hearing judge found that 
Petitioner’s investigator, and sole witness at trial, did not suspect Respondent of having a 
substance abuse problem.  Finally, the hearing judge found that although the Petitioner’s 
witness did not understand all of the information on the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) 
reports, “it was clear from the records that for each tax year 2008 through 2014, the IRS 
had imposed penalties for not paying income taxes in a timely manner and for every tax 
year 2008 through 2014, the IRS imposed penalties for not filing a return in a timely 
manner.” 
II. 
The Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law 
 
Judge Klavans concluded by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent 
violated MLRPC 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d).  As he explained:  
 
 The following conclusions of law were supported by clear and 
convincing evidence: 
 
 
The Petition alleged that Respondent violated Maryland Lawyers' 
Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a)-(d) (as enumerated at the time of the 
misconduct), which provides, in relevant part: 
 
 
Rule 8.4 Misconduct 
 
 
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   
5 
 
 
 
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; 
 
 
The Court of Appeals has long recognized that willful failure to file tax returns 
and/or pay taxes is professional misconduct, even in the absence of fraud 
and/or dishonest intent.  See Attorney Grievance Commission [of] Maryland 
v. Walman, 280 Md. 453, 459, 463, 374 A.2d 354, 358-59, 360 (1977).  An 
intentional and voluntary violation of a known legal duty, such as willful 
failure to file income tax returns, is sufficient to constitute a violation of the 
Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.  Attorney Grievance 
Commission v. Katz, 
429 Md. 308, 317-18 (2012).  For the reasons discussed 
below, this Court finds 
clear 
and convincing evidence that Respondent violated 
MLRPC 8.4(a) through (d).  See Attorney Grievance Commission v. Atkinson, 
357 Md. 646, 655-56, 745 A.2d 1086, 1091 (2000) (An attorney’s failure to file 
returns and pay taxes for a period of ten years violated MLRPC (b), (c) and 
(d).). 
 
 
With regard to finding a violation of MLRPC 8.4(b), a two-part 
test must be applied.  The Court must first find that the lawyer’s conduct 
violated a criminal statute.  Prosecution and conviction are not 
necessary.  The 
Court only needs to find clear and convincing evidence that the conduct was in 
violation of the law.  See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Commission v. Proctor, 
309 Md. 414, 418, 524 A.2d 773, 776 (1987).  That part of the test has been 
met.  Willful failure to file returns and/or to pay personal income taxes is a 
crime under both federal and Maryland Law.  See Attorney Grievance 
Commission v. Tayback, 378 Md. 578, 587, 837 A.2d 158, 164 (2003).  In this 
case, there were conclusive findings that Respondent knowingly, 
intentionally and voluntarily failed to file both state and federal tax returns 
in a timely manner for a period of at least seven years, 2008 through 2015.  
Owing [taxes for] those seven years, he knowingly failed to pay Maryland 
State taxes and made only one late payment on his federal income tax 
obligation.  The fact that Respondent’s failures were knowing was 
established by the admissions.  The facts that Respondent’s failure 
began after 
he became self-employed and no longer subject to withholding taxes, that he 
filed requests for extensions of the time in which to file his federal Income 
Tax Returns in some years but then failed to file and/or pay within the 
extended period, and his statements to [Bar Counsel’s investigator] provided 
additional clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was well aware of 
the requirements of the law and that his failure to meet this known obligation 
was, therefore, willful and intentional.  Respondent offered no mitigation 
6 
 
evidence to the contrary. 
 
 
With regard to the second part of the test, the Court of Appeals has 
previously determined that criminal conduct involving failure to file returns 
and pay taxes adversely reflects on the lawyers’ honesty, trustworthiness 
and/or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.  “Many kinds of illegal conduct 
reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud 
and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. . . . A pattern 
of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered 
separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.”  MLRPC 8.4 
Comment [2]. 
 
 
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Atkinson, 357 Md. 646, 656, 745 
A.2d 1086, 1091 (2000), the Court of Appeals found that an attorney’s failure 
to 
file returns and/or 
pay taxes for a ten year 
period violated MLRPC 
8.4(b).  In 
Atkinson, the 
Court of Appeals found that the lawyer had purposefully avoided 
almost all contact with both the state and federal income taxing authorities 
and at no point exhibited, over a period of eleven years, any real intention to 
fulfill her duties of filing the required returns and paying the taxes due, until the 
authorities discovered her delinquency and contacted her.  In this case, 
Respondent demonstrated a similar purposeful avoidance.  Except for the 
filing of a 2007 return in March 2011 and a single credit of payment in 
August 2014, (Petitioner's exhibit 2, pages 1-2), Respondent failed to exhibit 
any efforts to correct the on-going delinquency until after he admitted his 
conduct while testifying in the family law matter in August 2014, that he had 
not filed returns for a number of years, and even then he did not promptly act 
to correct the problems.  As of March 2016, Respondent had not yet entered 
into a payment plan with the IRS and/or the State of Maryland.  As of the 
hearing date, April 28, 2017, there was no evidence of any efforts by 
Respondent to correct the situation.  Atkinson, 351 Md. at 653-55, 745 A.2d at 
1090.  See also Tayback, 378 Md. at 587-90, 837 A.2d at 164-65. 
 
 
Based on the foregoing, there was clear and convincing evidence that 
Respondent violated MLRPC 8.4(b).   
 
 
 
Respondent’s continued failure to file timely returns and pay taxes 
due and/or overdue also constituted conduct involving dishonesty, in violation 
of MLRPC 8.4(c).  In Atkinson, the Court of Appeals overruled an exception to 
the hearing judge’s finding that the lawyer’s failure to contact an IRS agent to 
remedy the situation after failing to file returns for a number of years was, “at 
best, dishonest.”  The Court explained that the hearing court correctly 
characterized Atkinson's particular misconduct as dishonest, “. . . if only 
because of the substantial duration in time over which she failed to pay both 
7 
 
state and federal income taxes.  The repeated failure to file tax returns --  
particularly when it spans an uninterrupted period of over ten years - is not a 
minor criminal offense, [it] is a dishonest act . . . “ (emphasis in original) 357 
Md. at 655, 745 A.2d at 1091.  Although in this case the evidence of 
Respondent's failure to file timely returns and pay taxes extends a few years 
less than that in Atkinson, the misconduct went on for a substantial duration 
of time and may be ongoing. 
 
 
For the foregoing reasons, there was clear and convincing evidence that 
Respondent violated MLRPC 8.4(c). 
 
 
The Court of Appeals has also previously determined that an attorney's 
willful failure to file tax returns and pay taxes constituted conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice.  The conduct described above provided clear 
and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in conduct likely to erode 
the public's confidence in the legal profession and that this conduct was 
prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MLRPC 8.4(d).  
See Tayback, 378 Md. at 592, 837 A.2d at 166; Walman, 280 Md. at 463, 374 
A.2d at 360. 
 
 
With regard to MLRPC 8.4(a), the violations of the other subsections 
of this Rule provided clear 
and convincing evidence that Respondent violated 
the MLRPC, thereby violating MLRPC 8.4(a). 
 
 
III. 
 
 
Neither party has taken exception to the hearing judge’s findings of fact or 
conclusions of law.  Where no exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact are filed, 
this Court “may treat the findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining 
appropriate sanctions.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gray, 444 Md. 227, 250, 118 A.3d 
995, 1008 (2015).  We, therefore, deem Judge Klavans’ findings of fact as established by 
clear and convincing evidence.  See Rule 19-727(c); see also Gray, 444 Md. at 250, 118 
A.3d at 1008.  We review the hearing judge’s conclusions of law de novo.  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Storch, 445 Md. 82, 89, 124 A.3d 204, 208 (2015).  Judge Klavans 
8 
 
determined that Respondent violated MLRPC 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d).  Based upon our 
independent review of the record, we are satisfied that the facts support the hearing judge’s 
conclusions of law. 
Discussion 
Rule 8.4 provides, in pertinent part, that:  
 
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[.] 
 
This Court has recognized that not only is the “willful failure to file returns and/or to pay 
personal income taxes [] a crime under both federal and Maryland law” but that the 
“repeated failure to timely file tax returns is a serious violation of the [MLRPC].”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Tayback, 378 Md. 578, 587, 588, 872 A.2d 158, 164 (2003) 
(observing that the Comment to MLRPC 8.4 begins “Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect 
adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of 
willful failure to file an income tax return.” Id. at 588, 872 A.2d at 164.).  The Court has 
plainly declared that the repeated failure to file tax returns “is a dishonest act” in violation 
of Rule 8.4.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Atkinson, 357 Md. 646, 655, 745 A.2d 1086, 
1091 (2000).  Moreover, a “conviction for tax evasion is not a necessary predicate to 
support a finding of dishonesty.”  Id. at 655-56, 745 A.2d at 1091. 
9 
 
 
In Tayback, this Court noted that “[t]he willful failure to file returns and/or to pay 
personal income taxes is a crime under both federal and Maryland law.”  378 Md. at 587, 
837 A.2d at 164.  Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) when he willfully failed to timely file, 
or pay, his federal and state income taxes for a seven-year period starting in 2008 and 
lasting through 2015.  See, e.g. 26 U.S.C. § 7203;2 Maryland Code, Tax-General Article, § 
13-1001(d) (1988, 2016 Repl. Vol.).3  Aside from filing his 2007 federal tax return in 
March 2011 as well as making one payment in August 2014 towards his federal tax 
liability, which was applied to his 2007 tax liability, Respondent has avoided rectifying the 
delinquencies related to his tax obligations.   
 
                                                          
 
2 “26 U.S.C. § 7203 entitled ‘Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax’ 
provides: 
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 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 years, 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 60501, the first sentence of this 
section shall be applied by substituting “felony” for “misdemeanor” and “5 
years” for “1 year.’”   
 
3 Md. Code, § 13-1001(d) of the Tax-General Article provides:  
A person who is required to file an income tax return and who willfully fails 
to file the return as required under Title 10 of this article is guilty of a 
misdemeanor and, on conviction, is subject to a fine not exceeding $10,000 
or imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or both. 
 
10 
 
 
In fact, Respondent first testified in open court during a family law-related 
proceeding in August 2014 about his failure to comply with his tax-related responsibilities.  
Nearly three years later, at the disciplinary hearing in April 2017, Respondent still had not 
resolved—either by paying or by entering into a payment plan—his outstanding tax 
liabilities.4  Further, in some of the years that Respondent failed to file and pay his taxes, 
he requested and received extensions for filing his returns.  Despite receiving extensions 
to file, Respondent continued to not file his returns.   
 
Respondent’s persistent failure to file and pay his federal and state taxes over a 
continuous span of seven years constitutes a dishonest act in violation of Rule 8.4(c).  See 
Atkinson, 357 Md. at 655, 745 A.2d at 1091 (“The repeated failure to file tax returns– 
particularly when it spans an uninterrupted period of over ten years– is not a minor criminal 
offense, [it] is a dishonest act.”).   
 
Finally, Respondent’s willful failure to file returns or pay his taxes from 2008 
through 2015 is a violation of Rule 8.4(d) as conduct that is “prejudicial to the 
administration of justice because ‘it cheats and defrauds the government.’”  Worsham, 441 
Md. 105, 130, 105 A.3d 515, 530 (2014) (recognizing that although an attorney’s willful 
failure to file or pay tax returns does not cause direct harm to a client, the act itself is 
“prejudicial to the administration of justice because it ‘cheats and defrauds the 
government.’”) (quoting Maryland State Bar Ass’n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 551, 318 A.2d 
                                                          
 
4 Respondent acknowledged at Oral Argument that, as of November 6, 2017, his 
outstanding tax balance with the federal government was $41,628 and was $23,032.73 with 
the state government. 
11 
 
811, 816 (1974)).  “By willfully failing to file his tax returns, a lawyer appears to the public 
to be placing himself above the law.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Baldwin, 308 Md. 
397, 407-08, 519 A.2d 1291, 1297 (1987).  At a minimum, the conduct with which 
Respondent is charged—the repeated failure to file his tax returns— “reflects adversely on 
a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness and fitness to practice law.”  Atkinson, 357 Md. at 655, 
745 A.2d at 1091. 
 
We agree with the hearing judge that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(b), (c) and (d).  
Because Respondent violated MLRPC 8.4(b), (c) and (d), he also violated Rule 8.4(a).  See 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Katz, 443 Md. 389, 407, 116 A.3d 999, 1010 (2015) (“It 
goes without saying that because [the attorney] violated MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d), he 
also violated MLRPC 8.4(a), which states, in part, that it is professional misconduct for an 
attorney to violate the MLRPC.”); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips, 451 
Md. 653, 677, 155 A.3d 476, 490 (2017).   
IV. 
Sanction  
 
Having determined that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d), we must 
now decide the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct.  In doing so, we remain 
mindful that the goal of attorney discipline is to not to punish the errant attorney but to 
“protect the public and the public’s confidence in the legal profession[.]”  Attorney 
Griveance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23, 41, 105 A.3d 467, 477 (2014).  An 
appropriate sanction measures the attorney’s misconduct against any aggravating or 
mitigating factors as well as the attorney’s prior grievance history.  Atkinson, 357 Md. at 
12 
 
656, 745 A.2d at 1092.  With respect to an attorney’s failure to file income tax returns, an 
important consideration is the intention and motive of the attorney.  Id.; see also Worsham, 
441 Md. at 132, 105 A.3d at 531.  (“Generally, when the willful failure to file is not the 
result of a fraudulent intent, suspension is the appropriate sanction.  By contrast, 
disbarment is the appropriate sanction when the misconduct was the result of intentional 
dishonest conduct for personal gain.” (internal citations omitted)). 
 
Petitioner recommends a sanction of indefinite suspension with the right to apply 
for reinstatement after one year.  Respondent, at oral argument, suggested that the 
appropriate sanction would be either a formal or informal reprimand, perhaps with 
conditions such as monitoring.   
 
The hearing judge found only one mitigating factor: that Respondent fully 
cooperated with Bar Counsel’s investigation.  Given that Respondent is obligated under 
the MLRPC5 to cooperate with an investigation by Bar Counsel, we do not place much 
weight on Respondent’s cooperation as a mitigating factor. 
 
With respect to aggravating factors, the hearing judge found eight aggravating 
factors including that Respondent had been previously reprimanded by the Commission 
                                                          
 
5 Rule 8.1 provides in pertinent part: 
[A] . . . lawyer in connection with a . . . disciplinary matter, shall not: 
(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or 
(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 form an admission or disciplinary authority, 
except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise 
protected by Rule 1.6. 
 
13 
 
for conduct unrelated to filing or payment of taxes, Respondent was motivated by 
pecuniary gain through his tax avoidance, Respondent exhibited a pattern of misconduct 
that persisted from 2008 through the date of the hearing, and Respondent violated multiple 
provisions of the MLRPC.  The hearing judge found that Respondent’s twenty-two years 
of experience practicing law was an aggravating factor.  Additionally, Judge Klavans found 
as an aggravating factor that Respondent was indifferent about making restitution towards 
his tax obligations.  Another aggravating factor was that Respondent violated both federal 
and state law by failing to file and pay his tax obligations.  Finally, the hearing judge found 
that Respondent obstructed the proceedings by failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s 
discovery requests “in any way whatsoever.” 
 
Petitioner’s recommendation that Respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law with the right to apply for reinstatement after one year is entirely consistent 
with our case law.  For example, we have previously held that suspension with the right to 
apply for reinstatement after one year was warranted for an attorney who violated MLRPC 
8.4 (b), (c) and (d) when she failed to file and pay federal and state income taxes for a 
period of more than ten years.  Atkinson, 357 Md. at 659, 745 A.2d at 1093.  In Tayback, 
the Court held that the Respondent violated MLRPC 8.4(b), (c) and (d) when he willingly 
failed to file his federal income tax return for a period of years in the late 1980s and then 
again in the early 1990s.  378 Md. at 595, 837 A.3d at 168.  In that case, this Court held 
that the appropriate sanction was indefinite suspension with the right to apply for 
reinstatement after sixty days.  Id.  In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Clark, the attorney 
failed to timely file employee withholding tax returns, failed to remit the taxes withheld, 
14 
 
and failed to hold the withheld taxes in a trust account.  363 Md. 169, 182, 767 A.2d 865, 
873 (2001).  This Court issued a sanction of indefinite suspension with the right to apply 
for reinstatement immediately for that attorney, who, among other factors, had completed 
a payment plan with the Comptroller to satisfy his tax obligations by the time of oral 
argument before the Court.  Id. at 184, 767 A.2d at 874.  By way of contrast, this Court 
sanctioned an attorney with disbarment upon the attorney’s repeated and willful failure to 
timely file federal tax returns for a period of fourteen years and “underpaid his taxes for 15 
years to the tune of approximately $2.5 million.”  Katz, 443 Md. at 409, 116 A.3d at 1011 
(observing that “[t]his misconduct is far more egregious than that of other attorneys we 
have suspended for failure to file and pay their incomes taxes.” Id.).    
 
At oral argument, Respondent distinguished his case from the facts of Atkinson on 
the basis that the attorney in that case did not file for an extension to file her taxes, whereas 
each year Respondent did file for an extension.  According to Respondent, this detail is 
important because it suggests that he “was not hiding” from the IRS.  It is true that this 
Court noted in Atkinson that the attorney in that case  
purposefully avoided almost all contact with both the state and federal 
income taxing authorities and at no point exhibited, over a period of eleven 
years, any real intention to fulfill her duties of filing the required returns and 
paying the taxes due, until the authorities discovered her delinquency and 
contacted her.  
 
357 Md. at 654, 745 A.2d at 1090.  We, however, are unpersuaded that Respondent’s act 
of filing for extensions each year is a helpful distinction.  Although Respondent may have 
had more contact with the IRS than the attorney in Atkinson, through his act of filing for 
15 
 
extensions, the fact remains that Respondent failed to pay the taxes owed, even when those 
extensions were granted.  Indeed, Respondent’s act of requesting extensions then not filing 
the tax returns evinces a strong suggestion that he did not have any real intention to 
confront, or fulfill, his tax obligations.   
 
Respondent’s case is strikingly similar to Atkinson in several other ways.  The 
attorney in Atkinson failed to file and pay her federal and state income taxes for over ten 
years.  Although we do not view cooperation with the IRS as a mitigating factor, we note 
that the attorney in Atkinson had established a plan with the IRS to discharge her debts.  
357 Md. at 657-58, 745 A.2d at 1092.  Here, Respondent offered no evidence at all of a 
payment schedule to settle his obligations.  Respondent’s tax avoidance lasted for a 
substantial number of years, just as in Atkinson.  Moreover, Respondent’s misconduct has 
gone uninterrupted for at least seven years and, as Judge Klavan noted, it “may be 
ongoing.”  As compared to the attorney in Tayback, who failed to file and pay his federal 
income taxes for several years, we determine that Respondent’s case aligns consistently 
with Atkinson.  Respondent’s conduct of continually failing to file or pay both his federal 
and state taxes for a period of seven years and the filing of extensions without paying his 
taxes warrants an indefinite suspension from the practice of law with the right to apply for 
reinstatement no sooner than one year after the date of filing of this opinion.  The 
suspension will begin thirty days after the date on which this opinion is filed.  As a 
condition of reinstatement, Respondent shall comply with Md. Rule 19-752.  In addition, 
as a condition of reinstatement, we order Respondent to provide documentation to Bar 
16 
 
Counsel that he has rendered himself in good standing with respect to his federal and state 
tax obligations in the event he files a petition for reinstatement.   
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 19-709(b), FOR 
WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED 
IN 
FAVOR 
OF 
THE 
ATTORNEY 
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST 
JOHN ALEXANDER GIANNETTI, JR. 
RESPONDENT’S SUSPENSION SHALL 
COMMENCE THIRTY DAYS FROM 
THE FILING OF THIS OPINION.