Title: Reinstatement of Fox

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
* 
IN THE 
FOR REINSTATEMENT OF 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MATTHEW EVAN FOX TO THE 
 
* 
COURT OF APPEALS 
BAR OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 
OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 
Misc. Docket AG No. 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 
September Term, 2022 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the Verified Petition for Reinstatement filed by Matthew 
Evan Fox, Petitioner, on July 22, 2022, and the Response to Verified Petition for 
Reinstatement filed by Bar Counsel on September 21, 2022, 
 
WHEREAS, by Order entered December 4, 2013, this Court indefinitely suspended 
Matthew E. Fox, Petitioner, by consent;   
 
WHEREAS, in the Response to Verified Petition for Reinstatement, Bar Counsel 
objected to Petitioner’s reinstatement on the grounds that: (1) Petitioner allegedly made a 
false statement in the Petition by stating he had complied with the requirements of 
Maryland Rule 19-741 when at the time of his suspension, almost nine years ago, Petitioner 
had failed to submit to Bar Counsel the affidavit required under Maryland Rule 16-760 (the 
earlier version of Rule 19-741); (2) Petitioner failed to timely file income tax returns for 
tax years 2015-2018 (having filed the income tax returns in 2020); and (3) Petitioner had 
failed to demonstrate that he has kept informed about recent developments in the law and 
that he is competent to practice law as required under Maryland Rule 19-752(h)(2)(G); 
WHEREAS, Bar Counsel states that Petitioner’s alleged false statement with 
respect to submission of an affidavit could form the basis of additional violations of the 
Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and cites Attorney Grievance Comm’n 
v. Collins, 477 Md. 482, 499-500, 270 A.3d 917, 927-28 (2022) as “concluding attorney 
who falsely stated in her petition for reinstatement that she had complied with then-Rule 
19-742, despite knowing that she had not filed the required affidavit, violated Rule 
3.1(a)(1) and 8.4(a)-(d) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct”; 
 
WHEREAS, in Collins, 477 Md. at 499, 501, 270 A.3d at 927, 928, although this 
Court determined that the hearing judge’s conclusion that Collin’s statement in a petition 
for reinstatement that she had complied with Maryland Rule 19-742 “was knowingly and 
intentionally false” and therefore a violation of MARPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c) was supported 
by the record, this Court observed that “Collins’s testimony in mitigation [did] not 
foreclose the possibility that she was, as she indicated, confused about the requirements of 
Maryland Rule 19-742 and of the opinion that she was not required to submit to Bar 
Counsel information under Maryland Rule 19-742[,]” and that “Collins was precluded 
from giving testimony as to the merits in her own defense”; 
 
WHEREAS, in Collins, 477 Md. at 499, 270 A.3d at 927, this Court cautioned Bar 
Counsel that, “[i]n determining whether to seek the Commission’s authorization for the 
filing of a petition for disciplinary or remedial action alleging that an attorney has 
knowingly made a false statement in connection with a petition for reinstatement, Bar 
Counsel must be watchful for cases in which attorneys are doing nothing more than filing 
a petition for reinstatement and stating their views with respect to having satisfied all of 
the necessary prerequisites as opposed to attorneys who are knowingly making false 
statements in a petition for reinstatement”; 
 
WHEREAS, under the circumstances, we do not find the statement sufficient to 
form the basis of a valid objection to Petitioner’s reinstatement to the Bar or the basis of 
an additional violation of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct;   
 
WHEREAS, in the Response, with respect to Petitioner’s income tax filings, Bar 
Counsel acknowledges that, “[i]n March 2020, the Petitioner entered into an Installment 
Agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for payment of $33,550.46 in taxes, 
interest and penalties owed for tax years 2012- 2018.  The Petitioner has complied with the 
Installment Agreement.  Also in March 2020, the Petitioner entered into a Payment 
Agreement with the Maryland Comptroller for payment of $6,6,81.34 in taxes, interest and 
penalties owed for tax years 2012-2017.  The Petitioner has complied with, and fully 
satisfied, the Payment Agreement[,]” and states that “[t]he Petitioner timely filed his 2019-
2022 income tax returns”; 
 
WHEREAS, Bar Counsel “recommends that, if this Court grants the Petition for 
Reinstatement, given the length of time since the Petitioner’s suspension, the Court order 
that, as a condition of reinstatement, the Petitioner (1) pass the Uniform Bar Examination 
or successfully complete the Maryland Law Component required for admission to the 
Maryland Bar; and (2) take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination and 
earn a score that meets or exceeds the passing score in Maryland established by the Board 
of Law Examiners”; 
 
WHEREAS, in the Petition, Petitioner avers that he has worked as a paralegal, 
recently completed 40-hour mediation training pursuant to Maryland Rule 17-104 and 20-
hour child access mediation training, and kept abreast of the current laws and trends in the 
practice of law; 
 
WHEREAS, this Court is not persuaded by Bar Counsel’s objections and declines 
to impose the aforementioned recommended condition of reinstatement; 
 
Accordingly, it is this 6th day of October, 2022, 
 
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition is GRANTED; 
and it is further 
 
ORDERED, that Matthew Evan Fox is reinstated as a member of the Bar of 
Maryland; and it is further 
 
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name Matthew Evan Fox 
upon the register of attorneys entitled to practice law in this State and certify that fact to 
the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in this 
State. 
 
/s/ Matthew J. Fader 
     Chief Judge 
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal 
Materials Act 
(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 
 
 
 
 
 
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk 
2022-10-06 
11:56-04:00