Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND OF MAURICE T. SIEGEL
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1982-11-22
Citations: 294 Md. 635
Docket Number: Misc. (BV) No. 6
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND OF MAURICE T. SIEGEL
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 294
Pages: 635–639

Head Matter:
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND OF MAURICE T. SIEGEL
[Misc. (BV) No. 6,
September Term, 1981.]
Decided November 22, 1982.
The cause was argued before Murphy, C. J., and Smith, Eldridge, Cole, Davidson, Rodowsky and Couch, JJ.
Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., for petitioner.
Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, for respondent.

Opinion:
ORDER. Smith and Eldridge, JJ., dissent. Smith, J., would have denied readmission. Eldridge, J., filed a dissenting opinion at page 637 infra.
ORDER
The Court having disbarred Maurice T. Siegel on July 14, 1975 following his conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland of the felony of wilful evasion of federal income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (Bar Ass'n of Balto. City v. Siegel, 275 Md. 521, 340 A.2d 710 (1975)); and
Maurice T. Siegel having filed a petition on April 3, 1981 for reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland, and the petition having been referred by the Court to an Inquiry Panel of the Attorney Grievance Commission; and
The Inquiry Panel having conducted an evidentiary hearing and recommended that the petitioner be reinstated to the Bar of this State upon satisfactory completion of an intensified legal education course in criminal law and procedure, this being the petitioner's specialty prior to his disbarment; and
The Inquiry Panel having also recommended that upon reinstatement the petitioner be supervised in his practice for a period of time, as may be determined by the Court, by other counsel satisfactory to Bar Counsel; and
The Review Board of the Attorney Grievance Commission having concurred in the recommendations of the Inquiry Panel; and
The Court having conducted a hearing upon the petition for reinstatement and been advised that the petitioner is agreeable to the conditions recommended by the Inquiry Panel, and would also agree to limit his practice to the field of criminal law; and
The Court having reviewed the evidence adduced before the Inquiry Panel, and having considered the principles governing readmission to the bar as set forth in In re Braverman, 271 Md. 196, 316 A.2d 246 (1974) and In re Barton, 291 Md. 61, 432 A.2d 1335 (1981); and
The Court having concluded that the petition for reinstatement should be granted upon satisfactory compliance with the condition precedent recommended by the Inquiry Panel and Review Board, it is this 22nd day of November, 1982,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that action on the petition for reinstatement be deferred pending completion by the petitioner of an intensified legal education course in criminal law and procedure, as may be selected by the petitioner with the approval of Bar Counsel; and it is further
ORDERED that upon satisfactory completion by the petitioner of such intensified legal education course, and notification thereof to this Court, the petitioner will be readmitted to the bar upon the conditions above set forth, subject to further Order of the Court; and it is further
ORDERED that the petitioner pay the costs of these proceedings prior to reinstatement.
Judge Smith would have denied readmission.