Opinion ID: 1952844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: MRPC 3.3, 3.4, 8.1 and 8.4

Text: The hearing judge concluded that Blum's myriad misrepresentations to Ms. Dianat's counsel, Bar Counsel, the inquiry panel, and the court, regarding Blum's admitted forgery of Check 317, violated MRPC 3.3(a)(1) and (a)(4), 3.4(a) and (b), 8.1(a) and (b) and 8.4(c) and (d). We agree. Blum misrepresented to Ms. Dianat's new attorney that he had refunded Ms. Dianat's money to her. He then altered Check 317 and manufactured a photocopy purporting to be the back of that check in order to create the illusion that he had paid Ms. Dianat with a check that had been negotiated. By this conduct, the hearing judge found that Blum violated MRPC 3.4(a) and (b) and MRPC 8.4(c) and (d). We agree. Blum had received Ms. Dianat's complaint to Bar Counsel and knew that her attorney was attempting to collect her money when he altered the check and concocted the deceptive photocopy. Consequently, Blum unlawfully obstruct[ed] another party's access to evidence, ... unlawfully alter[ed] ... a document ... having potential evidentiary value, [and] falsif[ied] evidence. MRPC 3.4(a) and (b). His alteration of the check and his misrepresentations to Ms. Dianat's attorney were also fraught with dishonesty, fraud, [and] deceit, MRPC 8.4(c), and were prejudicial to the administration of justice. MRPC 8.4(d). See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Koven, 361 Md. 337, 342-343, 761 A.2d 881, 883-884 (2000)(concluding that an attorney violated Rule 8.4(c) and (d) when he intentionally altered Department of Labor letters and alien certification receipts, [ ] created letters and faxes to mislead [a company] and its employees, and [ ] submitted a false billing statement); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. White, 354 Md. 346, 350-54, 731 A.2d 447, 450-52 (1999) (concluding that destroying evidence and giving false testimony in federal district court violate MRPC 3.4(a)). Blum's disingenuous and obstructive conduct continued as Bar Counsel attempted to investigate Ms. Dianat's complaint. In response to Bar Counsel's inquiry, Blum falsely claimed that the bank account upon which Check 317 was drawn did not provide negotiated checks when Check 317 was negotiated and that he would contact the bank for the check. In addition, Blum lied to Bar Counsel investigator John Reburn about the movement of Ms. Dianat's money between his accounts and failed to respond to repeated requests for financial records related to Ms. Dianat's complaint. This conduct, the hearing judge correctly determined, violated MRPC 8.1(a)([A] lawyer in connection with ... a disciplinary matter, shall not ... knowingly make a false statement of material fact.) and MRPC 8.4(c) (It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.); see also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Angst, 369 Md. 404, 410, 800 A.2d 747, 751 (2002)(concluding that misrepresentations to Bar Counsel and Bar Counsel investigator constituted violations of MRPC 8.1(a) and 8.4(c)) Blum's motion to quash a Bar Counsel subpoena and his conduct at the hearing on that motion also violated several Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge Dugan concluded, and we agree, that during the hearing before the Honorable Martha G. Kavanaugh of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Blum violated MRPC 3.3(a)(1) and (a)(4), and MRPC 8.4(c) and (d), when he knowingly made repeated and blatant false statements of material fact to Judge Kavanaugh and offered evidence he knew to be false. Blum repeated, this time under oath, his previous lies with respect Check 317 and the account upon which it was drawn. In addition, he falsely claimed, among other things, that the bank told him it could not find the original Check 317, that Mr. Willis (Ms. Dianat's counsel), had requested that check, and that according to its records, it provided the check to Mr. Willis. See White, 354 Md. at 363-64, 731 A.2d at 457 (1999)(concluding that attorney's false testimony under oath during a deposition violated MRPC 3.3(a)(1) and (a)(4) and 8.4(c) and (d)). When Blum made similar misrepresentations to the inquiry panel, the hearing judge correctly concluded that the same rules were violated, in addition to MRPC 8.1(a)([A] lawyer in connection with ... a disciplinary matter, shall not ... knowingly make a false statement of material fact.) and MRPC 3.4(a) and (b)(prohibiting a lawyer from unlawfully obstruct[ing] another party's access to evidence[,]... unlawfully alter[ing] ... a document ... having potential evidentiary value[,] [and] falsifying evidence). Finally, the hearing judge correctly concluded that as Bar Counsel continued to request information from Blum, and as he continued to fail to provide that information, he violated MRPC 8.1(b)([A] lawyer in connection with ... a disciplinary matter, shall not ... knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from [a]... disciplinary authority....) See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Powell, 369 Md. 462, 473 n. 8, 800 A.2d 782, 789 (2002) (An attorney is required to cooperate with Bar Counsel during the investigative process. Once a petition for disciplinary action is filed, an attorney is obligated to provide requested discovery in accordance with the Maryland Rules of Procedure.).