Opinion ID: 2055107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Raimondi

Text: Thomas Paul Raimondi was admitted to practice before this Court on October 15, 1953. We accepted his resignation with prejudice on December 29, 1972. (We now refer to such proceedings as disbarment by consent. Rule BV12 d.) Raimondi was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore of attempting to bribe a member of the General Assembly. This was all an outgrowth of the election of Governor Spiro T. Agnew as Vice-President of the United States and the fact that the General Assembly became obliged to elect a Governor of Maryland. The details of his wrongdoing are set forth in Raimondi v. State, 12 Md. App. 322, 278 A.2d 664 (1971), and Raimondi v. State, 265 Md. 229, 288 A.2d 882, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 948 (1972). He was granted a full pardon on May 27, 1975. Raimondi was employed in several different places from the time of his release from prison in 1973 until the time that he passed a competitive examination and was selected as a hearing officer in the Insurance Division of the State of Maryland, a part of the Department of Licensing and Regulation. As in Dippel's case, Raimondi was able to produce a number of individuals who praised him highly and said what a fine gentleman he is now. The Raimondi panel also recognized the criteria for consideration of a petition for reinstatement set forth in Barton, Boone, and Braverman. It seemed a bit inclined to regard the original misconduct as not grave in nature. It referred to the fact that the then State's Attorney stated that although his office viewed the crime as serious in terms of its impact on the governmental structure, `We did not think that there was too great an imminent danger of its coming to fruition because it was just a little bit too bizarre to be  it was a long, long shot even from the point of view of those attempting to perpetrate it.' It said that [i]n the final analysis, however, based upon the record before it and its observation of [Raimondi] during his testimony, the Panel agree[d] with the remarks of [one witness] who ha[d] known [Raimondi] both socially and professionally for approximately 27 years, that what [Raimondi] did was `stupid', `irrational' and `out of character.' It observed that although the crime was a serious act, it appear[ed] to have been perpetrated for purposes of embarrassing [one individual] rather [than] for any apparent personal gain. The panel conclude[d] that insofar as the nature and circumstances of [Raimondi's] misconduct are concerned, his reinstatement would not be prejudicial to the interests of the public or the administration of justice. The panel went on to consider the other criteria. It referred to Raimondi's substantial involvement in civic and fraternal affairs. It f[ound] that [Raimondi] has met the burden of establishing that his conduct and reformation since his release from prison warrant his reinstatement to the practice of law. It likewise found that he has met the burden of establishing that his present character merits favorable consideration for his readmission to the Bar. Concerning his present qualifications and competency to practice law, the panel concluded by saying: In the instant case approximately 4 1/2 years elapsed between the acceptance by the Court of Appeals of [Raimondi's] resignation from the Bar and the filing of his Petition for Reinstatement, and a further 1 1/2 years has elapsed since then. During that period, [he] obtained a Master's degree in Public Administration and has served for 2 1/2 years as a Hearing Officer in the Insurance Division for the State of Maryland. According to the testimony of Insurance Commissioner Birrane, his executive assistant, Ted Hickman, and several attorneys who have tried numerous cases before him, he has performed his duties with extreme competence. We believe that [Raimondi's] accomplishments, as well as his own testimony, evidence a sound and responsible attitude toward refreshing his professional skills. We are satisfied that if readmitted to the practice of law, [he] would abide by the requirements of EC 6-1. The inquiry panel recommended Raimondi's reinstatement. The matter was reviewed by the Review Board pursuant to Rule BV14 d 2. It concurr[ed] in and adopt[ed] the Inquiry Panel's recommendation that [Raimondi's] Petition for reinstatement should be granted....