Opinion ID: 2357961
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Misrepresentation to the Auditor-Master

Text: Bar Counsel contends that respondent's testimony under oath to the Auditor-Master that he grossed in excess of $150,000 constituted a misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). Respondent's tax returns and his testimony before the Committee indicate respondent grossed $58,073 in 1979. Respondent argues that his testimony was inadvertent. He contends that he did not intend to indicate that his gross income exceeded $150,000, and that a review of the transcript will demonstrate that his statement concerning his gross income was taken out of context. (Respondent's Post Hearing Brief, p. 17) The Committee has carefully reviewed the transcript of respondent's testimony before the Auditor-Master. We conclude that respondent knowingly misrepresented his gross income for 1979. In response to direct questioning as to what respondent did with the $150,000 he claimed to have grossed in 1979, respondent testified that he put some of it into an account, bought stock with some of it, and deposited a portion of it in a personal checking account which he used to pay bills. (Bar Ex. 10 at 37-38) During the course of his testimony before the Auditor-Master, respondent had numerous opportunities to clarify any misunderstanding as to what the $150,000 figure referred to, and he consistently indicated it referred to his gross income. There is no indication from respondent's testimony before the Auditor-Master that in describing his $150,000 gross income, respondent intended to include all of the funds that come through my office, including deferred income that's owed to me that I have not collected. . . . (Tr. at 62) Respondent, as an experienced attorney, legitimately can be imputed with knowledge of the meaning of the term gross income. We can only conclude that respondent intentionally misrepresented his gross income for the year 1979 to bolster his claim before the Auditor-Master that he was financially sound. In so doing, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4).