Opinion ID: 1950812
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: findings and recommendation of panel

Text: This matter is before the Court, sitting as a three Judge panel by designation of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, to hear and make recommendations with respect to certain charges brought by the petitioner against the respondent as a member of the Maryland Bar and a practicing attorney within the State. Disciplinary sanctions are sought in accordance with the provisions of the BV Rules. The respondent is charged in two separate instances involving two separate complainants. The first will be referred to as the Juvenile [] matter and the second as the Clem matter. With respect to the Juvenile matter, the respondent is charged with acts constituting a. Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; b. Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; c. Conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. All of the alleged conduct is claimed to be in violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A). The misconduct alleged is set forth in the petition as consisting of the following specific activities: 1. The respondent is charged in approximately between June and October 1973 with picking up the Juvenile, a girl 16 years of age, who was hitchhiking in Montgomery County, Maryland, and that while in respondent's automobile, the Juvenile and the respondent, at the suggestion of the respondent, smoked marijuana cigarettes furnished by the respondent, and that the respondent then took the Juvenile to an apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland, where he attempted to take sexual liberties with her, and that on several occasions during the following year, respondent telephoned the Juvenile and was informed by her of her desire to be emancipated and removed from the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. 2. That on or about July 3, 1974 the respondent procured his appointment by the District Court of Maryland, sitting as a Juvenile Court, as guardian ad litem of the Juvenile. 3. That on or about July 4, 1974 the respondent visited the Juvenile in Prince George's County Hospital where she was recuperating from an appendix operation and there attempted to take sexual liberties with her. 4. That on or about August 6, 1974 the respondent went to the apartment occupied by the Juvenile and produced a substance which he identified as hashish which, at his urging, was smoked by the Juvenile and the respondent and that thereafter, on the same date, respondent assaulted the Juvenile and attempted to have sexual relations with her against her will and that when she resisted the respondent threatened to have her re-committed by the Juvenile Court unless she cooperated. With respect to the Clem matter, the respondent is charged with conduct constituting a. Knowing engagement in illegal conduct and conduct contrary to Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Disciplinary Rule 7-102 (A) (8). b. Communication with a party he knew to be represented by a lawyer on the subject covered by that representation without the prior consent of that lawyer in violation of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Disciplinary Rule 7-104 (A) (1). c. Conduct adversely reflecting on respondent's fitness to practice law and prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A). The allegations with respect to these charges assert that on or about February 20, 1975 the respondent, while representing Patricia M. Clem, in a domestic relations matter, committed an assault upon Charles E. Clem, Patricia's estranged husband, damaged his automobile, chased him at high and dangerous speeds over the public roads of Montgomery County and engaged in communications with the said Charles E. Clem regarding the litigation between Mr. Clem and his wife, Patricia, with full knowledge that the said Charles E. Clem was represented by an attorney in that litigation. Testimony was offered and evidence presented by the petitioner in respect to both the foregoing episodes. The respondent presented evidence only in the Juvenile matter. The panel will discuss each of these two matters separately.