Opinion ID: 2362113
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal....

Text: Respondent excepts to Judge Harrington's findings that he forged the Bantugs' and McLemore's signatures. According to Respondent, both the Bantugs and McLemore knew that Respondent was going to sign their names to the bankruptcy petition. [22] Yet, we note the following discourse before Judge Harrington between Bar Counsel and Respondent regarding whether McLemore authorized the filing of the bankruptcy petition and whether Respondent filed accurate information in that petition. [BAR COUNSEL]: Mr. McLemore didn't know anything about [the filing of the bankruptcy petition or the foreclosure on the Batungs' home]? [RESPONDENT]: No, he didn't. [BAR COUNSEL]: And to the extent that you may have had conversations with the Bantugs after your association with Mr. McLemore, he wouldn't have known about that [the bankruptcy petition] even after your association? [RESPONDENT]: No, because all of my discussions were with [Mrs. Bantug] at that time.    [BAR COUNSEL]: Well, there came a point when you actually had to prepare some paperwork to file [for the bankruptcy petition]. [RESPONDENT]: Yes, I prepared them and I filed them and I didn't show them to him. [BAR COUNSEL]: You at no point showed them to him. [RESPONDENT]: No. I think the first time he saw them was when [the Bantugs' attorney] showed them to him.    [BAR COUNSEL]: You never said Hey [McLemore], remember today I'm going down to the Bankruptcy Court to file [the Bantugs' bankruptcy petition], and remember I talked to you about that matter, and I am going to do it today? [RESPONDENT]: No, I didn't do that. Regardless of whether McLemore agreed generally, at an earlier and undetermined date, to act as Maryland counsel for Respondent or his clients, according to Respondent's own testimony, supra, McLemore did not authorize Respondent to sign McLemore's name on the bankruptcy petition. McLemore's testimony, infra, supports this finding: I've never met with the Bantugs. I've never had a retainer agreement with them. I never had any kind of agreement with them. I never signed any bankruptcy petitions. I don't have any explanations of why particular petitions were signed and my name was on them, other that I didn't give authorization for them. Additionally, Respondent admitted to Judge Harrington that he filed a bankruptcy petition with inaccurate and incomplete information. The testimony of Mr. Reburn corroborates this finding: [BAR COUNSEL]: Did [Respondent] give you any further information about the bankruptcy filing? [MR. REBURN]: Well, I inquired about whether or not he had been retained, and the preparation of the documents; and he acknowledged that he had not been paid. I had documents in front of me and we reviewed them; I reviewed those with him, but he had not been paid the fee that was outlined on the bankruptcy documents and he had not been retained, and there were misrepresentations. [Emphasis added].    [MR. REBURN]: ... I said Is that a misrepresentation? And he indicated to me that it was. And one of them [the misrepresentations] was the fee amount.... [H]e said he sat at his computer and inputted the information, and he made up the information that was put on the form without the benefits of [an agreement with the Bantugs]. [BAR COUNSEL]: You indicated one of the things was fee amount. Were there other specific items that [Respondent] acknowledged to be misrepresentations? [MR. REBURN]: Well, the address for the Bantugs; they were in the Philippines. And that he lived in the house, and he has them listed as 7504 Burgess Lane. [23] The fact that the document titled, Notice to Individual Consumer Debtor, the last line says I, the Debtor, affirm that I have read this notice and they [the Bantugs] had not. [MR. REBURN]: ... Then there's the statement regarding compensation that bears the signature `John McLemore'; that is misrepresentation. [BAR COUNSEL]: Did you ask [Respondent] whether he had knowledge of any of the Bantugs' other finances? [MR. REBURN]: No. He sat at the computer, he told me, and inputted the information. He made up information without input from [the Bantugs]. [Emphasis added]. Clearly, Respondent failed to exhibit candor either to the federal bankruptcy court or to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County when he filed the bankruptcy petition and the notice of bankruptcy in the foreclosure action, respectively. Judge Harrington's role as the fact finder placed her in the best position to assess witness credibility and to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon. Kemp, 303 Md. at 675, 496 A.2d at 677; see Sheridan, 357 Md. at 17, 741 A.2d at 1152. Having weighed the evidence and the testimony before her, Judge Harrington found that Respondent did not discuss the bankruptcy proceeding with the Bantugs, and thus he did not have the authority to sign their names to the petition. Judge Harrington also found that Respondent completed the bankruptcy petition using what he knew to be incorrect information about the Bantugs, and that he did not have McLemore's authorization to enter his signature on that petition. Because these findings are based upon clear and convincing evidence, we sustain the resultant conclusion that Respondent violated MRPC 3.3(a)(1).