Opinion ID: 1461962
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Spurning Bar Counsel

Text: It is a violation of MRPC 8.1(b) for a Maryland lawyer knowingly to fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from Bar Counsel. Judge Chapin found that Chasnoff had violated that rule in the Weinfeld and Errera matters. Bar Counsel's initial contacts with Chasnoff were by ordinary mailon September 14, October 2, and October 28 in the Weinfeld matter, on September 23 in the Robinson matter, [4] and on November 19, 1998, in the Errera matter. Follow-ups by certified mail in the respective matters were sent on November 25, October 16, and December 21, 1998. Chasnoff made no written response. In late December 1998 the complaints were referred to an investigator who spoke with Chasnoff by telephone on January 5, 1999. Chasnoff explained that he was going through a very stressful period. The investigator urged Chasnoff to write or telephone Bar Counsel to explain his situation. Chasnoff did not follow up. The investigator telephoned again on January 13 and March 1 and was promised responses, but they were not forthcoming. The investigator followed up a telephone call of March 4 with a certified letter of March 5, 1999, urging a response to the Weinfeld complaint, but none was received. No substantive response to the complaints in the two matters charged was received from Chasnoff until November 1999. Although finding that Chasnoff had violated MRPC 8.1(b), Judge Chapin made the following findings: [Chasnoff's] long time friend and office manager was seriously ill during this time period, which understandably caused [Chasnoff] a great deal of emotional stress. Regrettably, [Chasnoff's] emotional state deeply affected his ability to conscientiously represent his clients and caused him to turn a blind eye to Petitioner's requests for information. [Chasnoff] acknowledged receiving Petitioner's lawful demands for information, and he did not refute Petitioner's assertion that he failed to respond to these demands. In his exceptions filed May 17, 2001, Chasnoff explained that [t]he failure to respond to Bar Counsel was due to the fact that my Office Manager and long-time friend had, at the time of the filing of the grievance, been diagnosed with cancer and was seriously ill for a substantial period of time, all of which caused me great distress and to be away from the office assisting her, seeing doctors, and arranging for her future treatment. His friend had undergone several surgeries and was unable to assist in the preparation of a response. He denied any intentional refusal to respond. To his memorandum filed August 15, 2001, in this Court, Chasnoff has attached a preliminary evaluation and recommendation, dated August 15, 2001, by a psychiatrist who evaluated Chasnoff at intervals on four days in July and August 2001. That healthcare provider concluded that Chasnoff was presenting currently with [a]n adult situational adjustment reaction with mixed anxiety and depressive features triggered by the loss of his office manager with the current difficulties of coping with the allegations [of professional misconduct] as well as ongoing difficulties managing his law practice. The psychiatrist's report indicates that the friend's cancer reappeared in the fall of 1997, became progressive, and caused her to stop working in December 1998. Chasnoff became her caretaker and became progressively immobilized and frozen. The psychiatrist recommends weekly therapeutic sessions and medication management and that Chasnoff continue practicing with a monitor. Arguing from the premise that bar discipline proceedings are within the original jurisdiction of this Court, Chasnoff submits that we can consider the psychiatrist's report and that, based on it, a suspension of no more than sixty days should be imposed and then stayed, subject to Chasnoff's compliance with the conditions suggested by the psychiatrist. Assuming, arguendo, that this Court has the power to take evidence directly and make our own findings upon it in bar discipline cases, we decline, as an exercise of discretion, to do so here. Chasnoff's past and present psychological condition, its onset, severity, and continuation, and the relationship between his condition and the violations that are before us present questions of fact, and of inferences from fact, that should have been presented to Judge Chapin, where cross examination was available and rebuttal evidence could have been received. It is not appropriate for this Court to conduct a hearing of that type. The exceptions to the findings of violation of MRPC 8.1(b) are denied. We recognize, however, as mitigating, Judge Chapin's finding that stress deeply affected Chasnoff's ability to practice conscientiously and caused him to turn a blind eye to Bar Counsel's requests.