Opinion ID: 2292412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Findings of Fact: The Allen Case

Text: Several complaints alleging commingling of funds have been lodged against the Respondent in what has been designated `the Allen Complaint.' It was that complaint, brought before the Grievance Commission on May 29, 1984, that gave rise to the investigation into other escrow accounts held in Mr. Cockrell's name. Deposits into the First National Bank of Maryland account, the `Allen Complaint' account, by checks drawn on other accounts, alerted the Grievance Commission to the Union Trust and Equitable Trust accounts. Respondent entered a continuous objection to the inclusion of the above-named bank records in the `Allen Complaint' at a bench conference (T. 137) and later in a Supplemental Memorandum, dated May 23, 1985. Relying strenuously on In Re Ruffalo, [390 U.S. 544] 83 S.C. 1222 [20 L.Ed.2d 117] (1968), and Bar Ass'n. v. Cockrell, 274 Md. 279 [334 A.2d 85] (1975), Respondent contended that he did not receive proper notice of these charges. He also argued that these `additional matters' should have been remanded to the Inquiry Panel. Turning to the notice issue, the Court finds that Ruffalo and Cockrell are not supportive of Respondent's position. In Ruffalo, additional charges were brought against the accused attorney on the basis of his testimony in the state court proceeding. In Maryland, the proceedings referred to in Ruffalo begin when the Petition for Disciplinary Action is filed in the Court of Appeals. Attorney Griev. Comm'n. v. McBurney, 282 Md. 116, 124 [383 A.2d 58] (1978). The United States Supreme Court held that this absence of fair notice as to the precise nature of the charges deprived the attorney of procedural due process. Similarly in Cockrell, the original charges were based on the testimony Cockrell had given at the first Panel Hearing. The disposition of the original complaint was referred to a new panel of judges for consideration of the supplemental charges. The Court of Appeals, relying on Ruffalo, concluded that these new charges could not form the basis for disciplinary action because the evidentiary foundation was `tainted,' supra [274 Md.] at 287, [334 A.2d 85]. Judge Digges, supra [274 Md.] at 285 [334 A.2d 85], quoted for the Court from Ruffalo, supra [390 U.S.] at 551 [88 S.Ct. at 1226]: The charge must be known before the proceedings commence. They become a trap when, after they are underway, the charges are amended on the basis of the testimony of the accused. He can then be given no opportunity to expunge the earlier statements and start afresh. Here, unlike the situation in Cockrell, supra, Respondent has known from the outset the nature of the charges against him. Respondent knew he was being charged with commingling of clients' funds at the Inquiry Panel proceedings. The purpose of an Inquiry Panel is investigatory in nature and informal to the extent that the rules of evidence need not apply. Attorney Griev. Comm'n. v. Stewart, 285 Md. 251, 259 [401 A.2d 1026] (1979); McBurney, supra. As to notice, the above-cited cases stated: More important, if a lawyer is given notice and the opportunity to defend in a full and fair hearing before a three-judge panel,[2] the question whether he was accorded due process of law by the Inquiry Panel and the Review Board is ordinarily immaterial. [2] The three-judge panel mandated by Maryland Rule BV9 was amended in 1978. In Section d, `judge or judges' was substituted for `panel of judges.' Accordingly, we find that Respondent was afforded notice and opportunity to defend following the institution of disciplinary proceedings in the Court of Appeals. Indeed, the charges brought in Paragraphs 23-26, supra, are not limited to the `Allen Complaint' but address the complaints of clients in general. At this point, we should also address Respondent's reliance on Ruffalo to support his allegations that Disciplinary Proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature thereby entitling the accused attorney to a claim of privilege. This reliance led Respondent to object to the introduction of his deposition into testimony. (T. 52). This Court finds that Ruffalo is inapposite. Ruffalo deals with notice and due process. Once again, we must look to Maryland law for guidance: A disciplinary action against an attorney does not involve a potential criminal or quasi-criminal sanction for the purpose of the privilege against self-incrimination provided by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Maryland State Bar Ass'n. v. Sugarman, 273 Md. 306 [329 A.2d 1] (1974). In support of the charges of commingling and misappropriating clients' funds, the Attorney Grievance Commission produced an expert witness, Mr. Bauer. Mr. Bauer testified that (1) Respondent had deposited his own funds into escrow accounts; (2) Respondent had deposited the funds of one client into an escrow account upon which he drew to pay other debts. This account resulted in several negative balances. As to the first item, Mr. Bauer compiled four charts: An Analysis of Deposits of Attorney's Funds into the Paul J. Cockrell Escrow Account at First National Bank of Maryland, Account # XXX-XXXX-X (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14, 15); ... at Equitable Trust Company (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16); and ... at Union Trust Bank (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17). The First National Bank Charts (Petitioner's Exhibits No. 14, 15) were the only ones analyzed during testimony. One chart indicated a series of checks for deposit from Capital Savings and Loan Association made out to Paul J. Cockrell for $2,550; $4,250; and $2,500 and American Express Money Orders on Capital Savings and Loan Association to Paul J. Cockrell from Paul J. Cockrell for $500, $300, $1,000, $650, and $500. Next, Mr. Bauer turned to clients funds deposited in the First National Bank Account (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14). As Mr. Bauer explained: This is an analysis of the bank account with the starting date, the opening balance, January 7th of 1983, of zero... On January 19th, 1983, there was a check deposited for $9,350.00, and the check payee was James and Bessie Sommerville, individually, and Paul Cockrell, their attorney. This check was from Ohio Casualty and indicated that the insured was Reginald Groom. Following that there were withdrawals from the account.... (T. 161). Mr. Bauer then recites a series of withdrawals, none of which relate to the Sommerville settlement until February 2, 1983, when a check was issued to James Sommerville for $3,061.58. After more unrelated withdrawals, another check was issued to James Sommerville for $582.12. That check was returned for insufficient funds. At this point, Mr. Bauer testifies, the account shows a negative overdraft of $267.54. Mr. Bauer concludes that: For this all entire three pages the only money in there was that from the check issued to James and Bessie Sommerville of $9,350.00 on January 19th, since there was a zero balance when that was deposited in the account and there were no other deposits. (T. 164, 165). When asked whether there were any other accounts whose balance fell below the amount of the deposit, Mr. Bauer testified: ... I believe it was in all three banks; First National, Union Trust, and Equitable. (T. 165). When asked whether there were any other checks returned to clients for insufficient funds, Mr. Bauer replied: On November 26th there was a check written to Mayor and City Council for Juanita Davenport for $912.91 at a time when there was $175.78.... (T. 166). It should be mentioned that Mr. Bauer's thorough presentation presented excellent corroboration for the testimony of James L. Sommerville and Juanita Davenport, who preceded him. Both testified that they had engaged Mr. Cockrell as their attorney in personal injury suits. The settlement checks were handed over to Respondent. Subsequently, each had a check returned for insufficient funds. Mr. Cockrell's general defense to his using escrow accounts for personal purposes was the economic instability of his personal and professional life. He alleges that because his personal accounts were being attached, he had to turn to his escrow accounts. Mr. Cockrell never directly addresses the reasons for the negative balances in all three accounts. His defense consists of attempting to establish that Mr. Sommerville and Ms. Davenport had received all the monies due them. His Supplemental Memorandum, supra at 5, specifically addresses the $912.91 check # 1249 to Ms. Davenport from the Union Trust Account. Mr. Cockrell alleges that he had given her the check which she endorsed in return for cash which he paid her. However, he submits a photostatic copy of the front of the check only. Accordingly, we find merit in the Grievance Commission's allegations that Ms. Davenport never received the check or the cash. The records reflect that the check was never negotiated.