Opinion ID: 2328160
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The trial court's misidentification of Christiane Tellefsen, M.D. and omission of Mr. Keiner's treating health care providers

Text: In support of this exception, Respondent makes several arguments. He asserts, first, that Judge McCrone erroneously stated in the written findings of fact that Respondent was treated by Dr. Christiane Tellefsen, when in fact Dr. Tellefsen was hired by Bar Counsel to evaluate Respondent for purposes of the disciplinary proceeding. Bar Counsel likewise points out this factual error in the hearing judge's findings, albeit not as a formal exception. The record makes clear that Dr. Tellefsen did not treat Respondent. We therefore sustain that aspect of Respondent's first exception. Respondent further argues that Judge McCrone overlooked Respondent's mental health treatment, which included eight months of psychiatric treatment from Dr. Maguid N. Mansour followed by weekly therapy sessions with psychologist Philip D. Robison, Ph.D. In support of that contention, Respondent points out that there is no mention in Judge McCrone's findings of Dr. Mansour's report, in which Dr. Mansour opined that Respondent's depression was a major contributing factor in his recent aberrant behavior, and, with proper treatment of his Depressive Disorder, [Respondent] should be able to go back to practicing law, with no further problems relating to his firm or to his clients. Respondent also notes that Judge McCrone's findings do not mention Dr. Robison's report, in which Dr. Robison opined that Respondent has been very cooperative with treatment, has made significant efforts to work on his problems, and has gained significant insight into how his typically unconscious automatic ways of thinking and perceptions have greatly contributed to his depression and at times poor judgment. It is true that Judge McCrone did not mention in his factual findings Drs. Mansour and Robison or their reports. That does not mean, though, that Judge McCrone failed to consider the opinions of Respondent's treatment providers. In Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Braskey, 378 Md. 425, 836 A.2d 605 (2009), we faced a similar exception to omissions in a hearing judge's findings and responded with the following: The hearing judge, in his report, made no note of [certain phone calls that the respondent testified he had made to Blue Cross/Blue Shield in connection with representation of a client]. We are unable to say why the hearing judge omitted reference to respondent's testimony regarding [those] calls. It may be that the judge did not believe respondent; it may have been an oversight. In any case, even if the judge believed respondent, the hearing judge is not required to recount all of the evidence presented at the hearing. Accordingly this exception is overruled. Id. at 446, 836 A.2d at 618 (citation omitted). Furthermore, barring explicit evidence in the record to the contrary, we presume that any hearing judge in conducting attorney grievance matters, as in any other legal proceeding, understands and carries out his or her obligation to follow the law. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Jeter, 365 Md. 279, 288, 778 A.2d 390, 395 (2001) ([W]e presume trial judges know the law and correctly apply it.). Respondent made his alcohol abuse and diagnosed depression the centerpiece of his defense to the MRPC charges, and he and Bar Counsel gave much attention to those issues at the hearing. Furthermore, both Respondent and Bar Counsel submitted to Judge McCrone proposed factual findings and legal conclusions, in both of which submissions Respondent's mental health issues [4] were thoroughly addressed. We therefore can safely presume that Judge McCrone considered the information supplied in the reports of Respondent's mental health treatment providers, gave that evidence the weight the judge believed it deserved, and ultimately was not persuaded that Respondent's mental health issues caused, or even contributed to a large degree, to the conduct that underlay Respondent's violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge McCrone specifically addressed Respondent's alcohol abuse and depression. He wrote: While the Court finds that alcohol abuse and depression have no doubt adversely impacted Respondent, this Court is not convinced that such difficulties resulted in Respondent being unable to conform his conduct in accordance with the law and with the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. There is support in the record for Judge McCrone's findings and, as such, they are not clearly erroneous. In sum, though we sustain the part of Respondent's first exception that relates to the judge's mistake in identifying Dr. Tellefsen as Respondent's treating physician, we overrule the balance of the exception.