Opinion ID: 2781193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 3d 478 (2013)) (ellipses added).

Text: 26 We accept the Commission’s recommendation. We have concluded that Mr. Smith failed to act with the reasonable diligence expected of a member of the bar and that his inaction was prejudicial to the administration of justice in the prosecution of a child sexual abuse case and in the State’s compliance with the rights accorded victims under State law. These are serious violations, but the hearing judge found they were not committed with fraudulent or deceitful intent. This Court has often referenced the lack of fraudulent intent when imposing a suspension – in lieu of disbarment – for serious violations. See, e.g., Khandpur, 421 Md. at 20; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nichols, 405 Md. 207, 218, 950 A.2d 778 (2008). An indefinite suspension is appropriate. The recommended period of suspension is consistent with the sanction imposed in prior cases in which the misconduct consisted at least in part of a lack of reasonable diligence. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 97-98, 753 A.2d 17 (2000) (indefinite suspension with the right to re-apply in 90 days when attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence, as well as committed numerous other violations with respect to four clients). In light of the mitigating factors found by the hearing judge, Mr. Smith may re-apply no sooner than 60 days after the beginning of his suspension. I T IS SO O RDERED; R ESPONDENT S HALL P AY A LL C OSTS AS T AXED B Y THE C LERK OF T HIS C OURT, I NCLUDING THE C OSTS OF A LL T RANSCRIPTS, P URSUANT TO R ULE 16-761, FOR W HICH S UM J UDGMENT IS E NTERED IN F AVOR OF THE A TTORNEY G RIEVANCE C OMMISSION A GAINST B RUCE M ICHAEL S MITH. 27 Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. 03-C-13-004267 Argued: November 10, 2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 3 September Term, 2013 ______________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. BRUCE MICHAEL SMITH ______________________________________ Barbera, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins McDonald Watts, JJ. ______________________________________ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Watts, J., which Harrell and Battaglia, JJ., join ______________________________________ Filed: February 23, 2015 Respectfully, I concur and dissent.1 This attorney discipline proceeding involves a lawyer who displayed an egregious lack of diligence and candor in his capacity as an Assistant State’s Attorney representing the State in a prosecution against a defendant charged with committing crimes against a child. Under this attorney discipline proceeding’s unique circumstances, without hesitation, I would hold that the hearing judge’s finding that Bruce Michael Smith (“Smith”), Respondent, was credible is not entitled to deference from this Court and that clear and convincing evidence established that Smith violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation).