Court Opinion

ID: 9701833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:39:58.503962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:30.043513
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.,

dissenting:

I concur in the dissent of Chief Judge Murphy. I would add a few additional words, however.
The majority opinion has concluded, “That the crime of which respondent stands convicted . .. reflects upon his fitness to practice law is beyond debate . ...”
Those who have had any connection with grievance procedures against lawyers will attest to the fact that the-*471greatest single cause of complaint is procrastination.1 We have referred repeatedly to the Lord Mansfield rule enunciated in Ex parte Brownsall, 2 Cowp. 829 (1778):
“The question is, whether, after the conduct of this man, it is proper that he should continue a member of a profession which should stand free from all suspicion. * * * It is not by way of punishment; but the court, in such cases, exercise their discretion whether a man whom they have formerly admitted is a proper person to be continued on the roll or not.”
See, e.g., Bar Ass’n of Balto. City v. Posner, 275 Md. 250, 255, 339 A. 2d 657 (1975); In re Barton, 273 Md. 377, 381, 329 A. 2d 102 (1974); Maryland St. Bar Ass’n v. Sugarman, 273 Md. 306, 316, 329 A. 2d 1 (1974), citing In re Rouss, 221 N. Y. 81, 84-85, 116 N. E. 782 (1917), an opinion by then Judge Cardozo; Balliet v. Balto. Co. Bar Ass’n, 259 Md. 474, 478, 270 A. 2d 465 (1970); and In re Meyerson, 190 Md. 671, 675-76, 59 A. 2d 489 (1948), to name but a few. It was more succinctly put by Judge Singley for the Court in Posner when he said that “the purpose of the proceeding [is] to protect the public by determining a lawyer’s fitness to practice law .. ..”
When a lawyer so neglects his own affairs as to fail for three successive years to do that which every citizen of this republic knows that he must do if his income is more than a mere pittance, namely to file an income tax return, then I conclude that he has demonstrated that he is not the type of person to whom we may in confidence entrust the handling of the affairs of others. I would disbar. Therefore the above is an additional reason for disbarment.
Chief Judge Murphy and Judge Digges authorize me to say that they concur in the views here expressed.

. SeeK e.g., report of the Chairman of the Attorney Grievance Commission to the Maryland State Bar Association, Daily Record June 16, 1976, p. 1 in which he said:
“As a matter of interest, the largest number of complaints involve undue delay, lack of communication and fee disputes, all of which can be prevented by a careful lawyer.’’