Court Opinion

ID: 9649488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:55:55.076632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:25.044099
License: Public Domain

RAKER, Judge,
dissenting:
This matter is before the Court on a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law by Petitioner Wendell H. Grier. After a hearing pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-714, Courts, Judges and Attorneys, Termination—Modification—Reinstatement, the Review Board of the Attorney Grievance Commission, in a 13-1 vote, voted to recommend denial of Grier’s Petition for Reinstatement, concluding that Grier had not shown the necessary present qualifications to practice law at this time. Nonetheless, this Court has reinstated Grier as a member of the Bar of this State, with the condition that should Petitioner engage in the private practice of law within two years of his reinstatement, his practice be monitored by a member of the Bar, with monthly reports for the first six months and quarterly reports thereafter and under such reasonable terms of monitoring as worked out between Bar Counsel and the monitor. I agree with the near unanimous recommendation of the Review Board, and respectfully dissent. In my view, Petitioner has failed to satisfy his heavy burden that he presently possesses the good moral character to practice law. Based on the record before this Court, and the recommendation and findings of the Review Board and Inquiry Panel, I am unable to assure the public that this Petitioner, if he were restored to the practice of law, can be trusted to do so in a responsible and competent manner. See In re Barton, 273 Md. 377, 381, 329 A.2d 102, 105 (1974).
A person who has been suspended from the practice of law may file a petition in the Court of Appeals to terminate a suspension. See Maryland Rule 16-714(a). The Court may reserve judgment on the petition until after a hearing. If the Court reserves judgment, the rule directs Bar Counsel to conduct an appropriate investigation and to refer the petition *155to an Inquiry Panel and subsequent review by the Review Board. See Maryland Rule 16—714(d)(2). Bar Counsel shall transmit to the Court the recommendations of the Review Board, and any evidence. See id. The burden is on the petitioner to establish the averments of the petition by clear and convincing proof. See Maryland Rule 16-714(d)(4).
The principal criteria this Court has traditionally considered in assessing whether a person should be readmitted or reinstated to the Bar are as follows:
1. The nature and circumstances of petitioner’s original misconduct;
2. Petitioner’s subsequent conduct and reformation;
3. Petitioner’s present character; and
4. Petitioner’s present qualifications and competence to practice law.
See Reinstatement of Keehan, 342 Md. 121, 125, 674 A.2d 510, 512 (1996); In re Braverman, 271 Md. 196, 199-200, 316 A.2d 246, 247 (1974).
On January 22, 1990, Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against Wendell Harry Grier, charging that Grier misused client funds and commingled funds in his escrow account. The Petition alleged violations of Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.15 (Safekeeping Property), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4 (Misconduct), as well as of the statute governing attorney trust accounts, Maryland Code (1989, 1995 Repl.Vol., 1998 Cum.Supp.) § 10-301 to 10-307 of the Business Professions and Occupations Article. In the Petition, Bar Counsel alleged that Grier’s escrow account balance fell below the amount he should have been holding for client Larry Levenson, and that checks issued on the escrow account were returned for insufficient funds. Bar Counsel further alleged that during the period of September 1, 1987 through February 29, 1988, Grier commingled funds from several estates in his general escrow account, and on various occasions drew checks from the escrow account payable to *156himself, without notation regarding his entitlement to those funds. Grier failed to respond to oral and written requests of Bar Counsel for information regarding the returned checks.
Petitioner was indefinitely suspended, by consent, on June 18, 1990.1 He was an active alcoholic at that time. Shortly after he was suspended, several additional client complaints were received by the Attorney Grievance Commission.2 The complainants were informed that their complaints would be placed in Grier’s file, to be considered when and if he applied for reinstatement.3
On December 29, 1993, Wendell H. Grier filed a Petition for Reinstatement in the Court of Appeals. This Court ordered an investigation and that costs in the sum of $800.00 be deposited with the Commission. The money was not received by the Commission until November 29, 1996. A hearing was held, and the Inquiry Panel recommended reinstatement, with special conditions as follows: (1) that in the event Petitioner did not affiliate himself with a law firm that maintains a separate bookkeeping department, any escrow or trust account Grier maintains be co-signed by a member of the Bar, (2) that five files a month be reviewed on a random basis for eighteen months and quarterly for forty-two months thereafter, and that whoever undertakes monitoring of his practice render quarterly reports to Bar Counsel for five years, (3) that Petitioner continue to attend Alcoholics Anonymous and that he report regularly and directly to Richard Vincent, the Director of Lawyer Counseling for the Maryland State Bar Association, and (4) that a written report for a period of five *157years after reinstatement be sent to Bar Counsel from Richard Vincent. As previously indicated, the Review Board voted to deny reinstatement.
Petitioner’s present fitness to practice law must be considered in light of the nature and circumstances of his original misconduct. Petitioner’s transgressions were of the utmost gravity—misuse of client funds and commingling of funds in his escrow account. See In re Barton, 273 Md. 377, 380, 329 A.2d 102, 104 (1974); In re Lombard, 242 Md. 202, 206, 218 A.2d 208, 211 (1966). The Board was not convinced that Petitioner’s problems would not have occurred absent his alcoholism, noting that Petitioner employed no consistent staff, did not engage the services of an accountant, and had taken no courses in regard to maintaining an escrow or trust account. In addition, to aggravate matters, he failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel’s investigation. Ordinarily, a member of the Bar would be disbarred for the trust account violations. See Attorney Griev. Comm. v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 519, 704 A.2d 1225, 1241 (1998); Attorney Griev. Comm. v. Kenney, 339 Md. 578, 587, 664 A.2d 854, 858 (1995). This Court has said that “the more serious the original misconduct was, the heavier is the burden to prove present fitness for readmission to the bar.” In re Barton, 273 Md. at 380, 329 A.2d at 104. I agree with the conclusion of the Review Board that Petitioner has not satisfied his burden in establishing that he is presently fit to practice law.
As to Petitioner’s subsequent conduct and reformation, the evidence was largely favorable. As to his present character, the Inquiry Panel noted the favorable testimony of the Honorable Askew Gatewood, but the Review Board had concerns with what they perceived as arrogance and evasiveness on the part of Petitioner. The Board noted:
A review of the complete transcript indicates that Petitioner seldom answered a direct question in a direct manner. Rather, Petitioner used a great deal of verbiage to impart very little substantive knowledge to the questions posed by the Inquiry Panel. Petitioner’s response to Mr. Hirshman’s question regarding the setting of conditions for reinstate*158ment appears symptomatic of a lack of insight into the underlying problems that brought him to the attention of the Attorney Grievance Commission in the first place.
Finally, both the Review Board and Inquiry Panel had concerns regarding Petitioner’s present qualifications to practice law.
The Review Board believed that Petitioner had not shown the necessary qualifications to practice law at this time. The Board did not believe that Petitioner would either accept or cooperate with a monitor or the conditions suggested by the Inquiry Panel. In the Board’s report, several significant observations were noted:
1. The Panel noted that this Bar has been very consistent in the harsh handling of attorneys who violate the trust of the public in misusing trust accounts.
2. Petitioner had not taken courses or classes of note regarding the maintenance of an escrow or trust account.
3. While Petitioner’s misconduct may have been caused in major part by his alcoholism, both the Panel and the Review Board were not convinced that these are problems that would not have occurred absent the alcoholism.
4. Petitioner did not establish that he is presently competent to handle a private practice without guidance and assistance in relation to the maintenance of escrow and trust accounts.
5. There existed a marked paucity of evidence regarding Petitioner’s present qualifications and competence. Petitioner presented no evidence that he took continuing legal education courses during the past 8 years regarding any substantive areas of law that he may go into if reinstated.
The Panel and the Board had the opportunity to view the witnesses and judge their veracity and credibility. WTiile the final determination as to reinstatement rests with this Court, and we review the recommendation of the Board de novo, the findings of the Panel and the Board are entitled to some consideration, if not some measure of deference.
*159In the discharge of our duty and our original jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings, this Court is charged with the responsibility to protect the public, to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and to deter other lawyers from engaging in violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Milliken, 348 Md. at 516, 704 A.2d at 1239. There is perhaps no greater act of professional misconduct than the misuse of client funds. The Supreme Court of New Jersey noted, in In the Matter of Wilson, 81 N.J. 451, 409 A.2d 1153, 1154 (1979), that the rule against misappropriating client funds has its roots in the confidence and trust which clients place in their attorneys.
Having sought his advice and relying on his expertise, the client entrusts the lawyer with the transaction—including the handling of the client’s funds. Whether it be a real estate closing, the establishment of a trust, the purchase of a business, the investment of funds, the receipt of proceeds of litigation, or any one of a multitude of other situations, it is commonplace that the work of lawyers involves possession of their clients’ funds. That possession is sometimes expedient, occasionally simply customary, but usually essential. Whatever the need may be for the lawyer’s handling of clients’ money, the client permits it because he trusts the lawyer.
It is a trust built on centuries of honesty and faithfulness. Sometimes it is reinforced by personal knowledge of a particular lawyer’s integrity or a firm’s reputation. The underlying faith, however, is in the legal profession, the bar as an institution. No other explanation can account for clients’ customary willingness to entrust their funds to relative strangers simply because they are lawyers.
How does a monitor and co-signor fit with this philosophy? Is the client told of the requirement for an overseer and a co-signor on the escrow account? And the reasons therefor?
The practice of appointing a monitor to serve as a watch person over an escrow account is, in my view, highly inappropriate. First and foremost, every member of the Bar should be sufficiently trustworthy to practice law without a monitor. *160Second, there is evidence that the monitor system does not work. See, e.g., Attorney Griev. Comm. v. Larsen, 324 Md. 114, 596 A.2d 623 (1991) (attorney’s indefinite suspension reimposed after he violated condition that a monitor co-sign all escrow checks).
I cannot conclude, based on the record before us, that we uphold our grave responsibility when we reinstate Petitioner at this time. A member of the Bar of this State should be sufficiently trustworthy to maintain an escrow or trust account without an overseer. If an attorney cannot be trusted to write checks on a trust account without a co-signer, that person is not fit to practice law in this State. I would deny the Petition for Reinstatement at this time.
Judge WILNER and Judge CATHELL have authorized me to state that they join in the views expressed herein.

. A suspension by consent in light of allegations of escrow violations will not render the misconduct less serious than a judicial determination of the same conduct, and will not affect the test that must be satisfied to justify reinstatement.

. In total, eight disciplinary complaints were either pending at the time of Petitioner’s suspension or were subsequently received in the office of Bar Counsel.

. These complaints were reviewed with Petitioner as part of the reinstatement Petition.