Court Opinion

ID: 9904914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 14:05:00.930153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:47.005741
License: Public Domain

Argued: September 8, 2023
                                                                        IN THE SUPREME COURT

                                                                              OF MARYLAND

                                                                                 Misc. No. 62

                                                                            September Term, 2022

                                                                IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION

                                                                   OF SAMUEL EDWARD HOWIE FOR

                                                                ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND

                                                                             Fader, C.J.,
                                                                             Watts,
                                                                             Hotten,
                                                                             Booth,
                                                                             Biran,
                                                                             Gould,
                                                                             Eaves,

                                                                                    JJ.

                                                                                      Order
                                                                 Hotten, J., dissents, to which Eaves, J. joins.

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this         Filed: November 28, 2023
document is authentic.
                 2023-11-28 08:39-05:00

Gregory Hilton, Clerk
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION                       *      IN THE
OF SAMUEL EDWARD HOWIE                                 *      SUPREME COURT
FOR ADMISSION TO                                       *      OF MARYLAND
BAR OF MARYLAND                                        *      Misc. No. 62
                                                       *      September Term, 2022
                                        ORDER

      WHEREAS, Samuel Edward Howie (“the Applicant”) applied for admission to the

Maryland Bar on July 13, 2021,

      WHEREAS, the Applicant’s application was accompanied by a Notice of Intent to

Transfer Qualifying Uniform Bar Examination (“UBE”) score filed pursuant to Maryland

Rule 19-207, after he achieved a qualifying score during the July 2018 administration of

the UBE in New Jersey,

      WHEREAS, while in his final semester of law school at the University of Maryland

Francis King Carey School of Law in the spring of 2018, the Applicant took a bar

preparation course, which included taking multiple Multistate Performance Test (“MPT”)

practice exams,

      WHEREAS, prior to taking his fifth and final practice exam, the Applicant obtained

a picture of the model answer from a friend who had already taken the exam, intending to

achieve the number of points that he needed for a perfect score on the final MPT practice

exam, and he in fact achieved such a score,

      WHEREAS, the professor who taught the bar preparation course recognized the

plagiarized answer, resulting in a hearing before the law school honor board, which issued

“an official reprimand to be made part of his student permanent record and to be disclosed
to the bar examiners for each state to which he applied,” and also required that he complete

an ethics essay assignment prior to graduation,

       WHEREAS, prior to graduation, the Applicant was advised by a professor that he

needed to disclose the identity of the friend who shared the model answer with him, and

after the Applicant complied, he was then given an additional honor code violation for

failing to report the honor code violation of his friend,

       WHEREAS, the Applicant was permitted to graduate and received his J.D. degree,

       WHEREAS, the Applicant applied for and has been admitted to the Bars of New

Jersey and New York, after the character committees in both states conducted hearings at

which the Applicant testified and was questioned about his law school honor code

violations,

       WHEREAS, on March 3, 2022, the Character Committee for the Sixth Appellate

Circuit (“Character Committee”) held a hearing pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-204(a)(2)

to consider the Applicant’s character and fitness, and thereafter submitted a report

recommending the Applicant’s admission to the Maryland Bar by a 4-2 majority vote of

the Character Committee hearing panel,

       WHEREAS, on March 24, 2023, the State Board of Law Examiners (the “Board”)

held a hearing pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-204(b), at which the Applicant testified before

the Board,

       WHEREAS, after considering the Character Committee’s report, and conducting

its own assessment of the record and the Applicant’s testimony, the Board, by a 4-2

                                              2
majority vote, issued a report on May 16, 2023, recommending that this Court approve the

Applicant for admission to the Maryland Bar,

       WHEREAS, in its report, the Board found that Applicant “presently possesses the

moral character and fitness necessary to practice law”,

       WHEREAS, in making its favorable recommendation, the Board noted, among

other things: (1) that two other jurisdictions had found that the Applicant possessed

sufficient character and fitness for admission following thorough character reviews, (2)

that the Applicant has been practicing law for over three years and has not engaged in any

further incidents of dishonesty or other ethical breaches while practicing law, and (3) the

record included positive character reviews from employers during the passage of time since

the 2018 honor code violation, and

       WHEREAS, the Applicant appeared before this Court on September 8, 2023, in

response to a show cause order issued pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-204(c)(1),

       NOW THEREFORE, the Court having considered the Applicant’s statements to

this Court, the favorable recommendations of the majority of the members of both the

Character Committee and the Board concerning the Applicant’s application for admission

to the Bar of Maryland, it is, this 28th day of November, 2023 by the Supreme Court of

Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring,

       ORDERED, that the favorable recommendations of the Character Committee and

the Board are accepted, and it is further

                                            3
       ORDERED, that the Applicant be admitted to the Bar upon taking the oath

prescribed by statute.

                                             /s/ Matthew J. Fader
                                                 Chief Justice

                                       4
      IN THE SUPREME COURT

            OF MARYLAND

              Misc. No. 62

         September Term, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION

  OF SAMUEL EDWARD HOWIE FOR

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND

          Fader, C.J.,
          Watts,
          Hotten,
          Booth,
          Biran,
          Gould,
          Eaves,

                 JJ.

    Dissent to the Order by Hotten, J., which
    Eaves, J. joins.

    Filed: November 28, 2023
       Respectfully, I dissent. Mr. Howie has not met the burden of establishing he

currently possesses the requisite moral character and fitness for admission to the Bar.

       “An applicant must possess good moral character for admission to any Bar, denoted

by ‘those qualities of truth-speaking [and] a high sense of honor[.]’” In re Cramer, 427

Md. 612, 622, 50 A.3d 1066, 1071–72 (2012). We have highlighted the importance of

candor, truthfulness, and disclosure as the cornerstones of the good moral character

necessary for the practice of law in Maryland. In re Stern, 403 Md. 615, 634, 943 A.2d

1247, 1258 (2008). Fundamental to these disclosures is an applicant’s “understand[ing

of] the high standard of integrity expected of an attorney.” In re Hyland, 339 Md. 521,

539, 663 A.2d 1309, 1318 (1995).

       We have often cited patterns of poor moral behavior as indicative of an applicant’s

lack of character and integrity. See In re Brown, 449 Md. 669, 689, 144 A.3d 1188, 1200

(2016) (holding that “Ms. Brown’s actions . . . are indicative of a cumulative pattern of a

lack of honesty and candor[]”); In re T.Z.-A.O., 441 Md. 65, 76, 105 A.3d 492, 498 (2014)

(concluding the applicant demonstrated a “consistent and troubling pattern of financial

irresponsibility and failure to meet financial obligations[]”); Stern, 403 Md. at 633, 943

A.2d at 1257 (concluding the applicant’s “pattern of financial irresponsibility” warranted

denial of Bar admission).

       Mr. Howie incurred honor code violations while attending law school for

plagiarism and failing to disclose the honor code violation of another student who

facilitated his plagiarism. Although he was previously admitted to the Bars of New Jersey

and New York, he failed to disclose the violations to two of his four employers. This
record reflects a patterned lack of candor and a failure to appreciate a moral duty to the

truth. Only after pressure from three attorneys did Mr. Howie admit his dishonesty to the

law school, yet chose to violate the honor code again by withholding the name of the

student who facilitated his plagiarism. Before the Character Committee, Mr. Howie stated

he did not affirmatively disclose the Maryland honor code violations to his New Jersey

employers because they “only practiced in New Jersey.” However, an attorney’s ethical

obligation to the truth is not limited by geography. See, e.g., In re License of Thompson,

363 Md. 469, 478–79, 769 A.2d 905, 910–11 (2000) (noting that attorney’s violations of

D.C. Disciplinary Rules would reflect the attorney’s lack of the requisite moral character

for practice in Maryland); Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. McCoy, 369 Md. 226, 237, 798

A.2d 1132, 1138 (2002) (disbarring an attorney for ethical violations committed in

Delaware).

      Mr. Howie’s conduct also reflects another concern: his focus on the repercussions

of being caught, not the moral failing of dishonesty. After being caught by his school,

Mr. Howie asked his professor how “he could make things go away.” Before the

Character Committee, Mr. Howie listed some “regrets,” omitting the dishonesty of his

plagiarism and limited to the stress of being caught on his family and the damage to his

career. These “regrets” do not demonstrate that he understands the moral failing of

dishonesty, only the inconvenience of being caught.

      When given an opportunity to show that he had rehabilitated himself, Mr. Howie

chose not to, again demonstrating he does not understand his moral duty. Instead, he

obfuscated his “make things go away” statement as “embarrassing and silly” and stood by
                                          2
his decision to seek advice from attorneys rather than take responsibility for his

dishonesty.

       Before this Court, Mr. Howie still could not articulate why his dishonesty was

problematic, and pointed to his Bar admissions in New Jersey and New York to argue that

he has been rehabilitated and presently possesses the requisite moral character. I disagree.

Mr. Howie has the burden of proving his moral character and fitness before this Court.

Md. Rule 19-204(d). Admission to the Bars of other jurisdictions does not abrogate the

responsibility of demonstrating he possesses sufficient moral character to practice law in

Maryland. His decision to foist his obligation onto the Bars of other states is not indicative

of appreciating his moral duties.

       “We expect attorneys who practice law to exemplify the highest virtues of

character, honesty, and integrity. Those qualities serve as the underpinnings for our

profession and have been the hallmark of the careers of many distinguished members of

our Bar. The practice of law is a privilege. This privilege is a sacred trust, the acceptance

of which is accompanied by a measure of responsibility.” In re Moneri, 483 Md. 567,

568, 295 A.3d 637, 638 (2023) (Hotten, J., dissenting) (citations omitted). As noted by

the Maryland Rules, “[a]ttorneys enjoy a distinct position of trust and confidence that

carries the significant responsibility and obligation to be caretakers for the system of

justice that is essential to the continuing existence of a civilized society.” Md. Att’ys’

Rules of Prof. Conduct App’x 19-B. Through his patterns of failing to disclose his honor

code violations to employers, continued focus on the consequences of being caught, and

                                              3
choice to delegate his duty of proving his good character to another state, Mr. Howie

demonstrates that he does not exemplify the virtues we uphold. Accordingly, I dissent.

      Justice Eaves has authorized me to state that she joins in this opinion.

                                            4