This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An attorney, representing a client charged with multiple counts of fraud and larceny, facilitated payments to alleged victims in exchange for affidavits of non-prosecution. These affidavits were filed with the court, and the practice was known to the special prosecutor. The attorney also made questionable statements regarding potential payments to influence the case's outcome and later provided misleading testimony during disciplinary proceedings.
Procedural History
- Disciplinary Board: Found the attorney violated professional conduct rules and recommended an indefinite suspension of no less than two years with conditions for reinstatement.
Parties' Submissions
- Disciplinary Board: Argued that the attorney's conduct, including facilitating payments for affidavits of non-prosecution and misleading testimony, violated professional conduct rules and warranted significant sanctions.
- Attorney (Pro Se): Defended his actions, arguing they were consistent with local practices and did not constitute misconduct. He also contested the findings regarding his testimony before the disciplinary committee.
Legal Issues
- Did the attorney's conduct in facilitating payments to witnesses in exchange for affidavits of non-prosecution violate the Rules of Professional Conduct?
- Did the attorney's testimony before the disciplinary committee constitute deceit or misrepresentation in violation of professional conduct rules?
- What is the appropriate sanction for the attorney's conduct?
Disposition
- The attorney was publicly censured for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings regarding the alleged deceitful testimony before the disciplinary committee.
- Costs of $6,373.17 were assessed against the attorney.
Reasons
Per Curiam:
The court found that the attorney's actions in facilitating payments to witnesses in exchange for affidavits of non-prosecution created an appearance of impropriety and undermined the administration of justice. While restitution to victims is a valid policy, combining it with affidavits of non-prosecution on a quid pro quo basis was deemed prejudicial to justice and violated Rules 16-804(D) and (H).
The court also noted that the attorney's testimony before the disciplinary committee exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth, but procedural due process required further proceedings to determine whether this constituted a violation of Rule 16-804(C).
The court concluded that a formal reprimand was insufficient to address the gravity of the attorney's conduct but deferred further sanctions pending additional proceedings. Public censure was deemed appropriate to express disapproval of the attorney's actions and their impact on the judicial system.