Preview:

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Allen James, Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 21, September Term, 1992

[Professional Discipline - Attorney Who Had Been Suspended For One Year Found To Have Been Practicing Law During Suspension. Ordered:

One Year Suspension For Previously Adjudicated Violations To Be Served Beginning Immediately. Further Discipline, If Any, To Be

The Subject Of Other Proceedings.]

Circuit Court for Prince GeorgeUs County Case #CAE 92-12782

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 21 September Term, 1992 ____________________________________

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v.

RICHARD ALLEN JAMES

____________________________________ Murphy, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Karwacki Bell Raker, JJ. ____________________________________ Opinion by Rodowsky, J. ____________________________________ Filed: November 9, l995

This opinion addresses a suspended attorneyUs non-compliance with the order of suspension. In Attorney Grievance CommUn v.

James, 333 Md. 174, 634 A.2d 48 (1993) (James II), we suspended Richard Allen James (James) for one year. This continuation of That rule in

James II arises under Maryland Rule BV13.a.2. relevant part provides that

"[u]pon expiration of the period of suspension specified in the order, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals shall replace the name of the attorney upon the register of attorneys in that Court, and the attorney may practice law, only after (a) the attorney files with the Bar Counsel a verified statement that the attorney has complied in all respects with the terms of the suspension and (b) Bar Counsel notifies the Clerk that the statement has been filed and Bar Counsel is satisfied that the attorney has complied with the terms of the suspension." The effective date of JamesUs suspension was January 12, 1994. Shortly prior to January 12, 1995, James filed an affidavit with Bar Counsel declaring that he "ha[d] complied in all respects with the terms of the suspension." On January 9, 1995 Bar Counsel

dispatched one of that officeUs investigators to 7500 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 110, Maryland Trade Center, Greenbelt,

Maryland, the address of JamesUs principal office for the practice of law in this State during the proceedings leading to his

suspension.

That office buildingUs directory listed under the

letter "J" the name "James, Richard Allen, Attorney at Law, 110." The investigator returned to the building "several times" between January 9 and February 6. On each occasion the building directory

listing for James remained unchanged.

-2On January 18, 1995 Bar Counsel filed with this Court JamesUs affidavit together with Bar CounselUs response, averring in part that James "has violated the terms of his suspension by engaging in the practice of law during the period of this suspension." This

Court, by order of February 6, 1995, referred the matter to Judge Graydon S. McKee, III of the Circuit Court for Prince GeorgeUs County to conduct an evidentiary hearing, to make appropriate findings, and to refer the matter back to this Court for our further consideration. The investigator returned to the office building in Greenbelt on March 1, 1995 to find that the directory listing for James as an attorney-at-law had been removed. Further, the name of Eugene M.

Brennan, Jr. (Brennan) had been newly listed as an attorney-at-law who could be found in Suite 110. The hearing before Judge McKee was held on March 9. James

maintained, in essence, that the law practice conducted out of Suite 110 was BrennanUs, and that he, James, merely acted as BrennanUs law clerk or paralegal. Judge McKee found that a

"combination of public appearance and internal operating procedure created an atmosphere where [James] continued to effectively hold himself out as a practicing attorney." Judge McKee concluded that

JamesUs "actions while on suspension constituted Upracticing lawU under any reasonable interpretation." The matter is now before

this Court on JamesUs exceptions to Judge McKeeUs findings of fact, made as a hearing master for this Court.

-3James was admitted to the bar of this Court in 1971. At all

relevant times he had neither any partner nor associate attorney.1 Brennan was admitted in 1980. He gave up the practice of law in

1984 or 1985 in order to pursue a career in commercial real estate. In about 1990 or 1991, when "the bottom fell out of" that market, he resumed practicing law from his home in Glen Burnie. In 1993 he

opened an office on State Circle in Annapolis, practicing alone and doing his own secretarial work. JamesUs suspension that became effective January 12, 1994 was announced by the opinion filed December 13, 1993. Md. at 174, 634 A.2d at 48. James II, 333

In late 1993 James discussed with James asked

Brennan JamesUs preparations for the suspension. Brennan to come to the Greenbelt office.

James told Brennan that James gave James

James "wanted to, if possible, keep that office open."

Brennan the impression that JamesUs practice was a good one.

wanted Brennan basically "to take over Mr. JamesUs clients ...." James "said that [Brennan] could probably, if things worked out well, maybe expect a possible $100,000 year." Before describing in Part II, infra, how the James-Brennan arrangement actually operated, we shall review the guideposts in Maryland that were available to James concerning law-practicerelated activity by a suspended attorney. Initially we note that,

For some years prior to May or June 1994, another attorney conducted a practice, independent of JamesUs practice, out of Suite 110. That attorney and James shared certain expenses.

1

-4prior to the suspension now under consideration, James had been suspended for two years by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Matter of James, 452 A.2d 163 (D.C. App. 1982). Based on

the same misconduct, this Court suspended James from practice in this State for two years beginning in August 1984. Attorney

Grievance CommUn v. James, 300 Md. 297, 477 A.2d 1185 (1984) (James I). Thus, James previously had been obliged to reflect upon the on law-practice-related activity imposed by a

restraints suspension.2

I An "attorney may not practice law ... during the period the attorney, by order, is suspended." Rule BV13.a.2. One definition

of "practice law" is found in Md. Code (1989, 1995 Repl. Vol.),

Download Attorney Griev. Comm. v. James.pdf

Maryland Law