Preview:

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF

: : :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND MISC. DOCKET (SUBTITLE BV) NO. 58, SEPTEMBER TERM, 1992

MAURICE ROCHE WYATT

: :

ORDER
On April 16, 1982, the Court disbarred the petitioner, Maurice Roche Wyatt. See Attorney Grievance CommUn v. Wyatt, 293 Md. 324, On February 24, 1993, the petitioner filed a Thereafter, on March 11, 1993, the

443 A.2d 965 (1982).

petition for reinstatement.

Court referred the petition to the Attorney Grievance Commission to conduct an appropriate investigation and to submit a report and recommendation as to whether petitioner should be reinstated. On September 29, 1995, the Inquiry Panel and Review Board of the Attorney Grievance Commission filed in this Court separate reports in which the Inquiry Panel unanimously recommended that the petitioner be reinstated and the Review Board unanimously

recommended against petitionerUs reinstatement.

Based on these

reports, Bar Counsel on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission has recommended that, if the petitioner is reinstated, the

petitioner should be required to attend the professionalism course. After the petitioner submitted a response urging that he be

reinstated, the Court conducted a hearing on the matter. The Court has carefully considered the arguments of counsel presented at the hearing as well as the report and recommendation

-2of the Attorney Grievance Commission and the reports of the Inquiry Panel and Review Board. The Court has also evaluated the essential factors to be considered in any reinstatement proceeding which are: (1) the

nature and circumstances of the petitionerUs original misconduct; (2) the petitionerUs subsequent conduct and reformation; (3) the petitionerUs present character; and (4) the petitionerUs present qualifications and competence to practice law. In re Braverman,

271 Md. 196, 199-200, 316 A.2d 246 (1974); Matter of Murray, 316 Md. 303, 305, 558 A.2d 710 (1989). Upon a review of these factors,

the Court, with a majority of the Court concurring, is satisfied that petitioner has made a clear and convincing showing of

rehabilitation and of legal competence, borne out by his conduct over a long period of time. Judge Bell is of the Matter of Murray, 316 Md. at 305. opinion that restoration of the

petitionerUs eligibility to practice law is required as a result of the petitionerUs gubernatorial pardon. Accordingly, Judge Bell

concludes that it is unnecessary for him to opine on the foregoing factors. NOW, THEREFORE, it is this 2nd day of April, 1996, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the petition for reinstatement be, and it is hereby, granted and the petitioner, Maurice Roche Wyatt, upon taking in open court and subscribing to the oath of attorneys required by Md. Code (1995), Business

-3Occupations and Professions Article,

Download Reinstatement of Wyatt.pdf

Maryland Law