Attorney Grievance Commission v. Fader

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed attorney disciplinary charges against Joel Jay Fader arising from the management of attorney trust accounts and a postponement request in an administrative hearing. The hearing judge found violations involving safekeeping and commingling of funds, account recordkeeping, candor toward a tribunal, and responsibility for a nonlawyer assistant, while rejecting several other alleged violations. The excerpt includes the factual findings and legal conclusions but ends before the opinion is complete.

Holdings

1. The hearing judge's findings concerning the preparation and submission of the altered documents, Fader's voicemail messages, and his statements at the subsequent administrative hearing were supported by the record and were not clearly erroneous.
2. Fader violated Maryland Lawyers' Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) by knowingly misleading the Office of Administrative Hearings and failing to correct material misrepresentations, and violated Rule 3.3(a)(4) by offering evidence he knew to be false without taking reasonable remedial measures.
3. Fader violated Rule 8.4(c) by engaging in dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation in communications with the Office of Administrative Hearings and in his testimony before the administrative law judge.
4. Fader violated Rule 8.4(d) because his dishonest dealings with the administrative law judge were prejudicial to the administration of justice.
5. Fader violated Rule 5.3(b) by failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that his nonlawyer assistant's conduct was compatible with his professional obligations.
6. Fader violated Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d), and Maryland Rules 16-606.1 and 16-607, by commingling personal and client funds, improperly maintaining trust accounts, and failing to comply with required trust-account procedures.
7. Disbarment was the appropriate sanction for Fader's intentional dishonesty toward a tribunal, multiple professional-rule violations, prior discipline, pattern of misconduct, and substantial experience in practice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the hearing judge's factual findings concerning who prepared and submitted the postponement materials and what Fader represented to the administrative law judge were clearly erroneous.
2. Whether Fader violated Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) and (4) and 8.4(c) by misleading the Office of Administrative Hearings and failing to correct false statements.
3. Whether Fader violated Rule 8.4(d) through dishonest conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
4. Whether Fader violated Rule 5.3(b) by failing to reasonably supervise his nonlawyer assistant.
5. Whether Fader violated Rules 1.15(a) and (b), 8.4(a) and (d), and Maryland Rules 16-606.1 and 16-607 through misuse and commingling of funds in attorney trust accounts.
6. What sanction was appropriate for the established violations.

Disposition

other