Legal Opinions - Maryland Court of Appeals: April 28, 2008

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Apr 28, 2008

CASE: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Parsons, AG No. 58, September Term, 2006 (filed Apr. 15, 2008) (Judges BELL, Raker, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Wilner (retired, specially assigned) & Cathell (retired, specially assigned)).

FACTS: The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, by Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to Rule 16-751, filed a petition for disciplinary or remedial action against David Wayne Parsons. The petition charged that Parsons violated Rules 5.5, Unauthorized Practice of Law, and 8.4, Misconduct, of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC).

The case was referred, pursuant to Rule 16-752(a), to the Honorable Pamela L. North, of the circuit court, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757(c). Although he properly was served with the petition, Parsons neither responded to the petition nor moved to vacate the order of default that the hearing court entered as a result of that failure.

Following a hearing Judge North made findings of fact and drew conclusions of law. The trial judge found that Parsons was admitted to the Maryland bar on November 1, 1979. On April 4, 1997, the Court of Appeals issued a decertification order prohibiting Parsons from the further practice of law in Maryland.

Parson was admitted to the practice of law in the District of Columbia on November 14, 1980. He was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia on December 2, 1991.

On December 23, 1999, Parsons filed an application for leave to appear pro hac vice in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois. On the application, Parsons stated he was a member in good standing in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Parsons signed the application and declared "under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." He signed the application on December 7, 1999.

In evidence was a letter from Willard Knox on the letterhead of Paduano & Weintraub, LLP, to counsel for the National Association of Security Dealers, Inc. (NASD). Although nothing in the letter or on the letterhead specifically stated so, it appeared Knox was an attorney representing Parsons in his defense against a "Post Complaint Rule 8210 Request for Information" in an investigation of Parsons by the NASD.

In the letter, Knox stated Parsons' apparent position that he was unaware until early 2004 that he had been decertified in Maryland. However, Knox further stated that Parsons merely chose not to renew his membership in the District of Columbia bar because it proved not to be worthwhile.

Judge North found that Parsons, at a minimum, knew he was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia when he filed his application for leave to appear pro hac vice in December 1999. It was very likely Parsons also knew in December 1999 he was decertified in Maryland because the Court of Appeals sent Parsons a letter at his Maryland law office address advising him of the decertification.