Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Smith

Decision Date23 February 2015
Docket NumberMisc. Docket AG No. 3,Sept. Term, 2013.
PartiesATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Bruce Michael SMITH.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Suspension ordered.

Watts, J., filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which Harrell and Battaglia, JJ., joined. Dolores O. Ridgell, Senior Asst. Bar Counsel (Glenn M. Grossman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for petitioner.

Bruce Michael Smith (Bel Air, MD), for respondent.

Argued before BARBERA, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD and WATTS, JJ.McDONALD, J.

State law requires that law enforcement authorities provide certain notices to victims and, in the case of a child victim, to the representative of the victim. Among other things, this requirement allows those specially affected by the criminal justice system to know its workings and perhaps participate in them. In particular, it provides an opportunity for the victim, or the victim's representative, to be heard at critical junctures in the case, such as sentencing, when the victim's perspective may be significant to the court's decision. This is an important responsibility of a prosecutor who, as the representative of the State, has a duty to ensure that “justice shall be done.” 1

This attorney disciplinary proceeding arises out of a criminal prosecution involving an alleged incident of child sexual abuse. Respondent Bruce Michael Smith, at the time an Assistant State's Attorney assigned to the Child Advocacy Center in Harford County, was the prosecutor. In that capacity, he was responsible for notifying the 10–year–old victim and her foster mother of their rights under State law, preparing them for the trial, and informing them of critical proceedings in the case. Mr. Smith concedes that he was woefully deficient in carrying out that responsibility with the result that neither the victim nor her foster mother was aware of the prosecution of the alleged assailant, they were not able to participate in sentencing following the defendant's Alford plea, and they were not aware of the conditions of the defendant's later release from custody that forbade any contact with the victim. Mr. Smith also concedes that his failure to communicate with the victim's foster mother resulted in his giving incorrect information to the Circuit Court, which caused that court to postpone the original trial date.

We conclude that Mr. Smith failed to act with the reasonable diligence expected of a member of the bar and that his misconduct prejudiced the administration of justice. He is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law, with the right to re-apply no sooner than 60 days from the date that his suspension begins.

I
1. Victim Notification Requirements

The Maryland Constitution confers on victims of crimes the right to be treated with “dignity, respect, and sensitivity” by agents of the State and to be notified and to participate in criminal proceedings, as may be permitted by implementing legislation. Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 47. 2 The General Assembly has implemented this “strong public policy” by enacting several statutes that create “a class of specific, but narrow, rights for victims.” Hoile v. State, 404 Md. 591, 605, 948 A.2d 30 (2008). In particular, the Legislature has set forth certain guidelines for the treatment and notification of a victim. Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article (“CP”), § 11–1002(b). In addition, it has required prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement officers, and certain judicial officials to notify victims of those guidelines. CP § 11–104. When the victim is a minor or incompetent person, a “victim's representative”—defined as a close relative or guardian of the victim3—has similar rights under these statutes.

Under the statutory guidelines, victims are to be provided with certain services, amenities, information and notices, and opportunities to participate in the criminal process.4 Pertinent to this case, a victim and a victim's representative, on written request, “should be kept reasonably informed by the police or the State's Attorney of the arrest of a suspect and the closing of the case, and should be told which office to contact for information about the case.” CP § 11–1002(b)(8). If the alleged crime is a “crime of violence,” such as sexual abuse of a minor in certain circumstances,5 the victim and victim's representative should be notified in particular of specified stages of the criminal case, including trial and disposition. CP § 11–1002(b)(10). In addition, on request of the State's Attorney and in the discretion of the trial court, the victim and victim's representative may submit a victim impact statement and address the court at sentencing. CP § 11–1002(b)(11). The victim and victim's representative also have certain rights as to notice when the defendant will be released from custody. CP § 11–1002(b)(14)(16).

To ensure that victims are aware of their rights, a law enforcement officer or District Court commissioner is to provide the victim or victim's representative with a pamphlet describing those rights on first contact. CP § 11–104(b). Once charges have been filed and made public, the prosecutor is to provide the victim or victim's representative promptly with a copy of the pamphlet and a notification request form. CP § 11–104(c). The prosecutor is to certify compliance with that requirement with the clerk of the court. Id. If the victim or victim's representative completes and files the notification request form, the prosecutor is, to the extent practicable, to give the victim or victim's representative prior notice of each court proceeding, of the terms of any plea agreement, and of the right to submit a victim impact statement in connection with sentencing. CP § 11–104(e). In addition, that victim or victim's representative “has the right to attend any proceeding in which the right to appear has been granted to a defendant.” CP § 11–102(a).

2. Child Advocacy Centers

To address what it found to be a lack of “necessary counseling and follow-up services” for sexual assault victims, the General Assembly directed the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention (“GOCCP”) to establish sexual assault crisis programs in the State, including child advocacy centers. CP § 11–923. The State has designated 21 child advocacy centers throughout the State to provide a “coordinated multi-disciplinary approach to the problem of child abuse.” Report of GOCCP on Child Advocacy Centers (January 1, 2015) at 1, available at CACS- 2014. pdf>. The centers are to provide “safe, child friendly environments for forensic interviews and medical evaluations of the alleged child victim and offer continued support to the child.” Id. The centers are to foster collaboration and “reduce existing gaps in services.” Id. Pertinent to this case, the Harford County Child Advocacy Center (“Center”) was established in 1993 and includes on its staff forensic interviewers, therapists, a pediatrician, local, county, and State law enforcement officers, and Assistant State's Attorneys. See .

SanctionB. Procedural Context

On March 15, 2013, the Attorney Grievance Commission (“Commission”), through Bar Counsel, filed with this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action alleging that Bruce Michael Smith violated various provisions of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) in connection with a child sexual abuse case that he prosecuted while employed by the Harford County State's Attorney's Office and assigned to the Center. In particular, the Commission charged Mr. Smith with violating MLRPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.3 (candor toward a tribunal), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct). Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–752(a), this Court assigned this disciplinary proceeding to Judge Ruth Ann Jakubowski of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, 6 to conduct a hearing concerning the alleged violations and to provide findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.

The hearing judge conducted an evidentiary hearing during October 2013, at which three witnesses, including Mr. Smith, testified, and at which the parties submitted a stipulation of facts as well as several documentary exhibits. The hearing judge filed a detailed Statement of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in December 2013. Based on her findings of fact and analysis of the law, the hearing judge concluded that Mr. Smith had violated MLRPC 1.3, but had not violated MLRPC 3.3 or the various subsections of MLRPC 8.4.

The Commission did not except to the hearing judge's findings of fact, but did except to her conclusion that Mr. Smith did not commit all of the alleged violations; it offered alternative recommendations as to sanction, depending on how we dispose of those exceptions. Mr. Smith filed no exceptions or recommendation as to sanction.

C. Factual Context

Because the hearing judge's fact findings are uncontested, we treat them as established. Maryland Rule 16–759(b)(2)(A). The hearing judge's findings and the undisputed evidence in the record established the following facts.

Bar Admission and Employment

Mr. Smith was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 16, 1999, and is also admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. He is not a member of the bar of any other state or the District of Columbia.

After working for the Public Defender's Office, Mr. Smith was hired in 2007 as an Assistant State's Attorney for Harford County. He prosecuted cases in the District Court. He was also designated as one of the Assistant State's Attorneys assigned to the Center, which handled cases of child sexual assault and abuse, physical abuse and neglect, child pornography, and internet solicitation of children. As indicated earlier, the Center is also staffed by victim/witness advocates, a forensic interviewer, a family advocate, several detectives, a State trooper,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Damato-Kushel
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 5 Diciembre 2017
    ...in the unlikely case of a wilful failure to do so, such misconduct will not be taken lightly. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Commission v. Smith , 442 Md. 14, 31–32, 109 A.3d 1184 (2015) (prosecutor sanctioned for violating Maryland Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct by repeatedly and wi......
1 books & journal articles
  • Office of Bar Counsel
    • United States
    • Wyoming State Bar Wyoming Lawyer No. 46-3, June 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...the right to rely upon an attorney to assist it in ascertaining the truth of the case before it." Att'y Grievance Commn of Md. v. Smith, 442 Md. 14, 34, 109 A.3d 1184, 1195 (Md. 2015). By virtue of Ms. Manlove's "public responsibilities, broad authority and discretion, [she] has a heightene......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT