Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Vasiliades

• Decision Date: 16 August 2021
• Docket Number: 10-2020
• Parties: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. CHRISTOPHER EDWARD VASILIADES
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. CHRISTOPHER EDWARD VASILIADES

No. 10-2020

Court of Appeals of Maryland

August 16, 2021

Argued: May 6, 2021

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. C-03-CV-20-001702

Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran JJ.

OPINION

HOTTEN, J.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel ("Petitioner"), directed that charges be filed against Christopher Edward Vasiliades ("Respondent"), pursuant to Md. Rule 19-721.^[1] The charges stemmed from Respondent's responses and omissions during the process of his admission to the Maryland Bar, as well as personal misconduct arising thereafter.

On April 7, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent. By order dated April 17, 2020, pursuant to Md. Rule 19-722(a), ^[2] we assigned the matter to the Honorable Colleen A. Cavanaugh ("hearing judge") of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, to conduct a hearing and render findings of fact and conclusions of law.^[3] The hearing judge conducted a hearing on October 26 and 27, 2020 and entered her findings of fact and conclusions of law on December 16, 2020.

Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC")^[4] 19-308.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) (Misconduct). The hearing judge also found certain aggravating and mitigating factors. On January 12, 2021, Respondent filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

For the reasons expressed below, we disbar Respondent from the practice of law in this state.

The Hearing Judge's Findings of Fact

We republish the relevant portions of the hearing judge's findings of fact below. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Keating, 471 Md. 614, 622, 243 A.3d 520, 525 (2020); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gracey, 448 Md. 1, 9, 136 A.3d 798, 803 (2016).

Background

From 2012 to 2016, the Respondent attended the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law as an evening student. The Respondent worked for Paul J. Duffy, Esquire as a law clerk from April 2013 through December 2016. The Respondent was admitted to the Bar of Maryland on December 14, 2016. Since 2018, he has maintained a solo law practice in Baltimore County focused on criminal defense.

Admission to the Bar of Maryland

On March 23, 2016, the Respondent submitted his Application for Admission to the Bar of Maryland ("Bar Application") to the State Board of Law Examiners ("SBLE"). The Bar Application stated, in part "I do solemnly declare and affirm under penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing petition are true and correct[, ]" and was signed by the Respondent on March 23, 2016. Part II of the Bar Application, the Character Questionnaire, contained 20 questions, some with subparts. The Character Questionnaire required the disclosure of information related to the Respondent's character and fitness to practice law including, but not limited to, information regarding education, employment, contacts with the legal system, financial obligations, and any conditions and/or impairments that could affect the practice of law.

Question 15(a)(i) of the Character Questionnaire states:

Do you have any condition or impairment (such as substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or a mental, emotional, nervous, or behavioral disorder or condition) that in any way currently affects, or, if untreated or not otherwise actively managed, could affect your ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner? In this question "currently" means recently enough that the condition could reasonably have an impact on your ability to function as a lawyer. "Actively managed" means that you receive the appropriate therapy, participate in supervised monitoring and/or recognized peer support program, or utilize other appropriate support systems to cope with your condition or impairment.

The next question, Question 15(a)(ii), states:

If your answer to (a)(i) of this question is "yes", are the limitations caused by your disorder, condition, or substance abuse problem reduced or ameliorated because you receive ongoing therapy or treatment (with or without medication) or because you participate in a monitoring program or another support system (including A.A., N.A., etc.)? If you answer "Yes" explain briefly describing any treatment or therapy you received in the past year or receive now[.]

The Respondent answered "No" to Questions 15(a)(i) and 15(a)(ii).

Question 20 on the Bar Application is titled "Affirmation of Applicant's Duty of Full, Candid Disclosure and Applicant's Continuing Duty to Submit Written Notice of Changes to Information Sought by the Application" ("Affirmation of Continuing Duty to Disclose") and states, in part:

I understand that the required disclosures in this questionnaire are of a continuing nature. I hereby acknowledge my duty to respond fully and candidly to each question or required disclosure and to ensure that my responses are accurate and current at all times until I am formally admitted to the bar of the State of Maryland. I will advise the Board immediately and in writing of any changes in the information disclosed in or sought by this questionnaire, including any pertinent facts developed after the initial filing of this application and the facts of any incident occurring subsequent to the initial filing of this application.

The Respondent signed the Affirmation of Continuing Duty to Disclose on January 13, 2016. The Respondent submitted his Bar Application on March 23, 2016. On May 11, 2016, the Respondent supplemented his Bar Application to include information responsive to Question 8.^[5] The Respondent also supplemented his response to Question 12^[6] when he received a traffic citation after submitting his Bar Application online. The Court [found] that the Respondent was aware of his continuing duty to update the information disclosed on his Bar Application after its submission.

After the Respondent submitted his Bar Application, he, like all applicants, was required to be interviewed by an Investigator with the Character Committee of the SBLE. In June 2016, Augustus F. Brown, Chair of the Second Circuit of the Character Committee, assigned the Honorable C. Carey Deeley, Jr.^[7] as the Character Committee Investigator for the Respondent. [Mr.] Deeley's role was to investigate the Respondent's character and fitness to practice law and make a recommendation as to whether the Respondent should be admitted to the Maryland Bar. In June 2016, Mr. Brown forwarded to [Mr.] Deeley a Memorandum from the SBLE which noted specific issues to investigate related to the Respondent. The issues to be investigated included 1) an incident involving the Respondent urinating in public; 2) numerous criminal/traffic proceedings in which the Respondent was involved; and 3) a surety bond.

Upon receiving the SBLE Memorandum, [Mr.] Deeley reviewed the Respondent's Bar Application and contacted the Respondent to gather additional information. The numerous criminal and traffic proceedings referenced in the SBLE Memorandum referred to the Respondent's response to Question 12(a). The incidents disclosed were as follows:

1. Alcohol Beverage Open Container in Public - 2007

2. Disorderly Conduct, Failure to Obey Lawful Order - 2007

3. Possession of Alcohol Under Age 21 - 2007

4. Driving Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol - 2007

5. Urinating in Public - 2010

6. Driving Vehicle While Impaired by Alcohol - 2011

7. Driving While License Suspended/Revoked - 2011

8. Second Degree Assault - 2014

9. Driver Using Handheld Device While Vehicle in Motion - 2014

10. Driver Using Handheld Device While Vehicle in Motion - 2015

11. Driver Failure to Obey Properly placed Traffic Control Device - 2016

Due to the Respondent's lengthy criminal and traffic history, [Mr.] Deeley and the Respondent met six times over the course of three months. [Mr.] Deeley was concerned that the Respondent had a problem with alcohol as more than half of the criminal and traffic proceedings disclosed on his Bar Application involved alcohol use. [Mr.] Deeley testified that it was his practice to inquire as to an applicant's character, which included determining whether an applicant had past or current alcohol and/or drug abuse issues. [Mr.] Deeley further testified that he reviewed his file on the Respondent prior to trial and from that review, "it's clear that we discussed drugs and alcohol." The Respondent admits that he and [Mr.] Deeley discussed his prior and current habits with alcohol and his prior behavior and decision-making.

On November 21, 2016, [Mr.] Deeley submitted his recommendation to Mr. Brown and the Character Committee. [Mr.] Deeley wrote, in part: "I don't believe [the Respondent] has a substance abuse problem at present; he credibly reports minimally using alcohol." In the letter, [Mr.] Deeley recommended that the Respondent be admitted to the Bar because he believed that the Respondent had been honest with him and had taken responsibility for his poor judgment during his "growing up years."

After receiving [Mr.] Deeley's recommendation, Mr. Brown requested that [Mr.] Deeley explain in greater detail his reasons for recommending the Respondent for admission to the Bar. Thereafter, [Mr.] Deeley sent the Respondent to be evaluated by James Quinn, then-Director of the Lawyers Assistance Program of the Maryland State Bar Association. On December 1, 2016, Mr. Quinn wrote to [Mr.] Deeley and stated, in part:

[The Respondent] made full disclosure to me of all issues and problems,

...