Attorney Grievance Commission v. Klauber
| Decision Date | 18 January 1979 |
| Citation | 396 A.2d 253,284 Md. 306 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION of Maryland v. Gerald Ney KLAUBER. Misc. (Subtitle BV) 16. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
James A. Frost, Asst. Bar Counsel, Annapolis, for petitioner.
Michael E. Marr and Joseph L. Evans, Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, COLE, JJ., and RICHARD P. GILBERT, Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals, specially assigned.
We once again are faced with a request from Bar Counsel on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland that we suspend Gerald Ney Klauber (Klauber), a member of the bar of this Court, under Maryland Rule BV16 because of his conviction on June 22, 1978, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, Mail Fraud, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962, Racketeering, which crimes are felonies under federal law. See Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Klauber, 283 Md. 597, 391 A.2d 849 (1978), for an earlier such request.
The prior request for a suspension under Rule BV16 could only have been granted had we found Klauber to have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. We held in that case that under the instructions given to the jury in the United States District Court it might follow "that the jury Could have found Klauber guilty without finding an intent on his part to defraud." (Emphasis in the original.) We said that since his appeal was still pending (as it continues to be), we could not, at that point in time, say, "particularly before the Fourth Circuit speaks, that Klauber necessarily stands convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude." We pointed out that on May 5, 1978, effective July 1, 1978, we amended Rule BV16 to permit suspension of an attorney upon conviction of certain crimes which include a conviction "in any federal court of a felony, unless the same crime also is a crime under Maryland law and is not a felony . . .." We said in denying the petition, "(W)e do not pass upon whether Klauber would be subject to suspension upon the timely filing of a petition under the revised Rule BV16 since the matter is not before us." This petition is under the revised rule. Hence, the matter is now before us.
In adopting the new Rule BV16 we did nothing to indicate that it was to be applied retrospectively to acts occurring prior to its effective date. Klauber contends vigorously that the present Rule BV16 should not be applied to a conviction which took place before the effective date of the rule. Whether the rule may be applied retroactively must be determined by the same standards which are used relative to an act of the General Assembly. In St. Comm'n on Human Rel. v. Amecom Div., 278 Md. 120, 360 A.2d 1 (1976), Judge Levine said for the Court on the matter of retroactivity:
A retroactive statute is one which purports to determine the legal significance of acts or events that have occurred prior to the statute's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyrone W. v. DANIELLE R.
...affected by a statute that operates retroactively include the rendering of a judgment by a court. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Klauber, 284 Md. 306, 308, 396 A.2d 253 (1979). Thus, for Tyrone to be able to avail himself of the 1995 revision to F.L. § 5-1038(a) to set aside the 1989 judg......
-
Washington Suburban Sanitary Com'n v. Riverdale Heights Volunteer Fire Co. Inc.
...410 (1972); (3) a statute will be given a retrospective effect if that is the legislative intent, see Attorney Grievance Commission v. Klauber, 284 Md. 306, 308, 396 A.2d 253, 254 (1979), State Commission on Human Relations v. Amecom Division of Litton Systems, supra, 278 Md. 120, 123, 360 ......
-
Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Mandel
...See Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Klauber, 283 Md. 597, 391 A.2d 849 (1978) (Klauber I ), and Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Klauber, 284 Md. 306, 307, 396 A.2d 253 (1979) (Klauber II ).2 The rules in question state:"DR 1-102 Misconduct.(A) A lawyer shall not:(1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.(2) ...(......
-
In re Fairview-Takoma Ltd. Partnership
...given retroactive application if the legislature clearly and explicitly intends that it be so applied. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Klauber, 284 Md. 306, 308, 396 A.2d 253, 254 (1979); Amecom, 278 Md. at 124, 360 A.2d at 4. The Court of Appeals of Maryland has also held that if a statute af......