Attorney Grievance Commission v. Marano
This text of 511 A.2d 512 (Attorney Grievance Commission v. Marano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9, seeking disciplinary action against Philip S. Maraño, a member of the Maryland Bar since November 9, 1956. Bar Counsel charged violations of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(1), (3), (4), (5) and (6); 5-104(A); 6-101(A)(l), (2) and (3); 7-101(A)(l), (2) and (3); 9-102(A)(l), (2) and (B)(1), (3) and (4). 1 He also was charged with violation of Maryland *795 Code (1957, 1981 Repl.Vol., 1985 Cum.Supp.) Art. 10, § 44. 2 We shall disbar.
*796 I
Pursuant to Rule BV9 b we referred the matter for hearing to one of the judges of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. He has filed a comprehensive report with us in which he states:
“FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
* # * He * *
“The gravamen concerning the Respondent’s conduct In the Matter of the Estate of Andrew Melnick involves his handling of funds of the estate. Briefly summarized, an inventory was not filed until some ten (10) months after the estate was opened and listed an asset of $52,500 ‘in account with Philip S. Maraño, various loans, etc.’ Subsequent to the Respondent being removed as Personal Representative and a successor appointed he failed to account for his debt, and any transactions between himself and the deceased.
“On February 7, 1984 the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City held Mr. Maraño in contempt for failure to produce records evincing the debt. There were further uncomplied with orders of the Orphans’ Court. However, the debt was in fact ultimately paid plus interest by the Respondent.
“It is alleged that the funds to repay the estate were obtained with loans from clients. The Petitioner contends that the clients were never informed of the purpose of the loans.”
* * * * * *
*797 “The initial complaint in BC Docket No. 85-21-4-2 concerns the Respondent’s conduct as attorney for the estate of Daniel E. DeBarge. In this matter a Petition for Probate was filed May 10, 1974 in the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City. Despite notices from the Court the Respondent failed to have a list of interested persons, an information report, an inventory nor accounting timely filed. Many of these items not being filed until August, 1984. Broadly stated the Respondent is alleged to have improperly represented the Personal Representative and take the necessary action to close the estate in a timely manner.”
* * # * * *
“Also in the aforementioned complaint, the Respondent is again alleged to have improperly represented the Personal Representative In the Matter of the Estate of Adeline Annarelli who died intestate June 2, 1973. A Petition for Probate was filed August 7, 1973 in the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City.
“It is contended that Mr. Maraño failed to timely file accountings, and documents necessary to close the estate in a timely manner despite numerous notices from the Court. The First and Final Administration Account was not filed until August, 1984.”
* * * * * *
“Allegations of the same type conduct are the basis for the charge concerning the George E. Banks estate. The decedent passed November 21, 1974 and a Petition for Probate was filed in the Orphans’ Court for Baltimore City November 25, 1974.
“Accounts and documents necessary to close the estate were not timely filed. The First and Final Administration Account was not filed until August, 1985.
“It is contended that this conduct constituted a failure to properly represent the Personal Representative and *798 take necessary steps to close the matter in a timely manner.”
>Je $ * * # #
“In the matters at Bar every opportunity was afforded the Respondent to present evidence to rebut the charges. Additionally, no effort was made to vacate the Order of Default filed December 4, 1985.”
The trial judge concluded that Maraño violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6); DR 5-104(A); DR 6-101(A)(l), (2), and (3); DR 7-101(A)(l), (2), and (3), and DR 9-102(A)(l) and (2).
II
There were no exceptions filed by Bar Counsel or Respondent. Indeed Respondent has failed to appear at all stages of the proceedings to answer these charges.
Marano’s acts regarding the Melnick estate bear a strong resemblance to those before the Court in Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Pattison, 292 Md. 599, 441 A.2d 328 (1982), where an attorney purported to loan himself $28,900.00 from an estate. We there said:
“So often attorneys for one reason or another find themselves in a position where the flow of cash in their practice is insufficient to meet office overhead, family needs, and the like. Then comes the temptation to dip into funds which have been entrusted to the attorney, with the thought that the money soon can and will be paid back and the hope that no one will be wiser. Often, as here, the peculations grow and grow. It is fundamental that a fiduciary may not make a loan, secured or unsecured (as was this), unto himself.” 292 Md. at 607-08, 441 A.2d at 332.
The DeBarge, Annarelli and Banks complaints all involve substantial neglect over a ten-year period. Maraño was the recipient of a private reprimand in 1976 for failure to file suit on behalf of a client which resulted in the claim being barred by limitations. We suspended him for neglect in *799 Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Marano, 299 Md. 633, 474 A.2d 1332 (1984). 3
The fact that Maraño has not heeded prior admonitions is a serious factor to be taken into consideration in determining sanction. See Md. St. Bar Ass’n v. Phoebus, 276 Md. 353, 347 A.2d 556 (1975). As we said in Pattison and have said repeatedly, absent extenuating circumstances, disbarment is the sanction which should be imposed upon an attorney for converting the funds of his client to his own use. It follows, therefore, that the name of Philip S. Maraño shall be stricken from the rolls of those entitled to practice law in this State.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
511 A.2d 512, 306 Md. 792, 1986 Md. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attorney-grievance-commission-v-marano-md-1986.