Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Court of Appeals disbars veteran Baltimore lawyer

Court of Appeals disbars veteran Baltimore lawyer

Listen to this article
02.04.11 BALTIMORE, MD- L to R- Edward Smith, Jr, Esquire, with African artwork in his office. Photos for an Unbillable hours about him taking some writing courses when he retires. (Maximilian Franz/ The Daily Record).
While Edward Smith Jr.’s misappropriation of client funds ‘may not have risen to the level of criminality or “direct misappropriation,”‘ the Court of Appeals, in disbarring the veteran Baltimore lawyer, found his misrepresentations to clients and bar counsel ‘to justify keeping fees for the little to no work he performed on behalf of his clients, are actions of intentional dishonest conduct.’ (Maximilian Franz/ The Daily Record)

Maryland’s top court disbarred Friday a veteran Baltimore attorney for violating about 10 of the Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct, including mishandling client funds, taking money from his trust account that was not earned and submitting false evidence to bar counsel.

The Court of Appeals said it was concerned about Edward Smith Jr.’s misrepresentations to both his clients about work he performed as well as to bar counsel.

“We infer from the hearing judge’s findings that (Smith’s) hubris combined with his sloppy case management, excessive delegation of responsibilities to others, his poor record keeping, and his improper handling of monetary matters prevented him from recognizing his misappropriation of client funds,” Judge Clayton Greene Jr. for the unanimous court.

Formal disciplinary proceedings into Smith by the started last year in response to complaints from former clients in three cases involving post-conviction relief.

While Smith’s misappropriation of client funds “may not have risen to the level of criminality or ‘direct misappropriation,’” Green said the misrepresentations Smith made to clients and bar counsel “to justify keeping fees for the little to no work he performed on behalf of his clients, are actions of intentional dishonest conduct.”

Smith and his legal assistant were found to have fabricated billing statements and time spent on client matters in documents submitted to bar counsel. According to court filings, Smith told clients and bar counsel that client funds were in escrow when they were not. Smith also told a client and a public defender that Smith had written a client’s post-conviction petition “before he ever put pen to paper,” the opinion states.

“Under our jurisprudence, there appears to be little to no saving grace for an attorney who has knowingly acted to deceive clients, Bar Counsel, or the Court and where there are no compelling extenuating circumstances to mitigate the attorney’s conduct,” Greene wrote.

Aggravating factor

Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Yvette M. Bryant wrote in her findings of fact last April that Smith’s lengthy career as an attorney gave him “ample time to understand that nature of his obligations, particularly as regards his trust account.” The Court of Appeals also agreed that Smith’s 40-plus-year career as an aggravating factor in the opinion.

Smith’s attorney, Landon M. White, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday, recommended during oral arguments before the top court in October that Smith receive a 30-day suspension with conditions. White argued Smith did not intend to mislead his clients or bar counsel and the “sloppiness” of his records can be fixed with training in technology and modern filing systems.

The Court of Appeals, however, said Friday that White did not present any case law to support his recommendation.

Smith was suspended for 60 days in 1999 by consent for a competence issue in a state administrative matter and a fee issue.

“Mr. Smith has an over 40-year career at this bar, but he has represented many respondent attorneys before this court,” Bar Counsel Lydia Lawless said during oral arguments in October. “He knows exactly what his affirmative duties are as an attorney.”

Lawless declined to comment Friday on the court’s decision.

Smith became a member of the bar in December 1975 and has been a solo practitioner. In addition to representing lawyers before the Attorney Grievance Commission, Smith represented Julius Henson, the Baltimore political consultant who was convicted in May 2012 for his part in an automated robocall sent on Election Day 2010 on behalf of then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

“This is at the end of a long career, it isn’t like what we normally see or what I recall normally seeing in terms of for misappropriation,” said Judge Lynne A. Battaglia, a retired Court of Appeals judge sitting by special assignment, during oral arguments.

Also hearing the case was retired Court of Appeals Judge John F. McAuliffe. Current Court of Appeals Judges Sally D. Adkins and Shirley M. Watts did not disclose reasons for their recusals.

The case is Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Edward Smith Jr., AG No. 26 & 74, Sept. Term 2016.