Attorney disbarred after forging judge's signature on adoption order

A Bel Air lawyer who forged the signature of a Cecil County Circuit Court judge on a bogus adoption order in an attempt to placate his clients has been disbarred by the state's highest court.The Court of Appeals agreed that attorney Joseph M. Guida had, in his representation of Stacia and Danny Bird, violated multiple provisions of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, the most egregious violations involving dishonesty and fraud in contravention of Rule 8.4. Though Guida argued that his conduct was mitigated by physical and psychological difficulties he was experiencing, the court refused to hold that the facts of the case warranted any lesser punishment.Guida engaged in intentional dishonesty and deceit that undermines the trust that must be at the center of the lawyer- client relationship, Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the court. This Court has stated that intentional dishonest conduct by an attorney is 'almost beyond excuse' and that disbarment should ordinarily be the sanction for such conduct.Lawrence P. Pinno, who represented Guida, said his client had a plethora of problems including severe depression and a back injury requiring surgery.What he did was not brilliant - that's not his normal style - but the guy was just sick, Pinno said.According to the opinion, the Birds contacted Guida in May 2002 to arrange for the adoption of Mrs. Bird's two daughters by Mr. Bird. The attorney was referred to the couple through a legal services plan. The Birds paid Guida $735 the following August and waited for results. When they began to request updates on the matter that fall, Guida reportedly informed them that the case was delayed in court - though he had not yet filed the case.When the Birds' inquiries persisted, Guida produced a temporary adoption order, apparently signed by Circuit Judge O. Robert Lidums, for the family to have in time for Christmas. Guida later admitted he forged the document, but said he had no memory of actually doing so. By March 2003, after Guida failed to return their phone calls, the Birds filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission. Guida subsequently sent the couple a letter of apology, along with a full refund, citing physical and psychological issues.The court assigned the disciplinary proceeding to Harford County Circuit Judge Emory A. Plitt Jr. Last April, Plitt determined that, in addition to committing misconduct, Guida had failed to diligently and competently represent his clients; to keep them reasonably informed; to deposit his fee into a trust account; and to respond timely to bar counsel's request for information. Evidence of Guida's severe depression and other problems following the death of a relative, the judge found, was sufficient to mitigate the latter transgression but not the others.No piecemeal approachGuida filed exceptions to this finding with the Court of Appeals, arguing that his difficulties could either mitigate none of his conduct or all of it - not piecemeal, as the hearing judge as found.Although the top court agreed with what it called the all-or-nothing approach, it refused to find mitigation, pointing to the standard set in the 2001 case Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Vanderlinde. The Vanderlinde case allows for a lesser sanction than disbarment in cases of intentional dishonesty only where a serious and debilitating mental condition affects the ability of the attorney in normal day to day activities, such that the attorney was unable to accomplish the least of those activities in a normal way.Our review and consideration of this record leaves us persuaded only that, while Respondent suffered from a severe major depression at the relevant times, his depression - was not so great that it satisfied the Vanderlinde threshold for mitigation of the sanction for his violations of the MRPC, Harrell wrote.The Vanderlinde standard is very high; I think it's unfair, Pinno said dryly. The only excuse would be that the lawyer is in a coma.Bar counsel and Guida did not return calls for comment by press time. WHAT THE COURT HELDCase:Attorney Grievance Commission v. Joseph M. Guida, Misc. Docket AG No. 17, Sept. Term 2004. Reported. Opinion by Harrell, J. Filed February 7, 2006.Issue:Did an attorney's psychological and physical problems warrant a lesser sanction than disbarment where he forged a judge's signature and a bogus adoption order for his clients? Holding:No. The attorney's difficulties were not so great as to satisfy the standard set forth in Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Vanderlinde for mitigation of the sanction.Counsel:Glenn M. Grossman for petitioner; Lawrence P. Pinno for respondent.

Copyright 2006 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.