In The Matter of v. Paul

Filing 4

-SEALED- MEMORANDUM OPINION stating the Court is imposing a ninety (90) day suspension upon Mr. Paul, effective immediately. Following the period of suspension, Repsondent shall be reinstated upon filing with the Court an affidavit of compliance with the provisions of this Order. See Local Rule 705.4(a). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 3/15/12. (c/m)(krcs, Deputy Clerk)

ED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

~IAR "I 5 2012
I
~ ~

I ..•••
':./.
••• I

*

INRE

*
DANA ANDREW PAUL, ESQ.

*
*

Miscellaneous Case No. 11-0397
(DISCIPLIN AR Y)

*

Respondent

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dana Andrew Paul is a member of the bar of this Court. On October 21, 2011, the Court
of Appeals of Maryland issued its Opinion in Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Dana Andrew Paul, which resulted in Mr. Paul receiving a public reprimand.

Following its

review of the underlying materials and the Court of Appeals Majority Opinion and dissent
decision, and upon recommendation

of its Disciplinary & Admissions Committee, pursuant to

Local Rule 705.3(d)(iv), the Court imposes a ninety (90) day suspension upon Mr. Paul.
The essence of the underlying action is that in a state court proceeding Mr. Paul
submitted a document to a court which was substantially altered. Mr. Paul and opposing counsel
had agreed upon the submission of a stipulation of dismissal.

Mr. Paul provided a draft

stipulation to opposing counsel, who then made various. changes and returned the modified
stipulation to Mr. Paul for filing.
Before doing so, however, Mr. Paul "cut and pasted" opposing counsel's signature from
one version onto a second red-lined version which had not been approved.

While it is clear that

this alteration did not cause prejudice to the parties, it was nonetheless an intentionally forged

w'.;.

~. lJiY

and filed document.

In the proceedings before the Maryland courts, Bar Counsel recommended

that Mr. Paul be suspended from the practice of law for ninety (90) days, whereas the Court of
Appeals ordered a public reprimand. This Court believes that Bar Counsel's recommendation to
be more appropriate than a reprimand.
Our Local Rule 705.3(d)(iv) states as follows:
The Court shall impose the identical action imposed by the other
court unless the respondent-attorney demonstrates, or this Court
finds, that upon the face of the record upon which the discipline or
injunction in another jurisdiction is predicated it clearly appears: ...
(iv) that the misconduct is deemed by this Court to warrant
substantially different discipline or injunctive action.
The Court finds that the majority and dissenting opinions of the Court of Appeals adequately
provide the "record upon which ... substantially different discipline" can be imposed.
Mr. Paul filed a Response to this Court's Order of November 7, 2011 that he show cause
why this Court should not impose identical, greater or lesser discipline as that imposed by the
Maryland Court of Appeals.

By letter dated January 12, 2012, the Disciplinary & Admissions

Committee advised Mr. Paul that it would be recommending to the Full Bench a ninety (90) day
suspension from practice.

He was provided an opportunity to be heard if he wished to do so in

writing within a twenty (20) day period. Mr. Paul did not submit a further statement.
Accordingly, the Court imposes a ninety (90) day suspension upon Mr. Paul, effective
immediately.

Following the period of suspension, Respondent shall be reinstated upon filing

with the Court an affidavit of compliance with the provisions of this Order. See Local Rule
705.4(a).
SO ORDERED this

;e:!'

day of March, 2012.

ffit-j~/c

l!/~c"?f.U~.

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2