The ARDC Hearing Board recently decided the case of Thomas Gordon Maag, 2023 PR 00054. The case began as a claim that the lawyer had failed to diligently represent a client, to comply with requests for information and to surrender client files when requested. After he was contacted by the ARDC, the lawyer allegedly “knowingly fabricated[ed] and backdat[ed] a letter to client which falsely represented that he sent client the client files on December 20, 2022.”
The clients retained the lawyer in 2019 to handle three different matters. The clients provided a retainer but the lawyer never filed suit. The Hearing Board found the the lawyer violated Rules 1.4 (communication) and 1.3 (diligence) because he did not file any lawsuits or advance the client matters to conclusion and failed to communicate with his clients. The Hearing Board also found that the lawyer failed to take measures to return the client files to the Ambroses under Rule 1.16(d).
The more serious charge is that the lawyer engaged in dishonest conduct. The Hearing Board found as follows:
“We find that the Administrator proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct by knowingly backdating the client letter that the [Clients] found in their mailbox in January 2023, falsely stating in the letter that he had included Client’s entire client files, making the letter appear to have been damaged and delivered by the U.S. Postal Service, and falsely stating to the Administrator that he mailed Client his entire client files. We find that Respondent’s conduct violated Rules 8.4(c) and 8.1(a).” Rule 8.1 prohibits an attorney from making a false statement in a disciplinary matter.
The Hearing Board recommended a suspension of two years and until further order of court. The panel’s opinion contains this paragraph: “Finally, Respondent was dishonest with the Hearing Board. He gave false testimony, including claiming that he sent a demand letter to the hot tub company in early 2020, denying that he received most of the Ambroses’ communications in 2020 to 2022, fabricating the April 28, 2022, conversation with Michael, and asserting that he did not backdate the December 20, 2022, closing letter. He also presented two false exhibits: the fabricated Memo to File, and an email which was admitted and later stricken because Respondent’s version was missing 11 words, despite his insistence that it was a true and correct copy.”
Comments: in the digital age attorney regulators are becoming more capable of detecting fabricated evidence submitted by lawyers to avoid discipline. Obviously, if you make a mistake, you must own up to it and admit it honestly and truthfully.
