By Steve Lash
The Daily Record Newswire
BALTIMORE — Maryland’s top court went to extraordinary lengths — a 130-page opinion — in disbarring a veteran trial attorney for his “copious” intentional misrepresentations to federal and state judges, litigants and witnesses in 22 civil cases over a seven-year period.
Mark T. Mixter, a Baltimore solo practitioner admitted to the bar in 1980, misled judges regarding opposing counsel’s compliance with discovery requests, filed frivolous sanctions motions and told out-of-state witnesses they could be hauled into court if they did not testify, the Court of Appeals wrote.
Mixter’s assurance in court papers that he is “sincerely remorseful” carried no weight with the seven judges.
“Mixter’s pattern and practice has been to intentionally and knowingly mislead courts, witnesses and parties, and his interactions have brought disrepute to the legal profession,” Judge Lynne A. Battaglia wrote for the high court. “In this case, in which Mixter has made hundreds of misrepresentations without remorse or attempt to rectify his transgressions, and has, instead, attempted to excuse his abusive discovery practices, disbarment is the appropriate sanction.”
Reprimand rejected.
Mixter argued that he should receive only a public reprimand because his ethical lapses stemmed from zealous representation of his clients and were not motivated by the hope of personal gain. Specifically, Mixter argued that he never took funds from his client trust account.
“Contrary to Mixter’s assertion a finding of misappropriation of client funds is not a prerequisite to disbarment,” wrote Battaglia, who chairs the board of directors of Maryland Professionalism Center Inc., which provides ethical guidance to the state’s lawyers. She cited cases in which the high court has stripped attorneys of their licenses for misrepresentation.
Bar Counsel Glenn M. Grossman, who pressed for Mixter’s disbarment, lauded the high court’s decision.
“Judge Battaglia’s opinion is a compelling exposition of the facts showing Mr. Mixter’s total and abject disregard of his ethical and professional obligations to the
courts and to his profession,” Grossman wrote in an email Monday.
Mixter did not return telephone messages Tuesday seeking comment; his attorney, Michael J. Budow, said they were both “very disappointed, as you can imagine.”
“We really didn’t think there were any ethical violations,” said Budow, of Budow and Noble P.C. in Bethesda. “We were hoping the court would see it that way, but obviously they did not.”
In its decision, the Court of Appeals noted that Mixter had sought to subpoena the driving records of fellow attorney James F. Farmer, hoping they might reveal “impeachable evidence” such as “alcohol-related offenses” in a defamation suit Mixter had filed against Farmer. The Baltimore City Circuit Court rejected Mixter’s subpoena request, saying Farmer’s driving records “had nothing to do with the pending claim for defamation and that the subpoena was aimed solely at harassing the defendant.”
In the defamation suit, Mixter claimed Farmer had asked 20 other lawyers and a former client to share instances in which they thought Mixter acted unprofessionally. Farmer allegedly told them the information was sought for a potential grievance complaint.
In October 2012, the circuit court granted Farmer’s motion for summary judgment, which was upheld on appeal. The Court of Special Appeals said attorney grievance complaints are immune from defamation actions in light of “the greater need to protect the public from unethical lawyers.”
Farmer, who has acknowledged filing a complaint against Mixter with the Attorney Grievance Commission, said Tuesday that he has “been getting so many calls from so many thankful attorneys I cannot get anything done. Mixter has made me a hero to the trial lawyers and anyone who has ever dealt with him in an adversarial relationship.”
Farmer, of James F. Farmer P.A. in Waldorf, called Mixter’s disbarment “long overdue.”
“This guy will do anything that he perceives is in his best interest,” Farmer said. “This guy is a bully.”
Mixter and Farmer represented opposing parties in a Charles County Circuit Court lawsuit that ended in a settlement, according to court papers. Farmer, who represented the plaintiff, successfully moved for sanctions against Mixter in that case, but the sanctions were overturned on appeal.
Clients’ support
In arguing against disbarment, Mixter said the weight of any misrepresentations to judges, opposing parties and witnesses should be lessened by the support he has received from many of his clients.
The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, citing a conclusion by Baltimore City Circuit Judge Timothy J. Doory, whom the high court had appointed to make finding of fact and conclusions of law in Mixter’s disciplinary proceedings.
“There is no question he is well respected by those he represents,” Doory wrote.
“The question for this court is how he is recognized by all of the parties in the system,” Doory added. “Review of the extensive documents submitted by [Mixter and Bar Counsel] disclose that he has been admonished, sanctioned or scolded by at least 16 different judge during this period. The court cannot accept the devotion of his clients as mitigation.”
The high court agreed with Doory that Mixter had violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct requiring attorneys to file meritorious claims and contentions, to be fair to opposing parties and counsel, to be truthful in statements to others and respect the rights of third parties, including witnesses; prohibiting lawyers from “knowingly and purposefully” delaying litigation; and barring attorneys from making false statements to the court.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
