Reinstatement of Fox ( 2022 )

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION * IN THE
FOR REINSTATEMENT OF
MATTHEW EVAN FOX TO THE * COURT OF APPEALS
BAR OF MARYLAND
* OF MARYLAND
* Misc. Docket AG No. 11
* September Term, 2022
CORRECTED ORDER
Upon consideration of the Verified Petition for Reinstatement filed by Matthew
Evan Fox, Petitioner, on July 22, 2022, and the Response to Verified Petition for
Reinstatement filed by Bar Counsel on September 21, 2022,
WHEREAS, by Order entered December 4, 2013, this Court indefinitely suspended
Matthew E. Fox, Petitioner, by consent;
WHEREAS, in the Response to Verified Petition for Reinstatement, Bar Counsel
objected to Petitioner’s reinstatement on the grounds that: (1) Petitioner allegedly made a
false statement in the Petition by stating he had complied with the requirements of
Maryland Rule 19-741 when at the time of his suspension, almost nine years ago, Petitioner
had failed to submit to Bar Counsel the affidavit required under Maryland Rule 16-760 (the
earlier version of Rule 19-741); (2) Petitioner failed to timely file income tax returns for
tax years 2015-2018 (having filed the income tax returns in 2020); and (3) Petitioner had
failed to demonstrate that he has kept informed about recent developments in the law and
that he is competent to practice law as required under Maryland Rule 19-752(h)(2)(G);
WHEREAS, Bar Counsel states that Petitioner’s alleged false statement with
respect to submission of an affidavit could form the basis of additional violations of the
Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and cites Attorney Grievance Comm’n
v. Collins, 477 Md. 482, 499-500, 270 A.3d 917, 927-28 (2022) as “concluding attorney
who falsely stated in her petition for reinstatement that she had complied with then-Rule
19-742, despite knowing that she had not filed the required affidavit, violated Rule
3.1(a)(1) and 8.4(a)-(d) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct”;
WHEREAS, in Collins, 477 Md. at 499, 501, 270 A.3d at 927, 928, although this
Court determined that the hearing judge’s conclusion that Collin’s statement in a petition
for reinstatement that she had complied with Maryland Rule 19-742 “was knowingly and
intentionally false” and therefore a violation of MARPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c) was supported
by the record, this Court observed that “Collins’s testimony in mitigation [did] not
foreclose the possibility that she was, as she indicated, confused about the requirements of
Maryland Rule 19-742 and of the opinion that she was not required to submit to Bar
Counsel information under Maryland Rule 19-742[,]” and that “Collins was precluded
from giving testimony as to the merits in her own defense”;
WHEREAS, in Collins, 477 Md. at 499, 270 A.3d at 927, this Court cautioned Bar
Counsel that, “[i]n determining whether to seek the Commission’s authorization for the
filing of a petition for disciplinary or remedial action alleging that an attorney has
knowingly made a false statement in connection with a petition for reinstatement, Bar
Counsel must be watchful for cases in which attorneys are doing nothing more than filing
a petition for reinstatement and stating their views with respect to having satisfied all of
the necessary prerequisites as opposed to attorneys who are knowingly making false
statements in a petition for reinstatement”;
WHEREAS, under the circumstances, we do not find the statement sufficient to
form the basis of a valid objection to Petitioner’s reinstatement to the Bar or the basis of
an additional violation of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct;
WHEREAS, in the Response, with respect to Petitioner’s income tax filings, Bar
Counsel acknowledges that, “[i]n March 2020, the Petitioner entered into an Installment
Agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for payment of $33,550.46 in taxes,
interest and penalties owed for tax years 2012- 2018. The Petitioner has complied with the
Installment Agreement. Also in March 2020, the Petitioner entered into a Payment
Agreement with the Maryland Comptroller for payment of $6,6[]81.34 in taxes, interest
and penalties owed for tax years 2012-2017. The Petitioner has complied with, and fully
satisfied, the Payment Agreement[,]” and states that “[t]he Petitioner timely filed his 2019-
2022 income tax returns”;
WHEREAS, Bar Counsel “recommends that, if this Court grants the Petition for
Reinstatement, given the length of time since the Petitioner’s suspension, the Court order
that, as a condition of reinstatement, the Petitioner (1) pass the Uniform Bar Examination
or successfully complete the Maryland Law Component required for admission to the
Maryland Bar; and (2) take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination and
earn a score that meets or exceeds the passing score in Maryland established by the Board
of Law Examiners”;
WHEREAS, in the Petition, Petitioner avers that he has worked as a paralegal,
recently completed 40-hour mediation training pursuant to Maryland Rule 17-104 and 20-
hour child access mediation training, and kept abreast of the current laws and trends in the
practice of law;
WHEREAS, this Court is not persuaded by Bar Counsel’s objections and declines
to impose the aforementioned recommended condition of reinstatement;
Accordingly, it is this 6th day of October, 2022,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition is GRANTED;
and it is further
ORDERED, that Matthew Evan Fox is reinstated as a member of the Bar of
Maryland; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name Matthew Evan Fox
upon the register of attorneys entitled to practice law in this State and certify that fact to
the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in this
State.
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State
Government Article) this document is authentic.
/s/ Matthew J. Fader
2022-12-12 09:46-05:00
Chief Judge
Gregory Hilton, Clerk
The correction notice(s) for this opinion(s) can be found here:
https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/import/appellate/correctionnotices/coa/11a22ag.pdf