he Maryland Court of Appeals held that the attorneys actions were likely to confuse the public about his role in giving them investment or legal advice, and he was therefore subject to professional discipline. The attorney acted as the unwitting agent of an illegal pyramid scheme who also gave legal advice to investors in the scheme. Because he operated both enterprises without any meaningful distinction to the public about the role he played, that of investment adviser or lawyer, he was held to be subject to professional discipline. He was not held liable for the illegal actions of the scheme because he did not have any knowledge of its fraudulent nature.
Full case and case summary is also available online at: http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Maryland_v_Martin.php
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.