Maryland v. Martin , 308 Md. 272 (1987)

an an attorney who also acted as an investment adviser to an illegal pyramid scheme be subject to professional discipline for failing to properly segregate his legal and non-legal businesses?


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:

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:State, 4th Circuit, Maryland | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Babener & Associates | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Babener & Associates on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.