In re: Glen Marcus Fallin, No. 01-9512 

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 IN THE MATTER OF
Glen Marcus Fallin, No. 01-9512 
Respondent. 
Argued: June 5, 2001
Decided: June 29, 2001
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Indefinite suspension from practice of law imposed by published
Memorandum Order. Entered at the direction of Judge King, with the
concurrences of Judge Williams and Judge Traxler.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Glen Marcus Fallin, pro se. Glenn M. Grossman, Deputy
Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Crowns-
ville, Maryland, as prosecuting counsel. ON PLEADINGS: Melvin
Hirshman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Mary-
land, Crownsville, Maryland, as prosecuting counsel.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This matter comes before this Court’s Standing Panel on Attorney
Discipline on a Notice to Show Cause entered on March 26, 2001. By
that Notice, Respondent Glen Marcus Fallin was directed to show
cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law before
this Court. On May 1, 2001, Mr. Fallin filed his Response to the

-- 1 of 4 --

Notice to Show Cause, by which he requested a hearing pursuant to
Local Rule 46(g)(9). Having granted Mr. Fallin’s request for hearing,
the Court, by Order of May 24, 2001, appointed Bar Counsel for the
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the "Commission") as
prosecuting counsel in this proceeding and requested an Answer to
Mr. Fallin’s Response. Counsel’s Answer was filed with the Court on
May 30, 2001, and the Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline heard
oral argument on June 5, 2001, on the merits of this matter.
I.
Following charges of professional misconduct advanced by the
Commission, a Petition for Disciplinary Action against Mr. Fallin was
referred by the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the Honorable Clay-
ton Greene, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. On
August 11, 2000, after conducting a full hearing, Judge Greene made
and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, determining, inter
alia, that Mr. Fallin had violated various Maryland Rules of Profes-
sional Conduct in the course of his representation of certain clients.1
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-711, the findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law of Judge Greene were submitted to the Court of Appeals
of Maryland for final action. Significantly, neither Mr. Fallin nor the
Commission filed exceptions in the Court of Appeals to Judge
Greene’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. On January 11,
2001, the Court of Appeals ordered Mr. Fallin indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law in Maryland. See Attorney Grievance
Comm’n of Md. v. Fallin, Misc. Docket (Subtitle AG), No. 55, Sept.
Term, 1999 (unreported). This suspension from practice became
1Judge Greene found that Mr. Fallin had committed violations of the
following specific Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.3 (lack of rea-
sonable diligence and promptness); Rule 1.4 (inadequate communication
with client); Rule 1.5(a) (unreasonable fees); Rule 1.5(b) (failure to rea-
sonably inform client of fees); Rule 1.5(c) (failure to communicate terms
of contingency fee arrangement); Rule 1.5(e) (improper splitting of fees
between attorneys); Rule 3.2 (failure to reasonably expedite litigation);
Rule 8.1(b) (failure to disclose information in connection with bar disci-
plinary matters); Rule 8.4(a) (general violation of the Rules of Profes-
sional Conduct); and Rule 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).
2 IN THE MATTER OF FALLIN

-- 2 of 4 --

effective on February 12, 2001. Our Notice to Show Cause was issued
six weeks later.
II.
Mr. Fallin’s admission to practice law before this Court is predi-
cated in part on his status as a member of the Maryland Bar. See Fed.
R. App. P. 46(a)(1) ("An attorney is eligible for admission to the bar
of a [federal] court of appeals if that attorney is of good moral and
professional character and is admitted to practice before . . . the high-
est court of a state[.]"). Due to his suspension by the Court of Appeals
of Maryland, Mr. Fallin is also subject to suspension by this Court.
See Fed. R. App. P. 46(b)(1).2 Under our Local Rule 46(g), the indefi-
nite suspension of Mr. Fallin is presumed to be the appropriate dispo-
sition of the matter, as the sanction identical to that imposed by the
Court of Appeals of Maryland. The presumptive discipline will be
imposed by this Court provided three requirements are met: "(1) the
state must have given the attorney notice of the charges and an oppor-
tunity to be heard; (2) the evidence must support the findings made;
and (3) there must be no other ‘grave reason’ for ignoring the actions
taken." Wrighten v. United States, 550 F.2d 990, 991 (4th Cir. 1977)
(citing Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917)).
Based on our careful and full consideration of the various written
submissions of Mr. Fallin and the prosecuting counsel, as well as the
oral argument, we conclude that the three requirements spelled out in
Selling are fully satisfied here. First, it is undisputed that the Mary-
land proceedings afforded Mr. Fallin notice and a sufficient opportu-
nity to be heard. Indeed, Mr. Fallin does not challenge the adequacy
of the hearings, but instead maintains that Judge Greene — whose
findings and conclusions were adopted by the Court of Appeals —
unfairly discredited Mr. Fallin’s testimony, arriving at findings of fact
that were not supported by "clear and convincing" evidence.3 There
2The standard for suspension from practice before this Court is estab-
lished in Rule 46(b)(1), which provides that "[a] member of the court’s
bar is subject to suspension or disbarment by the court if the member:
(A) has been suspended or disbarred from practice in any other court; or
(B) is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the court’s bar."
3More specifically, Mr. Fallin contends that Judge Greene erred by dis-
crediting all of Mr. Fallin’s testimony in favor of that given by his former
client, Terry Sword, and by refusing to admit extrinsic medical evidence
that was offered to impeach Mr. Sword.
3 IN THE MATTER OF FALLIN

-- 3 of 4 --

was, however, ample evidence presented to support Judge Greene’s
findings, and we decline to disturb or depart from those credibility deter-
minations.4 Finally, as to the third requirement enumerated in Selling,
Mr. Fallin has simply failed to present any "grave reason" why we
should not honor Maryland’s indefinite suspension of his law license.
Concluding that each of Selling’s three factors is satisfied, we must
defer to the sanction imposed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
We therefore order that Mr. Fallin be indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law in this Court. We note, however, that our suspension
order does not preclude Mr. Fallin from applying for readmission to
practice in this Court if his membership in the Maryland Bar is rein-
stated, or if he otherwise complies with the provisions of Fed. R. App.
P. 46(a)(1).
III.
This Memorandum Order is entered on behalf of the Standing
Panel on Attorney Discipline, at the direction of Judge King, with the
concurrences of Judge Williams and Judge Traxler.
For the Court:
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk of the Court
4It bears repeating that Mr. Fallin, when his case came before the
Court of Appeals of Maryland, failed to file exceptions to Judge
Greene’s findings of fact. Under Rule 16-758(b)(2)(A) of the Maryland
Rules of Procedure, the Court of Appeals may, if no exceptions are filed,
"treat the findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining
the appropriate sanctions, if any."
4 IN THE MATTER OF FALLIN

-- 4 of 4 --