IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF DEIRDRE PAULETTE BROWN FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Hotten, August 24, 2016,
Bar Admission – Applicant failed to meet burden of proving moral fitness where she omitted felony theft charge (stetted), lied about GPA on resume (by a full point), had history of financial issues, gave inconsistent or inculpatory responses regarding these issues.

But nevertheless the “Character Committee” recommended her admission…

The Character Committee for the Seventh Appellate Circuit (“Committee”) recommended Ms. Brown’s admission to the Bar of Maryland by a vote of three to two. The State Board of Law Examiners (“Board”) voted four to three to adopt the recommendation of the Committee.

I really have no idea why we even have a character committee if these are the decisions they’re making. I suspect it’s to make us feel like we’re part of a special club. Or, like airport security, it’s to give the illusion of screening in hopes that this will keep away the bad people. Perhaps a fingerprint and 7-day waiting period with background check would be more appropriate; pretend like you’re purchasing a firearm.

So the applicant in law school gave herself a 3.7 GPA in 2012 and admitted that “she would not
have reported it had she not been caught by the career development staff.” In 1992, she lied (allegedly) in 1992 about being robbed while working retail. $1,817 went missing and the applicant was charged with theft. But the committee saw no correlation.

The charging document for the false statement reflected the following:

[Ms. Brown] made a report that she was the victim of a robbery. [Ms. Brown] stated that she left the T/A and was on her way to make the night deposit, when a black male grabbed her and pulled her into a deserted hallway. [Ms. Brown] said that she dropped her hand bag [and] the deposit bag and ran back into the main hallway to call for help. [A mall employee] who was closing up her ear piercing booth stated that she observed [Ms. Brown] walking past her booth and there was no one else in the [hallway] at the time. [T]he mall was closed. The ear piercing booth is located [approximately] twenty feet from the hallway of the alleged incident. [The mall employee] also stated that [Ms. Brown] walked calmly out of the hallway as though nothing was wrong. Landover Mall Security SPO Grey who was at the outside entrance to the hallway stated that no one came out of the hallway.

This investigator checked the [hallway] [and] there is no way the alleged suspect could have escaped through the hallway without being seen. A check with the District Manager . . . indicated that [Ms. Brown] was not allowed to make deposits by herself. Ms. Brown stated the opposite[.] Ms. Brown stated that her boyfriend . . . was in the area of the T/A at around 9:00 [p.m.] but only stayed for about five minutes. SPO Gray and SPO Chase both security guards at the [L]andover [M]all indicated that they both observed the boyfriend around the T/A until closing at 10:00 [p.m.]The boyfriend [then] re-appeared from the opposite side of the mall just after the robbery [(alleged)]. A total of $1,817 was allegedly taken from [ ] the District manager who is responsible for T/A funds.

On [October 12, 1992] this investigator was assigned this case for follow-up investigation. After talking to the persons mentioned in this application based on this investigator[’s] training and experience, the statements made to P/O Officer Neel1776 on [October 10, 2012] concerning this robbery are false. . . .