as a certified public accountant and partner at Tax-Smart reflects adversely on his “honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” MLRPC 8.4(b); see Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Seltzer, 424 Md. 94, 113, 34 A.3d 498, 510 (2011). Likewise, Hoang’s fraudulent tax deduction scheme is a plain violation of MLRPC 8.4(c), which prohibits lawyers from engaging in acts involving deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation. Lastly, it is well-settled that a lawyer’s willful failure to file his or her personal income tax returns violates the prohibition of Rule 8.4(d) of engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Rand, 411 Md. 83, 98, 981 A.2d 1234, 1243 (2009); see Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Tayback, 378 Md. 578, 592, 837 A.2d 158, 166 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Walman, 280 Md. 453,
holding that failure to file correct tax returns constitutes bad faith and makes it difficult for the court to confirm a plan holding that the lawyers failure to file tax returns and pay taxes over three years constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice holding that debt or who failed to file income tax returns and failed to pay tax satisfied  523alcs conduct requirement despite no affirmative conduct to evade taxes holding that the lower court erred both in requiring production of copies of the defendants income tax returns and in receiving the returns into evidence over objection holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor failed to timely file tax returns and failed to pay taxes for those years