Attorney Griev. Comm. v. Milliken

42 Citing cases

  1. Attorney Grievance v. Briscoe

    357 Md. 554 (Md. 2000)   Cited 60 times
    Finding violation of Rule 8.1 where attorney failed to appear with documents at a hearing, despite receiving "notices" of the dates

    Additionally, he has violated MRPC 1.16(d), by not promptly returning Mr. Gunther's retainer fee upon request, and MRPC 8.1(b), in that the hearing judge found that he failed to cooperate with the petitioner in an attorney disciplinary matter. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 517-18 n. 14, 704 A.2d 1225, 1240 (1998), we held that failure to repay any portion of an advance fee that goes unearned by the attorney violates MRPC 1.16(d). See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. David, 331 Md. 317, 319, 323, 628 A.2d 178, 179, 181 (1993).

  2. Attorney Grievance v. Lawson

    401 Md. 536 (Md. 2007)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that an attorney who did not place an unearned fee of $5,000 into a trust account violated Rule 16–604

    Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kerpelman, 292 Md. 228, 242, 438 A.2d 501, 509 (1981). See also, Attorney Grievance Commission v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 518, 704 A.2d 1225 (1998) (Court of Appeals upholds a finding that receipt of a fee in full and failure to perform any work whatsoever is dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent and prejudicial to the administration of justice). While Kerpelman's effort was more egregious than that of the Respondent (Kerpelman's effort to extract a higher fee having been made during the actual course of a trial), this Court believes that the Kerpelman Decision stands for the proposition that, generally, it is deceitful and dishonest for a lawyer to threaten to cease advancing or protecting his client's interests in litigation in order to renegotiate his fee agreement.

  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Thompson

    376 Md. 500 (Md. 2003)   Cited 30 times
    Concluding that Thompson's failure to maintain adequate record-keeping of withholding taxes violated MLRPC 1.15

    This Court has stated that "the gravity of misconduct is not measured solely by the number of rules broken but is determined largely by the lawyer's conduct." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554, 568, 745 A.2d 1037, 1044 (2000) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 519, 704 A.2d 1225, 1241 (1998)). In order to accomplish our goal to protect the public and to deter other lawyers from engaging in similar misconduct, we also look to our past cases involving attorney discipline.

  4. Attorney Grievance v. Barneys

    370 Md. 566 (Md. 2002)   Cited 26 times
    Commenting on the relevance of an attendant MLRPC 8.4 violation

    Briscoe, 357 Md. at 568, 745 A.2d at 1044. Although the "latter violations involving the mishandling of clients' funds alone warrant[ed] disbarment," Id. (citing Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 519, 704 A.2d 1225, 1241 (1998) (citation omitted)), we also found that "commingling and conversion of client funds, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, ordinarily warrants disbarment." Id. (citations omitted).

  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Snyder

    368 Md. 242 (Md. 2002)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that a lawyer's "dishonest and deceitful conduct with regard to the misuse of his client escrow account alone would be sufficient to warrant . . . disbarment"

    We also find that Snyder violated Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(c) and (d) of the MRPC and Rules BU7 and BU9 by commingling his personal funds with client funds in the escrow account, using the client escrow account to deliberately conceal personal assets from his creditors, and writing checks from the escrow account for his own personal purposes during the bankruptcy litigation. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 517, 704 A.2d 1225, 1240 (1998). Snyder used the client escrow account as a repository for the personal assets he sought to conceal from his creditors during the pendency of his involuntary bankruptcy.

  6. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hodes

    105 A.3d 533 (Md. 2014)

    We have recognized, in this vein, the “fundamental requirements” of a lawyer are honesty, integrity and respect for the legal system. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 520, 704 A.2d 1225, 1241 (1998). When an attorney manifests dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent conduct in a personal or non-legal capacity, the lawyer brings into question whether he or she possesses the requisite character to practice law and to justify the trust and confidence necessary to interact with clients, the public and the legal system.

  7. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hodes

    441 Md. 136 (Md. 2014)

    We have recognized, in this vein, the “fundamental requirements” of a lawyer are honesty, integrity and respect for the legal system. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 520, 704 A.2d 1225, 1241 (1998). When an attorney manifests dishonest, deceitful or fraudulent conduct in a personal or non-legal capacity, the lawyer brings into question whether he or she possesses the requisite character to practice law and to justify the trust and confidence necessary to interact with clients, the public and the legal system.

  8. Attorney Grievance v. Webster

    402 Md. 448 (Md. 2007)   Cited 27 times
    Concluding that “misappropriation of client or third party funds [is] ‘prejudicial to the administration of justice’ in violation of [MLRPC] 8.4(d)”

    Id. at 502-03, 813 A.2d at 1166 (citations omitted). See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 510, 704 A.2d 1225, 1236 (1998) (attorney violated MRPC 8.4(c) when he failed to refund a fee he had not earned). We, therefore, sustain Bar Counsel's exception and determine that Respondent acted dishonestly and deceitfully in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) when he lied to his client about his failure to file the petition and did not promptly return her fee. B. Respondent's Exceptions to Conclusions of Law

  9. Attorney Grievance v. Culver

    371 Md. 265 (Md. 2002)   Cited 33 times
    Finding violations of MRPC 1.5(c), 1.15(c) and Rule 16-607(b); indefinite suspension with right to reapply after thirty days

    Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Freedman, 285 Md. 298, 300, 402 A.2d 75, 76 (1979).See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Pennington, 355 Md. 61, 78, 733 A.2d 1029, 1037-38 (1999); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 519, 704 A.2d 1225, 1241 (1998); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Montgomery, 318 Md. 154, 165, 567 A.2d 112, 117 (1989). Additionally, as we said in Sheridan, 357 Md. at 28, 741 A.2d at 1158 (citing Glenn, 341 Md. 448, 484, 671 A.2d 463, 480 (1996) (citing Standard 3.0 of the ABA Standards for imposing Lawyer Sanctions, reprinted in Selected Statutes, Rules and Standards on the Legal Profession, 300 (1987))), it is often helpful to refer to the ABA standards.

  10. Attorney Grievance v. Santos

    370 Md. 77 (Md. 2002)   Cited 27 times
    Noting that disbarment is the preferred sanction in cases involving misappropriation but imposing an indefinite suspension because the hearing judge had concluded that the attorney's misappropriation was not “dishonest or fraudulent or done with intent to defraud”

    Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Montgomery, 318 Md. 154, 567 2d 112 (1989), Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Howard, 299 Md. 731, 475 A.2d 466 (1984); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Pollack, 279 Md. 225, 369 A.2d 61 (1977); Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. Phoebus, 276 Md. 353, 347 A.2d 556 (1975). The petitioner relies most heavily on Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Wallace, 368 Md. 277; 793 A.2d 535 (2002); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 704 A.2d 1225 (1998); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Manning, 318 Md. 697, 569 A.2d 1250 (1990). None is apposite.