 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Zakroff6/23/2005
Bell, C.J., Raker, Wilner, Cathell, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, JJ.
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC), the Attorney Grievance Commission (petitioner), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary or remedial action against Robert Joel Zakroff (respondent). The petition alleges that respondent violated Maryland Rule 1.3 (Diligence); 1.15(a), (b), (c) (Safekeeping Property); 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal); and 8.4 (a), (b), (c), (d) (Misconduct) of the MRPC, Md. Code (1989, 1995 Repl. Vol.)); §§ 10-306 (Misuse of Trust Money) and 10-606(b) (Penalties) of the Bus. Occ. Prof. Article; and Md. Rule §§ 16-607 and 16-609.
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-752(a), we referred the matter to Judge Durke G. Thompson of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-757(c). Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Thompson found that respondent violated MRPC Rules 8.4 (a), (b), (c), (d), 1.15(a), (b), 3.3(a) and BOP §§ 10-306 and 10-606, but concluded that respondent did not violate Rule 1.3. Respondent and petitioner filed exceptions to Judge Thompson's findings.
I.
After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Thompson made the following factual findings and conclusions of law:
"FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"By order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland dated July 29, 2003, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-752(a), the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in this matter was transmitted to this Court for determination of findings of facts and conclusions of law. After an extension of time granted by the Court of Appeals, this Court heard evidence on May 17-19, 2004; July 15, 2004; and September 13, 2004, and final arguments on October 27, 2004.
I. The Allegations
"In this matter, the Attorney Grievance Commission alleges that the Respondent, Robert Zakroff violated Rules 1.3, 1.15(a), (b), (c), 8.4(a), (b), (c), (d), Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. Prof. §§10-306 and 10-606, and Maryland Rules §16-607 and §16-609.
II. Findings of Fact
"Upon the testimony heard and the exhibits admitted, this Court, by clear and convincing evidence, makes the following findings of fact:
"1. The Respondent was admitted to the practice of law on June 21, 1973.
"2. The Respondent was also admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia in 1973 and to the Bar of the State of Virginia in 1986.
"3. During the period 1986 to the present, the Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in the State of Maryland in Bethesda, Maryland under the practice name of Zakroff & Associates, P.C. with concentrations in personal injury , bankruptcy , and collection matters.
"4. The Respondent was the sole stockholder of Zakroff & Associates, P.C., but employed both professional and non-professional staff and associates.
"5. When a client retained the firm for representation in a personal injury matter, it was the policy of the firm to require a retainer agreement to be signed. This retainer agreement granted to the Respondent and other attorneys in the firm a power of attorney to negotiate checks or drafts paid in satisfaction of personal injury claims.
"6. Once a case was ripe for resolution, the Respondent or other attorneys would negotiate with the tortfeasor's representative and obtain a commitment to a settlement of the client's claim.
"7. The Respondent met regularly with members of his staff to discuss the status of personal injury cases and their actual or potentia
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|