 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ellison2/4/2005
nquiry Panel was sufficient to support a violation of MRPC 8.4 (d).
Regardless of this diaspora within the Court, both camps agree that Ellison's conduct satisfies either test. We sustain Bar Counsel's exception and conclude that Ellison's conduct violated MRPC 8.4 (d). His failure to disclose to Bar Counsel (and Reburn) his continued representation of Moody (and his $1,750.00 fee), until faced with producing the ultimate documentation of his violation, was misleading and an attempt to avoid disclosure. His dishonest and deceitful conduct regarding Strulson and the Assignment not only violates his obligations under the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, but also engenders a public disrespect for attorneys and the courts. This conduct is connected inherently with the Ellison's practice of law on behalf of a client and with his cavalier manner of addressing valid assignments with third-party assignees.
Furthermore, his continued dishonest and deceitful conduct with Reburn and Bar Counsel regarding his allegedly-severed ties with Moody also engenders disrespect for the attorney grievance procedure and the judicial system as a whole. This conduct is both directly and indirectly connected with the practice of law-implicating the appropriate ethical obligation of an honest response to Bar Counsel's investigation and revealing Ellison's disrespect as a whole for his obligations under the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.
IV.
We now address the appropriate sanction. We reiterate that " he purpose of these proceedings is not to punish the lawyer, but any sanction imposed should deter other lawyers from engaging in similar misconduct." Stolarz, 379 Md. at 402, 842 A.2d at 50 (citing Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 96, 753 A.2d 17, 38 (2000)). We protect the public by preventing future attorney misconduct only when the sanctions imposed "are commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed." Id. (citing Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435, 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997)).
It is once again useful to remind ourselves of the American Bar Association's suggested inquisitory framework for fashioning an appropriate sanction.
(1) whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the legal system, or to the profession;
(2) whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently;
(3) the amount of the actual or potential injury caused by the misconduct; and
(4) the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.
Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement R. 10(c) (1999).
We have discussed already Ellison's numerous ethical lapses in this case. His transgressions include dishonesty with and misrepresentations to Bar Counsel in connection with this disciplinary matter, improper contingency fee arrangements, improper handling of property belonging to a third party assignee, various Maryland Rules violations regarding the handling of funds in attorney trust accounts, and attorney misconduct involving dishonesty and the administration of justice.
In reviewing Judge Geter's findings, we find that Ellison acted intentionally, the "most culpable mental state," because he acted with a "conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448, 485, 671 A.2d 463, 481 (1996) (citing Standard 3.0 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, reprinted in Selected Statutes, Rules and Standards on the Legal Profession, 287, cmt. at 300 (1987)). It is evident from Judge Geter's findings that Ellison acted
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|