Robert M. Bell

The case involved the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland petitioning for disciplinary action against attorney Harvey Malcolm Nusbaum after he pleaded guilty to a violation of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. The court initially suspended Nusbaum from practice and ultimately disbarred him, determining that the conviction amounted to a serious crime and professional misconduct under Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), (c), and (d). The core reasoning was that intentional dishonest conduct by an attorney ordinarily requires disbarment absent compelling extenuating circumstances, none of which were shown.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a disciplinary petition filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission against Maryland attorney Jeffrey David Kahl, alleging violations of professional conduct rules including Rule 1.15 on safekeeping client property, Rule 8.1 on candor in disciplinary matters, and Rule 8.4 on misconduct, as well as related trust account record-keeping requirements. A circuit court hearing judge found that Kahl had misappropriated funds from his attorney trust account for personal use and made false representations to Bar Counsel to conceal the misconduct, with no mitigating factors present. The Court of Appeals adopted the hearing judge's findings and disbarred Kahl, holding that intentional misappropriation of entrusted funds constitutes dishonest conduct that justifies disbarment under established precedent.

procedurecriminal law

The Attorney Grievance Commission charged Maryland attorney Anthony I. Butler with multiple violations of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules on competence, diligence, client communication, conflict of interest, and misconduct, based on his handling of a tort lawsuit for Ferguson Towing, Inc. and its owners in which he missed two scheduled trial dates due to overlapping court appearances and obtained a release of liability from the clients upon termination of representation. A circuit court judge found clear and convincing evidence supporting violations of competence, diligence, communication, conflict of interest, and conduct prejudicial to justice, while concluding the evidence did not support the remaining charges such as knowing violations of tribunal rules or false statements in the disciplinary process. The Court of Appeals adopted the hearing judge's findings of fact with no exceptions filed to them, overruled most of the Commission's exceptions to the conclusions of law, and ordered a 60-day suspension, reasoning that the established violations warranted that sanction to protect the public and maintain professional standards.

proceduretorts & liability

Ira C. Cooke was disbarred from the Maryland Bar after consenting to a joint petition for disbarment based on his California criminal convictions for offenses involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Following the reversal of those convictions on appeal and the dismissal of the underlying charges, Cooke petitioned for reinstatement. The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted the petition, holding that disbarment is not permanent and that reinstatement is appropriate when the petitioner demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence over time that he has been rehabilitated, is legally competent, and has become a proper person to practice law, particularly where the convictions forming the basis for disbarment no longer stand. The court evaluated the nature of the original misconduct, Cooke's subsequent conduct and character, and his current qualifications under the factors in Maryland Rule 16-781.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an application by J.H.K. for admission to the Maryland Bar. The Character Committee for the Sixth Appellate Circuit recommended against admission, while the State Board of Law Examiners recommended in favor. After reviewing the recommendations, the applicant's memorandum, and hearing oral argument, the Court of Appeals of Maryland rejected the unfavorable recommendation and accepted the favorable one. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant be admitted to the practice of law upon taking the required oath.

procedure

In Polek v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., multiple borrowers appealed dismissals of their lawsuits against mortgage lenders and assignees, alleging violations of the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (SMLL) regarding loan origination fees and disclosure forms, as well as breaches of contract and Consumer Protection Act claims for failure to provide loan documents after payoff. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the circuit courts' dismissals. The court reasoned that the SMLL permits multiple itemized fees as long as their total does not exceed the statutory maximum, that the required disclosure form applies only to commercial-purpose loans, and that the plaintiffs who lacked documentation failed to plead sufficient facts to support their contract and accounting claims.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned efforts by Montgomery Preservation, Inc. to obtain historic designation for the Perpetual Building through an amendment to Montgomery County's Master Plan for Historic Preservation. After the county's Historic Preservation Commission recommended designation, the Planning Board reviewed the nomination using statutory criteria, held a hearing, and voted against recommending the amendment to the County Council. The Council declined to schedule a hearing and took no further action, which under the applicable statute operated as adoption of the Board's recommendation by default. Petitioners sought a writ of administrative mandamus for judicial review of the Planning Board's decision, but the Circuit Court dismissed the complaint and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that the Planning Board's recommendation was not a final appealable agency action and affirmed the dismissal.

propertyprocedureenvironment

In Roberts v. State, the Court of Appeals of Maryland considered a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a decision from the Court of Special Appeals. The court granted the petition and summarily vacated the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. It remanded the case to the intermediate appellate court for reconsideration in light of the precedent established in Wilson v. State, 422 Md. 583, 30 A.3d 955 (2011). Costs in the Court of Appeals were assigned to the respondent, while costs in the Court of Special Appeals were to abide the result on remand.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Attorney Grievance Commission filing a petition for disciplinary action against attorney Roland N. Patterson concerning his management of an IOLTA trust account and his representation of clients in a landlord-tenant appeal and a tort claim. The court adopted the circuit court's findings, made after a hearing, that Patterson violated multiple Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules on competence, diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping of client property, expediting litigation, and cooperation with bar counsel, along with specific Maryland Rules governing trust accounts. The violations were proven by clear and convincing evidence, including an overdraft caused by writing checks on an account Patterson knew lacked sufficient funds after attempting to close it, along with failures to maintain required chronological records of deposits and disbursements showing client identities, purposes, and other details. The court reasoned that attorneys are independently obligated to read and comply with all applicable rules rather than relying on monitors or external guidance.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a petition for disciplinary or remedial action filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against attorney Lucille Saundra White under Maryland Rule 16-773. After reviewing the petition, the responses to a show cause order, and hearing oral arguments on September 1, 2011, the Court of Appeals of Maryland granted the petition. The court ordered that White be disbarred effective immediately from practicing law in the state. The clerk was directed to strike her name from the register of attorneys and notify relevant parties in accordance with Rule 16-760(e). The decision was issued as a per curiam order based on the presented materials and arguments.

procedure

In Jefferson v. State, the Court of Appeals of Maryland considered a petition for a writ of certiorari after a judgment by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The court granted the petition, vacated the circuit court's judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration. The remand was ordered specifically in light of the precedent established in Troy A. Jones, Jr. v. State of Maryland, 420 Md. 437, 23 A.3d 880 (2011). Costs of the appeal were assigned to the appellee.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Davis v. State reached the Court of Appeals of Maryland on a petition for a writ of certiorari following a judgment by the Court of Special Appeals. The court granted the petition and summarily vacated the lower appellate court's judgment, remanding the case for further consideration in light of the precedent set in Jones v. State, 420 Md. 437, 23 A.3d 880 (2011). This procedural step directs the Court of Special Appeals to apply the legal principles from Jones v. State to the facts of this matter. Costs in the Court of Appeals were assigned to the Respondent, with costs in the intermediate court to abide the result.

criminal law

The case involved a Circuit Court order directing the demolition of a property in Baltimore City. Following the sale of the property, the parties filed a joint motion seeking a remand to allow modification of that demolition order. The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted the consent motion on May 19, 2011, and remanded the matter to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City under Maryland Rule 8-604(d) for further proceedings to address the changed circumstances.

propertyprocedure

The case was a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Attorney Grievance Commission against Maryland attorney Gary F. Stern, who was admitted to the bar in 1994. Stern was charged with multiple violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct and related statutes after allegedly failing to pay a physical therapy provider nearly $45,000 from the settlements of nineteen personal injury clients despite signed assignments and authorizations, as well as settling one client's claim without the client's knowledge or consent. Following an evidentiary hearing that Stern did not attend, the circuit court judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Stern violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.15(d), 8.4(c) and (d), 16-604, 16-609(c), and Section 10-306 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article, primarily through misappropriation of client funds held in trust and unauthorized actions in client representation. The Court of Appeals reviewed the hearing judge's conclusions of law de novo while treating the factual findings as established in the absence of exceptions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against Maryland attorney John Michael Coppola for his conduct in providing estate planning services to the children of Elizabeth West while she was unconscious or semi-conscious in the hospital, including preparing documents with false notarizations and facilitating a scheme to avoid probate. The Attorney Grievance Commission charged violations of Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(d) and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). A circuit court hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Coppola had committed the charged violations, and the Court of Appeals reviewed those findings of fact as established (no exceptions having been filed) and the conclusions of law de novo under Maryland Rule 16-759. The court accepted the violations as proven and proceeded to determine the appropriate sanction.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

This case involves reciprocal attorney discipline proceedings in Maryland against John Joseph Zodrow, stemming from his suspension in Colorado for one year and one day. Zodrow had admitted under oath to misconduct in a 2005 real estate transaction, including failing to record deeds of trust and warranty deeds, warranting ownership of property he had quitclaimed to another, and tendering an insufficient funds check, which violated Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), and 8.4(c). The Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission petitioned for discipline under Maryland Rule 16-773, attaching the Colorado order and stipulation. The court held that the Colorado adjudication and Zodrow's accepted conditional admission constitute conclusive evidence of misconduct in Maryland, and it imposed reciprocal discipline of a one-year-and-one-day suspension.

procedure

This case involved the Attorney Grievance Commission charging attorney Norman C. Usiak with professional misconduct under Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) based on his representation of a client charged with driving without a license in district court. The hearing judge found that Usiak repeatedly argued with the trial judge after she denied a continuance, objected to her questioning the prosecutor about a proposed stet, insisted the case was concluded despite her rulings, and attempted to leave the courtroom while the matter was still pending. The court adopted those findings, overruled Usiak's exceptions, struck references to confidential peer review proceedings and inadmissible newspaper articles, and concluded that his conduct violated the rule by undermining the dignity of the judicial process. The core reasoning was that an attorney's disagreement with a court's procedural rulings does not justify persistent interruption, refusal to comply, or disrespectful behavior in open court.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the Metropolitan Washington Orthopaedic Association and Christina L. Cervieri. The Court of Appeals of Maryland had initially granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the matter but, after argument, determined that the petition was improvidently granted. As a result, the court dismissed the writ of certiorari with costs to the petitioners. The decision was issued per curiam without further elaboration on the underlying issues or reasoning beyond the improvident grant.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the Attorney Grievance Commission filing petitions against Maryland attorney Andrew Gregory De La Paz for alleged violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his representation of two clients, Angelo Callaham and Danny Simons. In both matters, De La Paz failed to respond to the petitions or requests for admissions, resulting in default orders and the facts being deemed admitted; the hearing judge then found clear and convincing evidence that he had violated multiple rules, including those on competence, diligence, communication, fees, termination of representation, and misconduct. Neither party filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings. The court accepted those findings as established and concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction, agreeing with the Commission's recommendation that it was necessary for the protection of the public.

procedure

In Sanders v. State, the petitioner sought review by the Court of Appeals of Maryland through a writ of certiorari. The court granted the petition and summarily vacated the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. The case was remanded to the intermediate appellate court for reconsideration in light of the decision in State of Maryland v. Fabian Andre Shim. This action allows the lower court to apply the principles from the recent precedent to the facts of this case.

criminal lawprocedure