Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): those reasons. In its Petitioner’s Recommendation for Sanctions, the petitioner offered the following rationale for its recommendation that the respondent be disbarred: “Respondent’s conduct constituted a betrayal of the trust placed in him by his law partner and clients. Respondent engaged in further dishonest and deceitful conduct in his representations to Bar Counsel in order to cover up his misconduct. Judge Norman found no mitigating factors. Absent compelling extenuating circumstances, intentional misappropriation of another’s funds is deceitful and dishonest conduct which justifies disbarment. See e.g. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Carithers, 421 Md. 28, 58-59, 25 A.3d 181, 199 (2011), citing Attorney Grievance Commission v. Vlahos, 369 Md. 183, 186, 798 A.2d 555, 556 (2002) (<HOLDING>) and Attorney Grievance Commission v. Spery, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that outofstate plaintiff had procured his own absence at trial of his case where record contained no intimation that his absence resulted from any reason other than his own volition (B) holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction where an attorney misappropriated funds from his real estate partners (C) holding an attorney violated his duty of candor to the tribunal by changing his clients interrogatory answers without the clients knowledge (D) holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who converted partnership money to his own use without authorization and without disclosure to his other partners (E) holding that disbarment was proper where the attorney misappropriated payments from clients of his firm for his own use and took steps to conceal his conduct from his firm
Output (English): holding that outofstate plaintiff had procured his own absence at trial of his case where record contained no intimation that his absence resulted from any reason other than his own volition