Title: Attorney Grievance v. Cafferty

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Diane E. Cafferty
AG No. 82, September Term, 2002
ATTORNEYS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – MISCONDUCT – RECIPROCAL
PROCEEDINGS – Disbarment is warranted in Maryland for an attorney whose misconduct
in the District of Columbia, resulting in her disbarment there, was found by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals to constitute reckless misappropriation of client funds.  The
attorney’s conduct amounted to intentional misappropriation under Maryland’s Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.15(a), (b), and (c) and 8.4(c) and (d) and Maryland Rule 16-609.
District of Columbia Co urt of Appeals 
Case No. 01-BG-994
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
Misc. Docket  AG No. 82
September Term, 2002
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v.
DIANE E. CAFFERTY
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
                    Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia,
JJ.
Opinion by Harrell, J.
Filed: September 8,  2003
I.
1 Rule 16-773 provides in relevant part:
(a) Duty of attorney.  An attorney who in another
jurisdiction (1) is disbarred, suspended, or otherwise
disciplined, (2) resigns from the bar while disciplinary or
remedial action is threatened or pending in that jurisdiction, or
(3) is placed on inactive status based on incapacity shall inform
Bar Counsel promptly of the discipline, resignation, or inactive
status.
(b) Duty of Bar Counsel.  Upon receiving information
from any source that in another jurisdiction an attorney has been
disciplined or placed on inactive status based on incapacity, Bar
Counsel shall obtain a certified copy of the disciplinary or
remedial order and file it with a Petition for Disciplinary or
Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals pursuant to a Rule 16-
(continued...)
A.
Diane E. Cafferty (“Respondent”) was admitted to the Maryland Bar on 19 December
1985 and the District of Columbia Bar in October 1986.  On 3 July 2002, Respondent was
disbarred in the District of Columbia by Order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
 In re Glenn H. Carlson & Diane E. Cafferty, 802 A.2d 341 (D.C. 2002).
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel, filed
with this Court a petition for reciprocal disciplinary action against Respondent.  Bar Counsel
attached to its petition a certified copy of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’s
opinion in support of Bar Counsel’s allegation that, because of Respondent’s disbarment
from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for engaging in conduct involving
misappropriation and failure to render accountings promptly to clients upon request,
Respondent should be disbarred also in Maryland.  Based on the District of Columbia order
disbarring Respondent, Bar Counsel alleges, under Maryland Rule 16-773,1 violations of the
1(...continued)
751, and shall serve copies of the petition and order upon the
attorney in accordance with Rule 16-753.
. . . .
(e) Exceptional Circumstances.  Reciprocal discipline
shall not be ordered if Bar counsel or the attorney demonstrates
by clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) the procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity
to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process;
(2) there was such infirmity of proof establishing the
misconduct as to give rise to a clear conviction that the Court,
consistent with its duty, cannot accept as final the determination
of misconduct;
(3) the imposition of corresponding discipline would
result in grave injustice;
(4) the conduct established does not constitute
misconduct in this State or it warrants substantially different
discipline in this State; or
(5) the reason for inactive status no longer exists. 
2 Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) 1.15 (Safekeeping Property)
mandates:
(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third
persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a
representation separate from the lawyer’s own property.  Funds
shall be kept in a separate account maintained pursuant to Title
16, Chapter 600 of the Maryland Rules.  Other property shall be
identified as such and appropriately safeguarded.  Complete
records of such account funds and of other property shall be
kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for a period of five
years after termination of the representation.
(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a
client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly
notify the client or third person.  Except as stated in this Rule or
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a
(continued...)
2
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”), including MRPC 1.15(a),1.15(b), and
1.15(c),2 8.4(c) and 8.4(d),3 and Md. Rule 16-609.4  Bar Counsel asks this Court to impose
2(...continued)
lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any
funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled
to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.
(c) When in the course of representation a lawyer is in
possession of property in which both the lawyer and another
person claim interests, the property shall be kept separate by the
lawyer until there is an accounting and severance of their
interests.  If a dispute arises concerning their respective
interests, the portion in dispute shall be kept separate by the
lawyer until the dispute is resolved.
3 MRPC 8.4 (Misconduct) provides, in pertinent part, that it is professional
misconduct for a lawyer to “(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;” or “(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice.”
4 Rule 16-609 (Prohibited Transactions) states:
An attorney or law firm may not borrow or pledge any funds
required by these Rules to be deposited in an attorney trust
account, obtain any remuneration from the financial institution
for depositing any funds in the account, or use any funds for any
unauthorized purpose.  An instrument drawn on an attorney
trust account may not be drawn payable to cash or to bearer.
3
corresponding discipline to that imposed by the District of Columbia.  This Court ordered
that Respondent show cause why she should not be disbarred in Maryland.  Respondent filed
a response, and we heard argument in this matter on 5 June 2003.
As a preliminary matter, we observe that Md. Rule 16-773(g) addresses the
conclusive effect of a prior disciplinary adjudication as follows:
Except as provided in subsections (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this Rule,
a final adjudication in a disciplinary or remedial proceeding by
another court, agency, or tribunal that an attorney has been
guilty of professional misconduct or is incapacitated is
4
conclusive evidence of that misconduct or incapacity in any
proceeding under this Chapter.  The introduction of such
evidence does not preclude the Commission or Bar Counsel
from introducing additional evidence or preclude the attorney
from introducing evidence otherwise showing cause why no
discipline or lesser discipline should be imposed.
We therefore accept the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’s conclusion that Respondent
recklessly misappropriated client funds and failed to render accountings promptly to her
condominium clients upon request.
B.
On 30 December 1997, District of Columbia Bar Counsel filed a specification of
charges against Respondent alleging that she violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct
1.15(a), 1.15(b), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).  D.C. Bar Counsel filed identical charges against
Respondent’s law partner, Glenn H. Carlson, and moved to consolidate both cases because
they arose out of the Carlson & Cafferty law firm’s representation of owners of
condominium units located at 1927 17th Street, N.W., in the District of Columbia.
Respondent objected to the proposed consolidation claiming that consolidation would
“taint” her due to Mr. Carlson’s individual conduct in these matters and his failure to
cooperate with D.C. Bar Counsel.  The D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility
determined that Respondent would not be prejudiced by the consolidation and that
consolidation was appropriate.  Four days of testimony were received in 1998 and,
approximately two years later, the D.C. Hearing Committee issued its Report, which the
D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility reviewed and modified.
5
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals summarized the factual record as follows:
“Documents in the record and the Board’s Report reveal
that in February 1985, during the last year of her law school
studies, Ms. Cafferty worked as a law clerk at the firm of
Kenny, Carlson & Warren.  After her graduation from law
school and admission to the Maryland Bar, Ms. Cafferty joined
the firm as an associate; she worked almost exclusively for Mr.
Carlson.  Around 1988, Mr. Carlson, Ms. Cafferty and Mr.
Daniel Ferris left Kenny, Carlson & Warren and established
their own firm, Carlson, Cafferty & Ferris.  Mr. Ferris managed
the firm’s client trust fund.  The firm became Carlson &
Cafferty after Mr. Ferris’s departure to practice law in another
jurisdiction, and Mr. Carlson assumed the position of managing
partner.  
“The firm maintained a client trust fund at the Riggs
Bank (“the Riggs Escrow Account”), an operating account at
the First Liberty National Bank between March 1992 and
September 1995, and an account for Commercial Quest, Inc. at
Riggs Bank, which was used as an operating account beginning
around September 1995.  Ms. Cafferty served as President of
Commercial Quest, ‘a separate business venture.’  Both Mr.
Carlson and Ms. Cafferty had signatory authority on all of the
firm’s accounts.  Ms. Hammond handled day-to-day
management of the Riggs Escrow Account until she left the
firm in 1993.  The Board found that Ms. Cafferty ‘regularly
transferred moneys between the Riggs Escrow Account and the
various accounts maintained by the law firm, generally at the
direction of [Mr.] Carlson.’ 
“Around May 1989, Thomas Fritz, owner of a
condominium unit at the 17th Street condominium, contacted
Ms. Cafferty and asked her to represent him in his dispute with
his condominium association over services and repairs at the
condominium complex.  She agreed, and Mr. Fritz decided to
send his monthly condominium fee payments of $148.33 to
Carlson & Cafferty.  These payments were made from around
May 1989, through March 1996, and were sent with a letter
addressed either to Ms. Cafferty, or to Mr. Carlson and Ms.
Cafferty.  Each transmittal specified that the check should be
put into the law firm’s escrow account.  Commencing in early
6
1990, at least two other residents of the 17th Street
condominium sent monies to the law firm; these funds also
were earmarked for the firm’s escrow account.  Other persons
connected to the 17th Street condominium transmitted funds to
the firm for the escrow account.
“In addition to making payments for the law firm’s
escrow account, Mr. Fritz and two other owners of
condominium units in the 17th Street condominium retained
Carlson & Cafferty under a contingency fee arrangement, in
March 1991, to take legal action against the principal officer of
the 17th Street condominium’s management company.
Approximately ten months after the lawsuit was filed, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the settlement
funds were placed in the Riggs Escrow Account.
“After settlement, Carlson & Cafferty continued to
represent Mr. Fritz and other residents of the 17th Street
condominium.  In May 1992, Mr. Fritz and others retained the
firm, at the hourly billing rate of $225, to ‘prepare and update
all condominium documents and to take steps necessary to have
the [condominium association] in full compliance with the law
and all governing documents.’  Furthermore, when one of the
persons whom the firm represented assumed responsibility for
the management of the 17th Street condominium, bills of the
condominium were sent to the firm for payment from escrow
funds; some monthly condominium fees also were transmitted
for deposit in the firm’s escrow account.
“After retaining the firm in May 1992, the 17th Street
condominium clients began to request billing statements,
bylaws, and information about services that the firm had
rendered.  Responses to oral and written requests made between
May 1992 and December 1994 were delayed.  One accounting
was received in October 1993, and at a February 1994
condominium association meeting, attended by Ms. Cafferty
and Mr. Carlson, amended bylaws were submitted, as well as an
accounting for funds received and paid on behalf of the
association since 1989.  The accounting showed that ‘[Carlson
& Cafferty] had received over $60,000[,]. . . had expended
approximately $40,000, including $11,948.86 paid to the firm
in fees and expenses’ and $21,000 remained in escrow.
Following the February 1994 meeting, Mr. Fritz repeatedly
7
asked the firm for additional accountings.  An accounting was
submitted in June 1995, and thereafter, no requested accounting
was forthcoming until July 1997.  By that time, two of the
condominium clients had filed an ethical complaint against Mr.
Carlson and Ms. Cafferty.
“Around February and April of 1994, the Washington
Federal Savings Bank, which had foreclosed on three of the 17th
Street condominium units, began paying monthly condominium
fees on these units to Carlson & Cafferty for deposit into the
firm’s escrow account.  When the 17th Street condominium was
sold around March 1996, Washington Federal Savings Bank
asked Mr. Carlson to disburse the funds held in the Riggs
Escrow Account.  Mr. Carlson sent a letter to Washington
Federal Savings Bank on March 25, 1996, agreeing to disburse
funds, except for $3,000 to be retained for potential liabilities.
After the sale closed, Mr. Fritz and others repeatedly requested
disbursement of the Riggs Escrow Account funds.  Mr. Carlson
did not honor these requests in a timely manner, undoubtedly
because there were insufficient funds in the escrow account.  In
fact, the Board found that:
By the Summer of 1996, when Carlson &
Cafferty were required to disburse to the
condominium owners the more than $40,000 that
they had received to hold in trust, only
approximately $2,000 of the funds remained in
the Riggs Escrow Account.  The missing funds of
the [condominium association] had been used by
[Mr. Carlson and Ms. Cafferty], without their
clients’ knowledge or consent, to pay themselves
and other payees unrelated to the [condominium
assocation], at times when the balance in the
Riggs Escrow Account had fallen below the
amount that [Mr. Carlson and Ms. Cafferty] were
required to hold in trust for the [condominium
association].
“The reason for the shortage of funds in the escrow
account is that beginning around April 1992, and continuing to
around September 1995, Mr. Carlson and Ms. Cafferty
commingled the Riggs Escrow Account funds with other
accounts and used the escrow funds for purposes not associated
8
with the affairs of the condominium clients or the condominium
association.  During the 1992 to 1995 period, ‘numerous
checks’ that Mr. Carlson and Ms. Cafferty wrote on their First
Liberty National Bank operating account were dishonored due
to insufficient funds.  The Board found that bank records for the
operating account ‘reflected only three monthly periods in
which the account was not overdrawn.’  The Board also
determined that: ‘[Mr.] Carlson and [Ms.] Cafferty regularly
wrote checks using funds from the Riggs Escrow Account to
pay firm expenses at times they both knew that the law firm had
a shortage of funds in its operating account at First Liberty
Bank.’
“After the bank closed Carlson & Cafferty’s operating
account, Mr. Carlson and Ms. Cafferty ‘transferred thousands
of dollars in funds from the Riggs Escrow Account to the
Commercial Quest account,’ and began to use that account as
its operating account.  Between September 1995, and December
1995, $35,425.30 was deposited into the Commercial Quest
account, and less than $1,000 of that sum was traceable to a
source other than the Riggs Escrow Account.  During the
September to December 1995 period, Mr. Carlson did not spend
much time in Carlson & Cafferty’s office and did not attend to
the affairs of the law firm.  Consequently, ‘[Ms.] Cafferty
signed many of the checks that were drawn on the Riggs
Escrow Account that transferred these funds’ to the Commercial
Quest account.
“Even before the close of Carlson & Cafferty’s First
Liberty National Bank operating account, Mr. Carlson and Ms.
Cafferty were using funds from the Riggs Escrow Account to
pay themselves and office expenses.  Bank records revealed that
this practice began around November 1991 and continued
through 1996, and into 1997.  Indeed, some 94 checks signed
by Ms. Cafferty in 1995 alone, were written on the Riggs
Escrow Account and were made payable to ‘cash’ in sums
ranging from $50.00 to $7,615.06.  Funds from one ‘cash’
check for $678.00 were used to pay a Carlson & Cafferty
employee’s rent.
“Funds deposited in the Commercial Quest account,
which included monies transferred from the Riggs Escrow
Account, also were used by Mr. Carlson and Ms. Cafferty for
9
cash purposes.  During the period September to December
1995, Ms. Cafferty wrote checks to cash on the Commercial
Quest account which totaled $3,294.15.
“When she testified before hearing committee Number
Five, Ms. Cafferty was asked about the checks made out to
‘cash’ that she wrote on the Riggs Escrow Account.  She
replied:
Well, . . . [Mr.] Carlson told me to take the cash
out of the account; that he had plenty of money in
the account . . . If the operating account were low,
he’d say take the money out of that and put the
cash in the operating account so that it gets
credited immediately.
She denied taking any of the condominium clients’ funds, ‘to
[her] knowledge.’  Instead, she maintained that funds for the
checks made out to cash came out of Mr. Carlson’s father’s
estate money.  She thought that Mr. Carlson ‘had an abundance
of money.’  She also asserted that at the time, Mr. Carlson had
obtained about $39,000 from his wife to put into the account.
“Ms. Cafferty acknowledged during her testimony before
the hearing committee that one of the reasons Mr. Carlson, Mr.
Ferris and she left their prior firm was because an attorney in
that firm sought to use money from a client trust account to pay
office expenses.  She admitted knowing ‘that [such use] was
wrong at the time[.]’ She also confirmed that she had personally
deposited some of the condominium clients’ money into the
firm’s client escrow account periodically.  When Bar Counsel
inquired whether she paid herself ‘compensation out of the
[client] trust account,’ she responded:
Yes.  When [Mr. Carlson] had his money in there,
and I needed to get paid, he would say write it for
cash, and he was loaning it to the firm from his
money.
She added that she ‘always thought that there were trusts within
trusts that were theoretically insulated from each other.’
“By June 1997, Carlson & Cafferty still had not
presented a final accounting to the condominium clients, and
had not disbursed the condominium association funds that were
supposed to be in the Riggs Escrow Account.  Therefore, two
of the condominium clients filed an ethical complaint against
10
Carlson & Cafferty.  Mr. Carlson informed Ms. Cafferty of the
shortage of funds in the Riggs Escrow Account, but stated that
he would obtain $39,000 from his wife to replace the funds.  He
put the funds from his wife, as well as smaller sums, into an
account that he had opened in July 1997 at the First Liberty
National Bank, to bring the Liberty account up to $40,624.39.
Then he deposited $40,536.05 of that amount in the Riggs
Escrow Account, and paid that sum to the condominium clients
and the Washington Federal Savings Bank.”
802 A.2d at 343-47 (internal footnotes omitted).
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals considered the report and
recommendation of the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility under a standard of
review requiring the court to “accept the findings of fact made by the Board unless they are
unsupported by substantial evidence of record, and [to] adopt the recommended disposition
of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for
comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.”  802 A.2d at 347 (quoting D.C.
Bar. R. XI, § 9(g)).  The court, however, also observed that its review of whether Ms.
Cafferty recklessly misappropriated client funds was a legal question which it reviewed de
novo.
The District of Columbia court noted that the definition of “misappropriation” in D.C.
was “any unauthorized use of client’s funds entrusted to [the lawyer], including not only
stealing but also unauthorized temporary use for the lawyer’s own purpose, whether or not
[she] derives any personal gain or benefit therefrom.” 802 A.2d at 347-48 (quoting In re
Harrison, 461 A.2d 1034, 1036 (D.C. 1983)).  The court noted further that
11
“misappropriation occurs whenever the balance in [the attorney’s escrow] account falls
below the amount due to the client” and is “essentially a per se offense.”  802 A.2d at 348.
Because of the serious nature of a misappropriation offense, the District of Columbia
“adhered to a standard of presumptive disbarment,” except in cases of negligent
misappropriation or extraordinary circumstances.  802 A.2d at 348.  The District of
Columbia classifies misappropriation cases into three categories: (1) intentional
misappropriation; (2) reckless misappropriation; and (3) negligent misappropriation.  The
principle of presumptive disbarment applies only to the first two categories.  Id.
In the District of Columbia, Ms. Cafferty argued that if the facts of her case fell into
any of the categories it was the negligent misappropriation category, and merited therefore
only a six month suspension.  Id.  The D.C. Board, however, found her actions to constitute
reckless misappropriation, meriting disbarment.  Id.
In that regard, the District of Columbia court opined that:
The central issue in determining whether a misappropriation is
reckless is how the attorney handles entrusted funds, whether in
a way that suggests the unauthorized use was inadvertent or the
result of simple negligence, or in a way that reveals either an
intent to treat the funds as the attorney’s own or a conscious
indifference to the consequences of his [or her] behavior for the
security of the funds.
Id. (quoting In re Anderson, 778 A.2d 330, 339 (D.C. 2001)).  In the District of Columbia,
the examination of how the attorney handled entrusted funds and whether reckless
misappropriation occurred entails examination of “a pattern or course of conduct
12
demonstrating an unacceptable disregard for the welfare of entrusted funds, such as (1) the
indiscriminate commingling of entrusted and personal funds, (2) the failure to track
settlement proceeds, (3) the disregard of the status of accounts into which entrusted funds
were placed, or (4) permitting the repeated overdraft condition of an account.”  802 A.2d
at 348-49.  The court also noted that “the indiscriminate movement of monies between
accounts” and the “disregard of inquiries concerning the status of funds” were other factors
indicating recklessness.  802 A.2d at 349.
The court distinguished Ms. Cafferty’s case from another misappropriation case, In
re Anderson, stating that Anderson involved a single act of misconduct and a finding of
negligent misappropriation, whereas Ms. Cafferty “engaged in a pattern of course or conduct
demonstrating an unacceptable disregard for the welfare of entrusted funds.”  Id. (citation
omitted).  The court continued:
This pattern extended over several years, including substantial
periods of time in which Mr. Carlson was not paying attention
to the affairs of the firm, thus calling into question Ms.
Cafferty’s insistence that she acted only at the direction of Mr.
Carlson, and that the entire blame for the misappropriation falls
squarely on him.
802 A.2d at 349.  The District of Columbia court observed that in Anderson, although there
was insufficient evidence to conclude that Anderson engaged in reckless misappropriation
and related violations involving a single failure to pay a client’s medical bill from settlement
funds, the court noted that “[i]f in fact Mr. Anderson ignored or willfully blinded himself
to . . . reminders [by the client that the bill had not been paid], then we would have no
13
difficulty sustaining the [hearing committee’s] determination of recklessness.” 
 Id.  (quoting
Anderson, 778 A.2d at 341).  The court found that precise situation in Ms. Cafferty’s case:
Ms. Cafferty ignored repeated requests by the 17th Street
condominium clients for an accounting of client trust funds.
She also willfully blinded herself to Mr. Carlson’s improper
transfer of funds from the Riggs Escrow Account to Carlson &
Cafferty’s operating accounts, as well as to the consequences of
her own improper use of the Riggs Escrow Account by writing
checks to “cash” for personal payments.  As the Board noted in
another reckless misappropriation case, ‘this is not a case where
all of the conduct resulting in a misappropriation was caused by
someone else.’  In re Gregory, 790 A.2d 573, 578 n.1 (D.C.
2002).  Indeed, the record clearly and convincingly
demonstrates Ms. Cafferty’s active and reckless involvement in
the misappropriation of client trust funds.
802 A.2d at 349.
Ms. Cafferty’s culpable behavior was described as follows:
“Ms. Cafferty was a signatory on the firm’s accounts,
including the Riggs Escrow Account.  She was well-attuned to
the impropriety of using client funds to pay for personal
expenses, and she had left a prior firm because a partner had
engaged in the practice.  Nonetheless, bank records reveal that
at least from late 1991, and continuing through mid-1996, Ms.
Cafferty personally wrote numerous checks on the Riggs
Escrow Account that were made out to cash, in amounts
ranging from $50.00 to $7,615.06.  During this period of time,
Carlson & Cafferty’s operating account at the First Liberty
National Bank was overdrawn repeatedly, to such an extent that
the bank closed the account in 1995.  To create another
operating account, Mr. Carlson and Ms. Cafferty transferred
thousands of dollars from the Riggs Escrow Account to the
Commercial Quest, Inc. account, designed initially for a
business venture headed by Ms. Cafferty.  The Board
specifically found that ‘[Ms.] Cafferty signed many of the
checks that were drawn on the Riggs Escrow Account that
14
transferred these funds’ to the Commercial Quest account,
despite the fact that she personally deposited some of the funds
sent to the law firm by the 17th Street condominium clients into
the escrow account and thus knew that the Riggs Escrow
Account contained client trust funds.  After transferring funds
from the escrow account to the Commercial Quest account, Ms.
Cafferty wrote checks out to ‘cash’ on that account in the
amount of $3,294.15.  By mid-1996, when the condominium
clients were seeking disbursement of approximately $40,000.00
in client trust funds, less than $2,000.00 remained in the Riggs
Escrow Account.
“Furthermore, Ms. Cafferty acknowledged that she even
paid herself with funds from the Riggs Escrow Account, but
again sought to shift the blame to Mr. Carlson.  As she asserted
during her testimony before the hearing committee, in response
to a question about her receipt of compensation from the client
trust fund: ‘When [Mr. Carlson] had his money in there, and I
needed to get paid, he would say write it for cash, and he was
loaning it to the firm from his money.’
“Ms. Cafferty wrote checks on the Riggs Escrow
Account, made out to cash, when she knew about requests from
the condominium clients for accountings.  She attended
meetings of the 17th Street condominium association and
became aware that repeated requests had been made for an
accounting of the client trust funds.  Even though she may not
have prepared or seen the reports, she was present at the
condominium association meetings when inaccurate and
misleading accounting reports were distributed to her clients.
She also knew that she and Mr. Carlson were the only lawyers
in the firm; that personal funds from Mr. Carlson were being
placed in the client trust fund; and that beginning in or around
1994, Mr. Carlson was not paying proper attention to the affairs
of the law firm due to personal problems, including protracted
problems with his marriage and heavy drinking, leaving
substantial responsibility for the affairs of the firm to her.  Yet,
she took no steps to ensure the ‘safety and welfare of entrusted
funds.’  In re Anderson, 778 A.2d at 338.  Instead, she
personally displayed ‘an unacceptable disregard for the security
of the client funds,’ id. (citation omitted) and ‘a conscious
indifference to the consequences of [her] behavior for the
5 The District of Columbia court also found that proper weight and consideration was
given by the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility to the testimony of Ms. Cafferty’s
witnesses.  In re Carlson, 802 A.2d at 351.  The court further concluded that the D.C.
Hearing Committee’s failure to submit its report within sixty days after her hearing
(continued...)
15
security of these funds[,]’ id. at 339 (reference omitted).  In
short, her actions relating to the Riggs Escrow Account were
not inadvertent or negligent.  Rather, the record contains clear
and convincing evidence that she recklessly misappropriated
client trust funds.  The record also supports the Board’s
determination that Ms. Cafferty failed to render accountings
promptly to her condominium clients upon request.  She
attended meetings of the condominium association, including
one in February 1994, and many of the written requests for
accountings were addressed to her.  Hence, Ms. Cafferty was
aware of the requests for accountings, but made no effort to see
that they were rendered in a timely fashion.  For example,
despite repeated requests, after the delayed submission of an
accounting in June 1995, for an additional accounting, none
was forthcoming until two of the condominium clients filed an
ethical complaint against Mr. Carlson and Ms. Cafferty.  Thus,
the record contains clear and convincing evidence that Ms.
Cafferty failed to render accountings promptly to her
condominium clients upon request.”
802 A.2d at 349-51 (internal footnotes omitted).
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals also addressed Ms. Cafferty’s contention
that the consolidation of her case with Mr. Carlson’s case violated her due process rights.
The court noted the importance of judicial economy in consolidating the cases because they
both arose out of their joint representation of the 17th Street condominium clients, and
concluded that the record revealed that no prejudice accrued to Ms. Cafferty.  802 A.2d at
351.5
5(...continued)
concluded, as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(a), was harmless and did not violate her due
process rights because the rule is directory, not mandatory, as indicated in another decision
rendered by that court, In re Morrell, 684 A.2d 361 (D.C. 1996).
16
II.
A.
Ms. Cafferty argues that this Court should find compelling her enumeration of
“undisputed” facts:
“It is undisputed that, throughout her entire professional
career (since 1985), Respondent Cafferty never managed the
accounts of the firm and in particular the trust account, as the
Hearing Committee and the Board correctly concluded;
“It is undisputed that Respondent Cafferty never wrote
a single check except at the express direction of Carlson;
“It is undisputed that Respondent Cafferty, on a number
of occasions during the time period Bar Counsel maintains
misappropriations were being made, asked complainants to take
possession and control of the funds at issue;
“It is undisputed that the complainants never dealt with
Cafferty concerning the sale of the condo; they had nothing to
do with her for more than a year prior to the sale;
“It is undisputed that, after the closing(s), the
complainants never asked Respondent Cafferty to [disburse] the
funds nor did they inform her that Carlson had failed to do so
upon request;
“It is undisputed that Carlson prepared all the
accountings;
“It is undisputed that Cafferty did not have the data
necessary to generate an accounting;
“It is undisputed that throughout the representation,
complainants received periodic accountings from Carlson;
“It is undisputed that although Fritz [a condominium
association client] wanted accountings more frequently,
17
complainants continued to retain the firm, specifically Mr.
Carlson;
“It is undisputed that the primary accounting issue had to
do with Mr. Thompson’s abject failure to make timely payments
in the proper amount; [and]
“It is undisputed that Respondent Cafferty has never
been the subject of any disciplinary action, prior to this matter.”
Respondent asks us to disregard the findings and conclusions of the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals and instead rely on the conclusions drawn by the D.C. Hearing Committee
and the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility that she had not acted dishonestly as
alleged by D.C. Bar Counsel.  Ms. Cafferty argues that it was inconsistent for the D.C.
Hearing Committee and D.C. Board to each find that she had not acted dishonestly, but
nonetheless recommend that she be disbarred from the District of Columbia Bar.
Respondent analogizes her case to that of 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Powell, 328
Md. 276, 614 A.2d 102 (1992), a case involving the alleged misappropriation of funds in
which we found that there was a lack of clear and convincing evidence of “dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”  328 Md. at 292, 614 A.2d at 110.  Respondent notes
that Mr. Powell was the only attorney responsible for the trust account and that he was aware
that there was a probability that his client’s funds might be mis-deposited.  328 Md. at 295,
614 A.2d at 112.  Powell also had arranged a “loan” from a client and subsequently bounced
the repayment check although the funds were ultimately repaid.  Id.  This Court found that
the misappropriation had been unintentional and suspended Powell for six months.
Respondent notes that we took into account that Powell had been in practice for twenty years
18
with no prior occurrences of misconduct.  328 Md. at 301, 614 A.2d at 115.  Respondent
contends that, like Powell, she engaged in no prior instances of misconduct in her fifteen
years as a member of the D.C. Bar.  Respondent points out she fully cooperated with Bar
Counsel, unlike Powell, who was found to have been “less than cooperative and reasonable
in his responses to Bar Counsel’s investigation.”  328 Md. at 299, 614 A.2d at 114. 
Respondent also relies on Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ober, 350 Md. 616, 714 A.2d 856
(1998), where we took note of Mr. Ober’s spotless record when determining his sanction.
She lastly urges us to find that she is not a threat to the public and that disbarring her
from the practice of law in the State of Maryland would be a solely punitive action and thus
inconsistent with one of our self-avowed purposes in imposing disciplinary sanctions.  See
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435, 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997)
(noting that “[t]he public is protected when sanctions are imposed that are commensurate
with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were
committed”).
B.
We conclude that Ms. Cafferty’s conduct, as found by the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals, is more analogous to that found in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde,
19
364 Md. 376, 773 A.2d 463 (2001), and 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gallagher, 371 Md.
673, 810 A.2d 996 (2002), than to Powell or Ober.  The misconduct in Powell involved the
disbursement of various settlement funds to a single client.  Mr. Powell maintained two bank
accounts in connection with his law practice.  The first was maintained at Sovran Bank, and
the second was maintained at Fund for Government Investors, Inc. (“FGI”).  The FGI
account was intended as the sole depository of the pertinent settlement funds.  328 Md. at
281, 614 A.2d at 105.  Of the nine settlement checks Powell received, he deposited three
into the Sovran account and six into the FGI account.  Id.  Powell and his client had
numerous telephone conversations and exchanged several letters involving the settlement
funds between 23 March 1988 and 17 May 1989.  328 Md. at 283-85, 614 A.2d at 106-07.
Arrangements were made to defer Powell’s payment of the owed settlement proceeds for
Powell’s use in the form of a personal loan.  328 Md. at 284, 614 A.2d at 106.  Powell
ultimately gave his client a promissory note in the amount due to her from the settlement
proceeds.  328 Md. at 285, 614 A.2d at 107.  Although the principal of the promissory note,
together with accrued interest, was due on 2 January 1989, Powell did not send his client
anything until a check for interest only on 14 April 1989.  That check was returned for
insufficient funds.  328 Md. at 285, 614 A.2d at 107.  After receiving notice of the
dishonored check, Powell told his client, by letter dated 17 May 1989, to redeposit the
check, which she did.  Id.  The client filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance
20
Commission in August of 1989 because she had not heard from Powell again since the 17
May 1989 letter.
We found that Powell unintentionally misappropriated $52,000 of his client’s funds
by depositing them into the Sovran account.  After discovering this mis-deposit, Powell
calculated what was due him in fees and expenses and determined that transferring the
money into the FGI account and then back into the Sovran account would be pointless.  328
Md. at 300, 614 A.2d at 114-15.  We concluded that although Powell’s conduct came
perilously close to gross negligence, the unintentional misappropriation was not grossly
negligent.  Id.  In meting out the appropriate sanction, we reasoned as follows:
We are aware that Powell has been in private practice for
over twenty years and that this is the first time he has been
charged with professional misconduct.  We also are aware that
the funds in this case are those of a single client.  The record
also is replete with the many personal and familial problems
confronting Powell during this period of time.  Yet, despite the
many problems that confronted Powell, the trial court found that
Powell was a more than capable attorney during this period.
After careful consideration of this matter, we have
determined that a substantial suspension is called for.
Accordingly, Robert Dominick Powell will be suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law with the right to reapply
not less than six months from the date of the filing of this
opinion.
328 Md. at 302, 614 A.2d at 115. 
Unlike Powell, who committed a single infraction, Respondent was found by the
District of Columbia court to have engaged in a pattern of misappropriation.  She ignored
repeated requests by the 17th Street condominium clients for an accounting of client trust
21
funds and willfully blinded herself to Mr. Carlson’s improper transfer of funds from the
Riggs Escrow Account to Carlson & Cafferty’s operating accounts, as well as to the
consequences of her own improper use of the Riggs Escrow Account by writing checks to
“cash” for personal payments.  In comparison, Powell kept in contact with his client and
regularly responded to the client’s requests for accountings, although his responses were not
always satisfactory.  Moreover, the District of Columbia court also found that the record
indicated Respondent’s active and intentional involvement in misappropriating client trust
funds.  Respondent’s reliance on Ober is likewise misplaced because Mr. Ober was found
to have engaged in unintentional misappropriation, unlike Ms. Cafferty.
In Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 414, 418, 773 A.2d at 485, 488, Ms. Vanderlinde was
charged with violating Rule 8.4 as a result of embezzling funds from her employer over a
period of time.  We stated in Vanderlinde that disbarment ordinarily should be the sanction
“in cases of stealing, dishonesty, fraudulent conduct, the intentional misappropriation of
funds or other serious criminal conduct.”  364 Md. at 414, 773 A.2d at 485.  We observed,
Upon reflection as a Court, in disciplinary matters, we
will not in the future attempt to distinguish between degrees of
intentional dishonesty based upon convictions, testimonials, or
other factors.  Unlike matters relating to competency, diligence,
and the like, intentional dishonest conduct is closely entwined
with the most important matters of basic character to such a
degree as to make intentional dishonest conduct by a lawyer
almost beyond excuse.  Honesty and dishonesty are, or are not,
present in an attorney’s character.
Disbarment ordinarily should be the sanction for
intentional dishonest conduct. . . .
6 Maryland Rule 8.4(a) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so
through the acts of another.
7Rule 16-607 (Commingling of funds) provides in relevant part:
(a) General Prohibition.  An attorney or law firm may
deposit in an attorney trust account only those funds required to
be deposited in that account by Rule 16-604 or permitted to be
(continued...)
22
364 Md. at 418, 773 A.2d at 488.
We disbarred an attorney in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gallagher, 371 Md. 673,
810 A.2d 996 (2002), for unmitigated and intentional misappropriation of client funds.  Mr.
Gallagher established an escrow account for his client and then proceeded to “intentionally
and consistently” deplete the funds of that account without the permission of his client.  371
Md. at 706, 810 A.2d at 1016.  Even after the client demanded the return of the money,
Gallagher continued to deplete the account.  When Gallagher did return the entire amount
due his client from the proceeds received in another transaction, he failed to keep that money
in trust after it was deposited in the account and before it was disbursed to his client.  371
Md. at 706-07, 810 A.2d at 1016.  We disbarred Gallagher after noting our “consistent
practice of disbarment of lawyers who misappropriate client funds absent mitigation or
extenuating circumstances.”  371 Md. at 715, 810 A.2d at 1021.
We found that Mr. DiCicco in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662,
686, 802 A.2d 1014, 1027 (2002), commingled funds and misused trust money in violation
of MRPC 1.15(a) & (c), MRPC 8.4(a)6, and Md. Rules 16-607(a)7 and 16-609.  We imposed
7(...continued)
so deposited by section b. of this Rule.
(b) Exceptions.  1.  An attorney or law firm shall either
(A) deposit into an attorney trust account funds to pay any fees,
service charges, or minimum balance required by the financial
institution to open or maintain the account, including those fees
that cannot be charged against interest due to the Maryland
Legal Services Corporation Fund pursuant to Rule 16-610 b 1
(D), or (B) enter into an agreement with the financial institution
to have any fees or charges deducted from an operating account
maintained by the attorney or law firm.  The attorney or law
firm may deposit into an attorney trust account any funds
expected to be advanced on behalf of a client and expected to
be reimbursed to the attorney by the client.
2.  An attorney or law firm may deposit into an attorney
trust account funds belonging in part to a client and in part
presently or potentially to the attorney or law firm.  The portion
belonging to the attorney or law firm shall be withdrawn
promptly when the attorney or law firm becomes entitled to the
funds, but any portion disputed by the client shall remain in the
account until the dispute is resolved.
3.  Funds of a client or beneficial owner may be pooled
and commingled in an attorney trust account with the funds held
for other clients or beneficial owners.
23
a ninety-day suspension.  The hearing judge found that DiCicco failed to deliver funds owed
to his client’s medical provider until two years after the settlement of a negligence claim,
although he did so on the instruction of his client.  369 Md. at 674, 802 A.2d at 1020-21.
Throughout the course of DiCicco’s representation of his client, DiCicco did not keep the
disputed funds separate from his own personal funds and on numerous occasions the balance
of the escrow account fell below the $3,500 DiCicco ultimately paid the medical provider.
Id.  Thus, DiCicco violated Rules 1.15(a) & (c) by failing to hold property of clients or third
24
persons separate from his own.  We agreed with the hearing judge’s assessment that DiCicco
“used [the escrow account] as if it also served as his personal bank account.”  369 Md. at
676, 802 A.2d at 1022.  In deciding on an appropriate sanction, we noted that although
misappropriation usually mandates disbarment, “[w]here there is no finding of intentional
misappropriation, however, and where the misconduct did not result in financial loss to any
of the respondent’s clients, an indefinite suspension ordinarily is the appropriate sanction.”
369 Md. at 687, 802 A.2d at 1028.  We imposed suspension rather than disbarment based
on the respondent’s absence of fraudulent intent, lack of evidence that any client suffered
financial loss, and the lack of evidence of any prior disciplinary problems in respondent’s
thirty-eight year membership at the Maryland Bar.  369 Md. at 688, 802 A.2d at 1028.
We noted the importance of the hearing judge’s conclusions of fact regarding
allegations of attorney misappropriation in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Santos, 370 Md.
77, 87, 803 A.2d 505, 511 (2002).  In the Santos case, the attorney was found, in addition
to other offenses, to have engaged regularly in the practice of depositing all funds received
from his clients, including unearned fees and expenses, into his operating account, in
violation of MRPC 1.15 and Md. Rule 16-604.  370 Md. at 83, 803 A.2d at 508.  Santos
failed to return  unearned fees to his clients.  Id.  We noted that disbarment was the preferred
sanction in cases involving misappropriation, but declined to impose that sanction because
the hearing judge did not find Santos’ behavior to be “dishonest or fraudulent or done with
intent to defraud,” referring instead to the conduct as “neglect.”  370 Md. at 87-88, 803 A.2d
25
at 511.  Based on the finding by the hearing judge of misappropriation through neglect, we
indefinitely suspended Santos with the right to apply for readmission no sooner than ninety
days.
In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409, 818 A.2d 1108 (2003), the
hearing judge found that Mr. Seiden, in his representation of one client, Ms. Mentlik,
engaged in various acts of misappropriation of that client’s funds.  Seiden was hired by
Mentlik to represent the estate for which she was the Personal Representative, and Seiden
attended the settlement of some real property that was part of the decedent’s estate.  373 Md.
at 413, 818 A.2d at 1110.  A check was tendered and made payable to Mentlik that Seiden
then deposited into his account by signing Mentlik’s name to the check.  Id.  The hearing
judge did not find that Seiden had signed his client’s name without her authority.  Id.  Seiden
then wrote Ms. Mentlik a check from his own escrow account for the amount of the
settlement, minus a sum representing his legal fee, but without submitting a fee petition to
the Orphan’s Court and without Mentlik’s written consent to that fee.  Id.  We observed that
the relationship between Seiden and Mentlik was troubled to such a degree that, although
he never hid his actions from Mentlik, Seiden “was presented with an extremely difficult
situation, in which he likely knew that it would be nearly impossible to procure his fee,” and
so “took the ‘easy’ shortcut to obtaining his fee.”  373 Md. at 420, 818 A.2d at 1114.  We
noted that this type of conduct was not theft or “the type of dishonest conduct for which we
consistently issue severe sanctions.”  Id.  We concluded that his misappropriation of client
26
funds was not intentional and, therefore, imposed an indefinite suspension with the right to
apply for readmission no sooner than thirty days.  373 Md. at 423, 425, 818 A.2d at 1117.
C.
As noted above, Respondent asks us to disregard the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and instead rely on the findings
of the D.C. Hearing Committee and the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility.
Maryland Rule 16-773(g), as noted above, addresses the conclusive effect of a prior final
adjudication in a reciprocal disciplinary matters: “[a] final adjudication in a disciplinary or
remedial proceeding by another court, agency, or tribunal that an attorney has been guilty
of professional misconduct or is incapacitated is conclusive evidence of that misconduct or
incapacity . . . .”  Md. Rule 16-773(g) (emphasis added).  Therefore, we accept the final
adjudication of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as conclusive.  There is no basis
for us to consider the findings or conclusions of the intermediate D.C. Board on Professional
Responsibility or the D.C. Hearing Committee.  Only the final factual findings and legal
conclusions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals are relevant to our inquiry under
Md. Rule 16-773(g).
Maryland does not recognize the three-tiered categorization of misappropriation
misconduct employed by the District of Columbia.  Instead, as Vanderlinde elucidates,
disbarment is presumed to be the appropriate sanction for any intentional dishonest
misconduct, including the intentional misappropriation of client funds.  Taken as a whole,
27
the Maryland cases discussed above provide us with an analytical framework we shall
employ to classify Respondent’s behavior for purposes of reciprocal discipline.  We decline
to compare the District of Columbia’s three categories of misappropriation to the two
categories in our analytical framework for misappropriation cases; instead, we shall apply
our analytical framework to the factual findings of the District of Columbia court.
Our caselaw distinguishes between the intentional misappropriation of client funds
and the misappropriation of client funds resulting from negligent or otherwise unintentional
behavior.  When there has been a finding of intentional misappropriation we have
recognized as mitigating factors only “the most serious and utterly debilitating mental or
physical health conditions, arising from any source that is the ‘root cause’ of the misconduct
and that also result in an attorney’s utter inability to conform his or her conduct in
accordance with the law and with the MRPC.”  Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 413-14, 773 A.2d
at 485.  See Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Duvall, 373 Md. 482, 819 A.2d 343 (2003) (finding
that indefinite suspension was the appropriate sanction where the attorney’s acts of
misappropriation were the direct result of severe depression); Attorney Griev. Comm’n v.
Garfield, 369 Md. 85, 797 A.2d 757 (2002) (imposing indefinite suspension when attorney’s
misappropriated client funds as a direct result of his cocaine addiction).  In cases where the
attorney engaging in the acts of misappropriation did so without the clear intent to defraud
his clients, we have imposed indefinite suspension as the appropriate sanction.  Attorney
28
Griev. Comm’n v. Culver, 371 Md. 265, 808 A.2d 1251 (2002); Attorney Griev. Comm’n
v. Hayes, 367 Md. 504, 789 A.2d 119 (2002).  
Under the three categories of misappropriation recognized by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals, disbarment is the presumptive sanction for both reckless and
intentional misappropriation, whereas a lesser sanction may be appropriate for acts of
negligent misappropriation.  In re Carlson, 802 A.2d at 348.  The District of Columbia court
described reckless misappropriation as encompassing acts of “conscious indifference”
towards the use and management of client funds.  802 A.2d at 348.  Although Maryland
does not recognize three distinct and separate categories of misappropriation, we do
distinguish between negligent and intentional misappropriation.
Respondent’s “conscious indifference” in the use and management of the client trust
account constitutes intentional misappropriation under Maryland law.  Respondent’s acts of
misappropriation fall into what our cases have determined to be “intentional” behavior
sanctionable by disbarment.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals found Respondent was “well-attuned to
the impropriety of using client funds to pay for personal expenses,” and concluded that the
record revealed that her actions regarding the Riggs Escrow Account were “not inadvertent
or negligent,” and instead demonstrated her “active and reckless involvement in the
misappropriation of client trust funds.”  802 A.2d at 349-50.  The court construed the record
as indicating that Ms. Cafferty knew that her behavior was wrong because of her association
29
with a prior firm where one of the partners was engaging in such activity, and yet, she
engaged in misappropriation activities including, at times, paying herself a salary out of the
client trust account.  802 A.2d at 350.  “Ms. Cafferty wrote checks on the Riggs Escrow
Account, made out to cash, when she knew about requests from the condominium clients
for accountings.”  Id.
In Gallagher, the attorney was disbarred for his unmitigated and intentional
misappropriation of client funds.  371 Md. at 706, 810 A.2d at 996.  We found that
[W]hen respondent established the Escrow Account for Mr.
Lobo, he intentionally and consistently depleted the funds of
said account without the permission of Mr. Lobo.  Nearly every
disbursal was directly to respondent himself, with the exception
of the funds wired to Anglo American in England.  Even after
Mr. Lobo demanded the return of the $30,000, evidencing his
lack of knowledge of respondent’s account activity, respondent
continued to disburse funds to himself.”
Id.  Likewise, Ms. Cafferty intentionally and consistently depleted the funds in the Riggs
Escrow Account without the permission of the condominium owners.  The missing funds
were used by Respondent , without her clients’ knowledge or consent, to pay herself and
other payees unrelated to the condominium association or its business, at times when the
balance in the Riggs Escrow Account had fallen below the amount required to be held in
trust.  802 A.2d at 345.  The District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed with the D.C.
Board’s finding  that “when Carlson & Cafferty were required to disburse to the
condominium owners the more than $ 40,000 that they had received to hold in trust, only
approximately $ 2,000 of the funds remained in the Riggs Escrow Account.”  Id.
30
Respondent commingled the Riggs Escrow Account funds with other accounts and
used the escrow funds for purposes not associated with her condominium client’s interests.
Id.  The District of Columbia Court of Appeals’s conclusions, under our own caselaw,
provide conclusive evidence that Respondent intentionally misappropriated client funds in
violation of MRPC 1.15(a), (b), and (c) and 8.4(c) and (d), as well as Rule 16-609.
III.
Bar Counsel recommends that Respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in
Maryland as she also was in the District of Columbia.  Respondent argues that the
circumstances do not support a sanction of disbarment.
We tend to, see Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Sabghir, 350 Md. 67, 83, 710 A.2d 926,
934 (1998); Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Richardson, 350 Md. 354, 365-66, 712 A.2d 525,
530-31 (1998), but are not required to, see Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Gittens, 346 Md. 316,
324, 697 A.2d 83, 87 (1997), impose the same sanction as that imposed by the jurisdiction
in which the misconduct occurred.  The Court is duty-bound to assess for itself the propriety
of the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction as well as the sanction recommended by
the Commission,  346 Md. at 326, 697 A.2d at 88.  We look not only to the sanction
imposed by the other jurisdiction, but to the particular facts and circumstances of each case
with a view toward consistent dispositions for similar misconduct.  Attorney Griev. Comm’n
v. Roberson, 373 Md.328, 355-56, 818 A.2d 1059, 1076 (2003).  When the purpose in
31
disciplining counsel is the same in both jurisdictions, we ordinarily defer to the other
jurisdiction.  373 Md. at 356, 818 A.2d at 1076.
The District of Columbia, like Maryland, views the protection of the public as one
of the purposes of attorney discipline.  The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in
discussing the impact on the public when an attorney steals client money, noted that the
court’s treatment of such offenses affects public confidence much more than the offense
itself.  See In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 194 (D.C. 1990).  “Arguments for lenient discipline
overlook this effect as well as the overriding importance of maintaining that confidence.”
Id. (citation omitted).  We reiterate for our part that the purpose of sanctions includes the
preservation of public confidence in the legal profession and the need to make clear to the
bar that the invasion of and misappropriation of client funds will not be tolerated.  As a
result, we conclude that the disciplinary sanction imposed in the District of Columbia in the
present case is appropriate also in Maryland.
We stated in Hayes that the general rule is “disbarment will inevitably follow any
unmitigated misappropriation of client, or any third party’s funds.”  367 Md. at 512-13, 789
A.2d at 124.  See, e.g., Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Vlahos, 369 Md. 183, 186, 798 A.2d 555,
556 (2002) (“It has long been the rule in this State that absent compelling extenuating
circumstances, misappropriation by an attorney is an act infected with deceit and dishonesty
and ordinarily will result in disbarment”).  We reasoned that “[c]learly, one who acts with
deliberation and calculation, fully cognizant of the situation and, therefore, fully intending
32
the result that is achieved is more culpable than one who, though doing the same act, does
so unintentionally, negligently or without full appreciation of the consequences.”  Hayes,
367 Md. at 516-17, 789 A.2d at 127.
In this matter, we do not find any circumstances mitigating Respondent’s violations,
nor do we find any exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Rule 16-773(e).
Respondent, although without disciplinary blemish in the District of Columbia or Maryland
prior to these proceedings, has been found to have participated in active and reckless
involvement in the misappropriation of client trust funds.  Additionally, the gravity of
Respondent’s conduct is compounded by other rule violations: failing to render prompt
accountings to her condominium clients, and withdrawing funds from the escrow account
payable to cash.  In similar situations, we have disbarred other attorneys who have
committed such misconduct.  See, e.g., Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Bernstein, 363 Md. 208,
768 A.2d 607 (2001) (disbarring attorney for willfully misappropriating funds from his
client trust account and commingling his personal funds with those of his clients);
Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 773 A.2d 463 (2001) (disbarring attorney for intentional
misappropriation of the funds of another); Gallagher, 371 Md. 673, 810 A.2d 996 (2002)
(attorney disbarred for numerous violations when this Court followed its consistent practice
of disbarment of lawyers who misappropriate client funds absent mitigation or extenuating
circumstances).  We conclude that the appropriate sanction in this case is that imposed by
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, namely, disbarment.
33
IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT
SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED
BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT,
INCLUDING THE COSTS OF ALL
TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO
MARYLAND RULE 16-761, FOR
WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS
ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE
A T T O R N E Y  
G R I E V A N C E
COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
AGAINST DIANE E. CAFFERTY.