Opinion ID: 2298289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: MLRPC 8.4(a), (d)

Text: MLRPC 8.4(a) states that it is professional misconduct to violate any of the other disciplinary rules. Accordingly, its violation in this case follows from the other violations already discussed. MLRPC 8.4(d) prohibits conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Failure to appear at a scheduled proceeding may constitute a violation of that rule. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harris, 366 Md. 376, 404, 784 A.2d 516 (2001). An attorney plays such an integral role in the judicial process that without his presence the wheels of justice must, necessarily, grind to a halt. The attorney's absence from the courtroom is immediately cognizable by the judge and intrudes upon the operation and dignity of the Court. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ficker, 319 Md. 305, 313-315, 572 A.2d 501 (1990). In failing to appear, postpone the proceedings, or ensure that substitute counsel appeared, Mr. Butler was responsible for the Fergusons' lack of representation at the February 5 trial, which was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Judge Sfekas so concluded and so do we. [12]