Opinion ID: 2297758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The Unprofessional Articulation Of The Exceptions

Text: Having overruled all but one of respondent's exceptions and determined that disbarment is the appropriate sanction, we would ordinarily end our discussion. Given the unprecedented lack of common respect and decency with which respondent, through her attorney, Mr. Link, has chosen to present the exceptions, however, some additional comments are in order. In presenting legal argument, there is a proper place for passion and, indeed, for the panoply of literary devices designed and appropriate to give power, force, and clarity to the argument. In a case certainly familiar to Mr. Link, however, this Court confirmed that there are some limits, that attorneys are required to act with common courtesy and civility at all times in their dealings with those concerned with the legal process. Attorney Grievance v. Link, 380 Md. 405, 425, 844 A.2d 1197, 1209 (2004). More recently, by its adoption of Ideals of Professionalism, we have explained that lawyers are constrained by certain precepts of professionalism, which require[] civility in all dealings, showing respect for differing points of view, and demonstrating empathy for others and an understanding that a lawyer can advocate zealously a client's cause in a manner that remains fair and civil. Those precepts were utterly ignored in the drafting and filing of respondent's exceptions, which can best be characterized as unjustified and unprofessional personal attacks on Judge Cahill, on the Assistant Bar Counsel who prosecuted the case, and on the complaining clients. The tone of the attacks on Judge Cahill is set by referring to him throughout the exceptions, except in one place, as simply Cahillnot Judge Cahill. This was noted by the Court at oral argument and simply brushed aside with cavalier indifference by Mr. Link. More important, aside from the lack of the respectful honorific, respondent and Mr. Link have gone beyond simply asserting errors in various rulings and, without any justification, essentially have accused Judge Cahill of incompetence and worse. In complaining about the overruling of his objection to the admission of certain documentsan objection that actually had meritinstead of simply pointing out the error and arguing its significance, they state that [a]fter testily looking into his copy of the Rules to view this particular Rule with which he was obviously a complete stranger, Cahill then conferred with Lee [Marianne Lee, Assistant Bar Counsel] who was also a complete stranger to this Rule, and the two of then decided that since Lee had referred to these statements at [respondent's] recent deposition that she was in compliance with the Rule.... The record, they assert, is replete with numerous cowardly, degrading, personal insults on the judge's part. Judge Cahill is accused of exhibiting contempt for the discovery process, treating respondent's complaints with undisguised scorn, and pervert[ing] respondent's testimony, none of which is even remotely borne out by the record. They add that the entire Chapter 800 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure took a vacation during this hearing. Cahill let it be known that he had his own personal rule which substituted for Chapter 800. [4] The case, they say, is a case study in what occurs when a trial judge mindlessly sucks down material that is spoon-fed to him in a Proposed Order and then regurgitates it into his own Order without even bothering to check its accuracy, for which there also is no support in the record. Ignoring the fact that Judge Cahill made a clear determination that Ms. Berow was credible and that respondent was not, they assert that Mrs. Berow's conduct was fraudulent and duplicitousshe never rebutted any of the allegations Respondent made regarding her blatant dishonesty in trying to palm off the damages to the vehicle off on an innocent tow truck driver. Later, they refer to the Berows as scoundrels. Their aspersion of Ms. Berow, if anything, was exceeded by their characterization of Mr. Mughal and his son as two very sleazy characters. This kind of wholly unwarranted character assassination violates the very core of professionalism and is condemned. Mr. Link was admonished once before by this Court for that very kind of behavior, see Attorney Grievance v. Link, supra, 380 Md. at 429-30, 844 A.2d 1197 at 1212, but he apparently has learned nothing from that experience. EXCEPT AS TO MLRPC 1.7, EXCEPTIONS OVERRULED AND RESPONDENT IS DISBARRED; IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING COSTS FOR ALL TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 16-761, FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST MICHELE L. PAYER; ORDER TO TAKE EFFECT UPON FILING.