Opinion ID: 2344772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disbarment by Maryland

Text: On these facts, the Maryland Court of Appeals found that respondent Pennington had committed multiple ethical violations, chief of which were to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), and to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Id., Rule 4(d). It was these violations and the conduct underlying [them], the court stated, that lead the Court to conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. Pennington, supra note 1, 876 A.2d at 660. Specifically, the court found that [r]espondent's misrepresentation[s] and deceitful conduct in concealing the true account of how she mishandled the Butlers' claims, falsifying a supposed settlement of those claims with the insurer, intentionally misrepresenting matters in negotiations with third-party health care providers to reduce their charges to the Butlers, and concealing from the Butlers the facts that might have supported lodging a professional negligence claim against respondent, implicate the core responsibilities of truth and honesty expected of attorneys. Id. Although Pennington had consulted Wiggins for advice in the matter, given her deceitful conduct, she could not have believed, in good faith, [that] her conduct was proper. Id. at 657. Moreover, the court stated: There is absolutely no evidence in this record . . . that respondent advised Mr. Wiggins that she intended to present a statement of settlement form to the clients. As the hearing judge found, this form, similar to the one respondent used with this client in a prior case, clearly created an impression that the case was settled. This misrepresentation to the client is at the heart of respondent's misconduct, and there is no evidence that Mr. Wiggins approved this conduct. Id. (footnote omitted). The court further found no evidence of mitigation, such as good intention, []sufficient to justify a sanction less than disbarment. Respondent's attempt to purchase a plenary indulgence with her own money is more indicative of a selfish plan to conceal than of a praiseworthy desire to `make the client whole.' Id. at 661.