Opinion ID: 2326933
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Maryland Court of Appeals Decision

Text: The Court of Appeals of Maryland found that the facts of this case support a finding of both intentional dishonesty and misappropriation on the part of the respondent. Id. at 690. Having accepted Judge Thompson's findings summarized above, the court stated that the only remaining question was the appropriate sanction. [6] Id. at 689. The court noted that the standard for determining the appropriate sanction when an attorney's conduct involved intentional dishonesty and misappropriation, id., was stated in the case of Attorney Grievance Comm'n. v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 773 A.2d 463 (2001). The court quoted Vanderlinde: In cases of intentional dishonesty, misappropriation cases, fraud, stealing, serious criminal conduct and the like, we will not accept, as compelling extenuating circumstances, anything less than 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. Only if the circumstances are that compelling, will we even consider imposing less than the most severe sanction of disbarment in cases of stealing, dishonesty, fraudulent conduct, the intentional misappropriation of funds or other serious criminal conduct, whether occurring in the practice of law, or otherwise. 773 A.2d at 485. The court then considered whether there existed compelling extenuating circumstances that warranted the imposition of a lesser sanction than disbarment and concluded that there were not. The court acknowledged that it was undisputed that respondent suffers from `significant' depression. 876 A.2d at 690. It noted that the mental health professionals disagreed about whether Respondent's disorders were the root cause of his behavior, id. at 691, but concluded that [a]ssuming for the sake of argument that we accept the opinion that respondent's disorders were the root cause of his misbehavior, respondent would still fail to satisfy the Vanderlinde mitigation standard, since that standard requires that the disability be nothing `less than the most serious and utterly debilitating' mental condition and that the condition be not only the `root cause' of the misconduct but also result in the attorney's utter inability to conform his or her conduct in accordance with the law and with the MRPC. Id. The court concluded that nothing in the record indicated that Respondent suffered from a disorder that rendered him utterly unable in that way. To the contrary, the court observed, during the relevant time period Respondent maintained a successful and high-volume law practice where he worked 70-80 hours a week. Noting that Respondent had presented to the court a list of remedial actions that he alleges to have undertaken, the court stated that even [a]ssuming . . . that respondent testified to these facts and that they are part of the record, [7] they would not change our disposition of this matter. Id. at 686 n. 17. The court concluded that the appropriate sanction was disbarment.