Opinion ID: 1952834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Successfully completing a course in Legal Ethics [Course to be approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland or this Court];

Text: B. If the Respondent re-enters the practice of law, appoint a monitor of all trust account activity for the period of one (1) year from the date the Respondent re-enters the practice of law [The monitor to be appointed by this Court or the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland]; and C. If the Respondent re-enters the practice of law, require him to perform a set number of hours annually for two (2) years in pro bono representation; such pro bono clients to be assigned by Maryland Legal Aid or other entity engaged in indigent representation in the State of Maryland. This Court very recently reinforced its attitude toward imposition of sanction in a reciprocal discipline case in Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ruffin, 369 Md. 238, 253-254, 798 A.2d 1139, 1148 (2002): We are prone, 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 not required, see Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Gittens, 346 Md. 316, 324, 697 A.2d 83, 87 (1997), to impose the same sanction as that imposed by the state in which the misconduct occurred. Indeed, the Court is duty-bound to assess for itself the propriety of the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction and that recommended by the Commission, Gittens, 346 Md. at 326, 697 A.2d at 88, to look not only to the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction, but to the particular facts and circumstances of each case, the outcome being dependent upon the latter, but with a view toward consistent dispositions for similar misconduct. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Willcher, 340 Md. 217, 222, 665 A.2d 1059, 1061 (1995) (quoting Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Parsons, 310 Md. 132, 142, 527 A.2d 325, 330 (1987)); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Saul, 337 Md. 258, 267-68, 653 A.2d 430, 434-35 (1995). We ordinarily will defer to the sanctioning State when the two States' purpose in disciplining counsel is the same. Id. at 327, 697 A.2d at 88 (footnote omitted). The State of Georgia, similar to Maryland, views the protection of the public as one of the purposes of attorney discipline. This view is evident in In re Calhoun, 268 Ga. 675, 677, 492 S.E.2d 514, 515 (1997), where the Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred an attorney in order to protect the public from improprieties that injure the public's trust in the attorney-client relationship. See also In re Allison, 267 Ga. 638, 642, 481 S.E.2d 211, 215 (1997) (recognizing that the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings ... is to protect the public from attorneys who are not qualified to practice law due to incompetence or unprofessional conduct). As a result, deferral to the discipline imposed in Georgia is appropriate. As we have noted, Respondent has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that his defenses are within the exceptional circumstances of Rule 16-773(e), nor do the mitigating circumstances found by the hearing judge provide sufficient bases for a lesser sanction than was entered in Georgia. In Sabghir, we stated: When the Court considers the appropriate sanction in a case of reciprocal discipline, we look not only to the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction but to our own cases as well. The sanction will depend on the unique facts and circumstances of each case, but with a view toward consistent dispositions for similar misconduct. 350 Md. at 83-84, 710 A.2d at 934 (quoting Willcher, 340 Md. at 222, 665 A.2d at 1061 (quoting Parsons, 310 Md. at 142, 527 A.2d at 330)). Respondent, although without disciplinary blemish in Georgia or Maryland prior to these proceedings, was found guilty of some of the most egregious misconduct, involving dishonesty, impairment of professional judgment, charging a clearly excessive fee, wilful disregard of a legal matter, and theft of client funds, among others. In similar situations, we have disbarred other attorneys who have committed such misconduct. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. McLaughlin, 372 Md. 467, 509-10, 813 A.2d 1145, 1170-71 (2002) (disbarring an attorney for professional misconduct, including theft of client funds, charging clearly excessive fees, and self-dealing); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Spery, 371 Md. 560, 568-72, 810 A.2d 487, 491-94 (2002) (disbarring attorney for theft from his real estate partners despite the attorney's previously unblemished twenty-eight year practice); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bernstein, 363 Md. 208, 219-225, 768 A.2d 607, 613-16 (2001) (disbarring attorney for numerous violations of MRPC for conduct involving deceit, the failure to communicate a contingent fee agreement in writing, and the misappropriation of client funds); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Morris, 298 Md. 299, 307-08, 469 A.2d 853, 857 (1984) (disbarring for attorney misconduct, such as charging clearly excessive fees, misrepresenting the amount of services rendered on a client bill, and attempting to bill a client for services rendered for another client). We conclude that deferring to the jurisdiction where the misconduct occurred is appropriate in this case and that the appropriate sanction in this case is that imposed by the Supreme Court of Georgia, namely, disbarment. 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 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND AGAINST DAVID ROBERSON.