Opinion ID: 2324716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Petitioner's MRPC 8.4(c) Exception

Text: The mishandling of a retainer fee may or may not constitute dishonest conduct proscribed by MRPC 8.4(c). While it is obvious that MRPC 8.4(c) is violated when a lawyer deliberately places into the lawyer's operating account funds that the lawyer has a duty to place into an escrow account, that rule is not violated when a lawyer mistakenly places into the operating account funds that should have been placed into an escrow account. In the case at bar, Respondent testified that (1) he placed the retainer into his operating account out of the mistaken belief that he was entitled to do so, and (2) opened an escrow account as soon as he realized that he was required to have an escrow account. The Hearing Judge was entitled to accept Respondent's explanation. In Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351, 952 A.2d 226 (2008), this Court stated: This Court has original and complete jurisdiction over attorney discipline proceedings in Maryland. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86, 93, 706 A.2d 1080, 1083 (1998). Even though conducting an independent review of the record, we accept the hearing judge's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Zdravkovich, 375 Md. 110, 126, 825 A.2d 418, 427 (2003). This Court gives deference to the hearing judge's assessment of the credibility of witnesses. Id. Factual findings by the hearing judge [that the Commission has satisfied its burden of persuasion] will not be interfered with if they are founded on clear and convincing evidence. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Monfried, 368 Md. 373, 388, 794 A.2d 92, 100 (2002). All proposed conclusions of law made by the hearing judge, however, are subject to de novo review by this Court. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. O'Toole, 379 Md. 595, 604, 843 A.2d 50, 55 (2004). Id. at 368, 952 A.2d at 235-36. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Walter, 407 Md. 670, 967 A.2d 783 (2009), while overruling the petitioner's exception to the hearing judge's finding that the respondent had not violated MRPC 8.4, this Court stated: Although the Commission's evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to generate the issue of whether Respondent had violated Rule 8.4, in its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, the hearing judge was entitled to acceptor reject all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, including testimony that was not contradicted by any other witness. In making the finding of fact that Respondent did not intend to cheat or deceive either his client or his firm, the hearing judge was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the facts that the judge found to be true.    There is nothing mysterious about the use of inferences in the fact-finding process. Jurors routinely apply their common sense, powers of logic, and accumulated experiences in life to arrive at conclusions from demonstrated sets of facts. Robinson v. State, 315 Md. 309, 318, 554 A.2d 395, 399 (1989). Hearing judges do the very same thing. The hearing judge's finding that Respondent did not intend to cheat or deceive either his client or his firm was not erroneousclearly or otherwise merely because she did not find it appropriate to draw one or more permissible inferences which might have been drawn from the evidence by another trier of the facts. Hous. Opportunities Comm'n of Montgomery County v. Lacey, 322 Md. 56, 61, 585 A.2d 219, 222 (1991). Id. at 678-79, 967 A.2d at 788. As was the situation in Walter, the Petitioner's evidence in the case at bar was sufficient to generate the issue of whether Respondent's handling of the retainer fee constituted dishonest conduct under MRPC 8.4(c). The Hearing Judge, however, found no indication ... that [Respondent] had any intent to be dishonest or fraudulent in his dealings with Ms. Lee or her parents or that he engaged in deceit or misrepresentation. This Court shall give deference to that finding, which is based upon the Hearing Judge's assessment of Respondent's credibility, and shall therefore overrule Petitioner's exception to the Hearing Judge's failure to find that Respondent violated MRPC 8.4(c).