Opinion ID: 2447456
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the proper sanction

Text: As we have observed frequently, the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against an attorney is not to punish the attorney, but rather to protect the public. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Cassidy, 362 Md. 689, 698, 766 A.2d 632, 637 (2001). The public is protected when sanctions are imposed that are commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they are committed. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Post, 379 Md. 60, 70-71, 839 A.2d 718, 724 (2003). The aim of sanctions also is to set the standard of integrity for members of the legal profession and to demonstrate the kind of conduct the Court will not tolerate. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Kahn, 290 Md. 654, 683, 431 A.2d 1336, 1351-52 (1981). We have considered several factors in determining an appropriate sanction. Aggravating factors may include: (a) prior disciplinary offenses; (b) dishonest or selfish motive; (c) a pattern of misconduct; (d) multiple offenses; (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; (f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process; (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; (h) vulnerability of victim; (i) substantial experience in the practice of law; (j) indifference to making restitution. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147, 176-77, 994 A.2d 928, 945-46 (2010). Respondent does not have a prior disciplinary record. There is evidence, however, that: (1) Respondent acted with a dishonest motive; (2) she misrepresented intentionally facts; (3) there was a pattern of misconduct; (4) she made no effort to rectify the consequences of her misconduct (including satisfying the civil judgment owed to Ba); (5) she has been dishonest and uncooperative with Bar Counsel; (6) she has been practicing law for more than fifteen years and ought to know that what she did (and did not do) was improper; and, (7) she has shown no remorse for her misconduct. Judge Dugan found no mitigating facts. In her written exceptions, Respondent argued in mitigation that she had no prior disciplinary record (a conceded fact); that there was an absence of a dishonest or selfish motive on her part; that she was a sole practitioner who never attended any course or training on trust account and was ignorant of the requirements of the Rule; [12] and that there was no indication that this violation would be repeated. Other than the conceded absence of a prior disciplinary record, Respondent's mitigation arguments are unconvincing. [13] We are not persuaded by Respondent's mitigation arguments. In fact, the evidence and findings demonstrate why the hearing judge could not have rendered mitigating findings of fact, except concerning Nwadike's prior disciplinary record. As the person with the opportunity to see and hear Respondent testify (an opportunity denied to this Court), Judge Dugan found her to be incredible and dishonest. What likelihood then is there that he also would have found absence of a selfish or dishonest motive, or a likelihood that the proven misconduct would not re-occur? In the face of the duration, frequency, and egregiousness of her mishandling of her attorney trust account, such mitigation findings would be unsupportable, arbitrary, and capricious. The only sanction appropriate for Respondent's misconduct is disbarment. Disbarment as a sanction protects the public from being further victimized by the attorney. Kahn, 290 Md. at 683, 431 A.2d at 1351. When reviewing the attorney's conduct in Ellison, we held that intentional dishonesty by a lawyer admitted to the Maryland Bar merits disbarment. 384 Md. at 716, 867 A.2d at 275. [14] Respondent's dishonest conduct in misrepresenting purposefully her power of attorney, failing to fulfill her legal duties to Ba and Njosa, and concealing purposefully the truth from the disciplinary investigation constitute the kind of intentional dishonesty that merits disbarment. We would be remiss in the discharge of our duties to impose anything less. Further, we have observed generally the principle that any unmitigated misappropriation of a client's or third party's funds, particularly when combined with dishonesty or misrepresentation, will result inevitably in disbarment. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Hayes, 367 Md. 504, 512, 789 A.2d 119, 124 (2002). See also Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 413-14, 773 A.2d at 484-85 (finding that in cases of intentional dishonesty, misappropriation cases, fraud,... 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); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Bernstein, 363 Md. 208, 227, 768 A.2d 607, 617 (2001) (warning that `[a]ppropriating any part of [trust account] funds to [an attorney's] own use and benefit without clear authority to do so cannot be tolerated' (quoting Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 334, 345, 587 A.2d 511, 516 (1991))); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Tomaino, 362 Md. 483, 498, 765 A.2d 653, 661 (2001) (reaffirming our often-repeated principle that `misappropriation of funds by an attorney is an act infested with deceit and dishonesty' that ordinarily merits disbarment (quoting Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 27, 741 A.2d 1143, 1157 (1999))); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Williams, 335 Md. 458, 474, 644 A.2d 490, 497 (1994) (same). An attorney who intentionally misappropriates funds entrusted to him or her acts in a way that is infected with deceit and dishonesty and, in the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser sanction, [the misappropriation] will result in disbarment. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Spery, 371 Md. 560, 568, 810 A.2d 487, 491-92 (2002). This is certainly not the case in which we should back away from or side step this principle. The evidence shows that Respondent misappropriated purposefully, rather than merely mishandled negligently, her clients' and third parties' funds. Although Respondent's record-keeping might be categorized generously by some as merely careless, her misuse of funds in her attorney trust account for personal expenses, her failure to deposit the refund check from Talcott, and her commingling of funds constitute intentional misappropriations of funds entrusted to her. Respondent's misuse of client funds was a misrepresentation to her clients that their monies were secure in her trust account. The aim of protecting the public is particularly important in cases of dishonesty, intentional misappropriation, and fraud, where this Court's primary function always is to protect the public, not attorneys.  Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 388, 773 A.2d at 470. Respondent was not merely negligent, but intentional, in her misrepresentations and misappropriation of client and third-party funds, and her misconduct falls well below the attorney's standard of complete trust and confidence. Id. at 390, 773 A.2d at 471. For these reasons, and because there are no extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser sanction, the only appropriate sanction for Respondent is disbarment. Spery, 371 Md. at 568, 810 A.2d at 491-92. IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST OZOEMENA MARYROSE NWADIKE; MANDATE TO ISSUE FORTHWITH. BELL, C.J., and MURPHY, J., Concur and Dissent. MURPHY, J., which BELL, C.J. joins. If I were persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was not authorized by Mr. Onuma to use his funds to remove Mr. Njosa's property from foreclosure, I would hold that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. I would, however, sustain Respondent's exception to the hearing judge's finding that Respondent did not have Mr. Onuma's authorization. Although I am by no means persuaded that there was such an authorization, in Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Clements, 319 Md. 289, 572 A.2d 174 (1990), this Court stated: A refusal to believe evidence of a respondent, however, does not, of itself, supply affirmative evidence of the dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation charged. The issue is whether Bar Counsel presented sufficient evidence of the charge to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof. Id. at 298, 572 A.2d at 179. In my opinion, Bar Counsel simply did not meet its burden of persuasion on this issue. I would also hold that four mitigating circumstances have been established by a preponderance of the evidence. First, although Respondent did not have an executed power of attorney signed by Mr. Njosa, she was his attorney of record in Circuit Court proceedings when she signed the contract on his behalf. Second, Respondent did make an effort to protect Mr. Ba's deposit by requesting that Mr. and Mrs. Njosa's October 7, 2003 Judgment of Absolute Divorce include a provision that afforded Mr. Ba the opportunity to obtain reimbursement of his good faith payment. Third, Respondent does not have a prior disciplinary record. Fourth, the hearing judge was not clearly erroneous in finding that Respondent did not commit a theft of Mr. Ba's money. During the closing argument of Respondent's counsel, the hearing judge stated: I don't believe your client stole the money, if that's what you're talking about, if that's what you're trying to defend her from. Although Mr. Bolly Ba's probably trying to make it look like that when he testified, I don't believe she did that. As to the appropriate sanction, it is clear that Respondent has not made timely good faith efforts to rectify the consequences of her misconduct, and she has not made full and free disclosure to Bar Counsel. While Respondent has violated Rule 1.15(a), I am not persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent actually stole any client's money or property. As stated above, Respondent did make an effort albeit an inadequate oneto protect Mr. Ba's interest, and the hearing judge expressly found that Respondent never intended to steal Mr. Ba's money. From my evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case at bar, I agree with the majority that Respondent's violations are too serious to justify a suspension for a brief period of time. I am persuaded, however, that disbarment is too harsh a sanction. This Court should not reject the possibility that Respondent may at some point in the future persuade us that she is once again fit to practice law in Maryland. I would therefore hold that, at this point in time, an indefinite suspension is required to protect the public interest. Chief Judge BELL has authorized me to state that he joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.