Court Opinion

ID: 9761621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:48:00.169958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:24.956042
License: Public Domain

RAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
Respondent should be disbarred. He has violated Rules 8.1(b), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(d), and 8.4(c) and (d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). Particularly disturbing is his violation of MRPC 8.4 (Misconduct), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
In the matter related to complainant Patricia R. Taylor, respondent engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct when he misrepresented his actions to his client by stating that he was “waiting for a court date” when, in fact, he had never even filed the cause of action on her behalf.
With the exception of Attorney Grievance v. Brown, 353 Md. 271, 725 A.2d 1069 (1999), the cases cited by the majority as support for the sanction should not be considered as guidance by this Court because the respondents in those cases had not been found to have engaged in dishonest or deceitful conduct. In fact, in Attorney Grievance v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 753 A.2d 17 (2000), the Court granted respondent’s exception to the hearing court’s finding that he intentionally made misleading statements, stating that “in order to establish its case against respondent, Bar Counsel is required to prove with clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s supposed false statements were made with the knowledge that such *53statements were false when he made them.” Id. at 79, 753 A.2d at 33.
In contrast, Harrington was deceitful and dishonest. An attorney who is dishonest and deceitful should not be practicing law. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.