Court Opinion

ID: 9647635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:43:35.865503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:51.532369
License: Public Domain

Eldridge, J.,

dissenting:

The majority concludes, and I agree with the conclusion, that “nothing more is involved [in this easel than a genuine *97fee dispute between lawyer and client, without any intentional wrongdoing, deceit or dishonesty on Mclntire’s part.” The majority opinion later reiterates that Mr. Mclntire’s conduct “did not involve intentional wrongdoing, deceit or dishonesty.” In light of this, I believe that a formal reprimand, published for all time in the volumes of the Maryland Reports and the Atlantic Reporter, is too severe a sanction and unfair to an honorable attorney.
In my view, a minor unintended violation of the disciplinary rules, involving nothing more than a genuine fee dispute, warrants only an informal, unreported admonition to the attorney involved. This clearly would be sufficient to protect the public interest. With regard to an ethical attorney who, through oversight or unawareness, unintentionally commits a minor technical violation of the disciplinary rules, the mere occurrence of proceedings such as these will insure that the same thing does not happen again.
Normally a matter such as this is satisfactorily handled by an informal reprimand or admonition from the Review Board, and it never reaches this Court. When such a case does reach this Court, we should, in my judgment, deal with it in the same manner.
Judges Digges and Cole have authorized me to state that they concur with the views expressed herein.