Court Opinion

ID: 9757759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:58:12.502436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:44.018937
License: Public Domain

Murphy, C.J.,

dissenting in part and concurring in part:

I concur with the Court’s conclusion that the Respondent has violated the designated provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. I think, however, that the appropriate sanction for what I view as extremely serious gross neglect of client affairs should be six months’ suspension from the practice of law. In my judgment, the sixty-day suspension sanction imposed by the Court in this case will be viewed *122both by the public and the profession as far too light in view of the Respondent’s egregious misconduct. Compare Maryland St. Bar Ass’n v. Phoebus, 276 Md. 353, 347 A.2d 556 (1975).