Court Opinion

ID: 9767310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:16:25.834321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.359780
License: Public Domain

HARRELL, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the Majority opinion in all respects, save the length of the suspension. Rather than the 90-day suspension meted out by the Majority, I would suspend Brown for 6 months.
The Majority opinion makes little attempt to reconcile the facts of the present case (and the resultant flagship violations of MRPC 8.1(a) and 8.4(c) and (d)) with those of any other arguably analogous case, other than to conclude what the sanction should not be. Maj. op. at 415 Md. at 279-82, 999 A.2d 1046-48. While I agree that the facts do not bring this case within the gravitational field of the disbarment and indefinite suspension cases as such, it strikes me as requiring some further analysis before settling on a 90-day suspension because of the “totality of the circumstances” (Maj. op. at 415 Md. at 281-82, 999 A.2d at 1047-48),1 especially where some of the circumstances expressed in the Majority opinion’s conclusions are dubious in my view.2 When that further analysis is *284undertaken, it points me to a different result than that reached more summarily by the Majority opinion.
Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Granger, 374 Md. 438, 823 A.2d 611 (2003), although meting out an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for readmission no sooner than 6 months, actually is a persuasive case here as to the proper sanction. Granger misappropriated client fees, was not diligent or competent in his representation, and lied to Bar Counsel and his client about his bookkeeping and filing court papers, respectively. Bar Counsel sought indefinite suspension with the right to apply for readmission no sooner than one year. Granger sought a public reprimand.
It seems clear to me from the Court’s sanctions analysis in Granger that what drew the Court to an indefinite suspension sanction was the misappropriation misconduct. Granger, 374 Md. at 460-62, 823 A.2d at 624-25. In triangulating on an appropriate period for a minimum sit-out time before Granger would become eligible to apply for readmission, however, the Court engaged in a different analysis, one in which it distinguished Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Cohen, 361 Md. 161, 760 A.2d 706 (2000), from Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Brown, 353 Md. 271, 725 A.2d 1069 (1999), on the basis of those respondents’ mitigating evidence, i.e., prior and/or pending disciplinary record, singular or systemic nature of the violations, whether remorse was exhibited, and the existence and quality of efforts *285to make whole the wronged client. Granger, Cohen, and Brown also included violations for lying to Bar Counsel and their clients about material facts. At the end of the day, a minimum 6 month “sit-out” period for Granger (as in Cohen) was deemed more appropriate than a one year period (as in Brown). Respondent’s misconduct here mimics Granger’s and Cohen’s MRPC 8.1(a) and 8.4(c) and (d) misconduct (and mitigation), but falls short of their other misconduct which warranted indefinite suspension. Parsing the reasoning supporting indefinite suspension in Granger from that which supported the setting of the minimum sit-out period sheds some light on Respondent’s sanction. Accordingly, a flat 6-month suspension strikes me as appropriate here.
Also somewhat persuasive, but less so than Granger and Cohen, regarding assessment of the proper length of Brown’s suspension, is Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Smith, 405 Md. 107, 950 A.2d 101 (2008). Smith, in connection with representation of a client charged criminally with assaulting someone, misrepresented himself in a telephone call to the victim as a police officer in an effort to intimidate the victim, i.e., Smith lied. He was convicted criminally of impersonating a police officer. He also was found in the subsequent attorney disciplinary action to have violated principally MRPC 8.4(a)-(d). A host of mitigating factors accompanied this determination, including no prior disciplinary record, full cooperation with Bar Counsel and the Court, genuine remorse, no personal benefit from the misconduct, and singular occurrence. 405 Md. at 120-21, 950 A.2d at 108-09. While a very serious violation occurred, i.e., an extreme misrepresentation was perpetrated, the marshaled mitigators saved Smith from disbarment, but nonetheless resulted in a 6-month suspension. Id. at 130, 950 A.2d at 114.
Multiple intentional misrepresentations perpetrated by Brown are at the core of the present case. The mitigators in the present case, although not nearly as strong or numerous as those in Smith, bear some resemblance to the valid ones found in the present record. That Smith told a whopping big lie to one person and Brown multiple lies to different people, both nonetheless violated MRPC 8.4(c) and (d) (and Smith’s *286misconduct 8.4(a) and (b) as well). Both Smith (MRPC 3.4) and Brown (MRPC 4.1(a)) had singular complementary violations. I believe that Brown deserves, on balance, the same sanction that Smith received.
I would suspend Brown, therefore, for 6 months.
Judges BATTAGLIA and BARBERA authorize me to state that they join in the views expressed in my opinion.

. Respondent has been of scant assistance on this score, having filed no written response to Bar Counsel’s Recommendation for Sanction. At oral argument, his counsel suggested a 60-day suspension, without much support for that result.

. For example, the Majority opinion asserts, op. at 415 Md. at 281-82, 999 A.2d at 1047-48, that, although Brown improperly withdrew funds *284from his client's trust account, Brown did not use the funds for personal gain. This framing of what transpired transposes to Brown's favor the very core of the MRPC 4.1(a)(1) violation. It is hardly to Brown’s credit that he conveyed, by an improper means, the money due to Garcia as the "new” owner of the mortgage and beneficiary of Nelson’s estate. In addition, the Majority opinion gives Brown credit, again on page 415 Md. at 281-82, 999 A.2d at 1047-48 of the opinion, because Coston was not his "client.” I would give that little weight as a mitigating factor. When Brown volunteered to obtain a release from Garcia, he assumed a duty thereby owed to Coston. Otherwise, as to the Majority opinion's analysis of mitigating factors, I agree that Brown had no prior public disciplinary record before the Maryland Bar, that he ultimately acknowledged his violations and expressed remorse and contrition, and that he and his prior counsel undertook ultimately to remedy the absence of a release of the mortgage.