Court Opinion

ID: 9705936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:27:01.679688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:17.725761
License: Public Domain

WILNER, Judge,
concurring.
I join in the Court’s Opinion, because I believe that, however inappropriate Link’s behavior was, it did not constitute a violation of MRPC 8.4(d). I write separately only to express my indignation over Link’s behavior in this Court during argument on Bar Counsel’s petition. On more than one occasion, he accused Deputy Bar Counsel of suborning perjury, a criminal offense in this State. He was questioned about that, whether his accusation was mere (but nonetheless grossly inappropriate) rhetorical flourish or whether he really *430meant to accuse bar counsel of criminal behavior, and he made clear that it was the latter.
There is utterly no basis in the record for such an accusation. Link’s unsupported accusation cannot be used against him in this proceeding, but I find it inexcusable and deplorable. If Link continues to act as he has done, belittling other people and making unfounded accusations against them, he is surely headed for additional problems with Bar Counsel and with this Court.
Judge BATTAGLIA has authorized me to state that she joins in this concurring opinion.