Court Opinion

ID: 9751140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:08:32.338217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:36.367695
License: Public Domain

HARRELL, J.,
concurring and dissenting, in which BARBERA, J., joins.
I agree with the Majority opinion’s analysis and disposition of Respondent’s exceptions; however, I disagree (most respectfully) with the Majority opinion’s analysis of the appropriate sanction. I would impose a suspension of 30 days.
In its search for consistency in the imposition of sanctions through recourse to analogous cases, the Majority opinion distinguishes persuasively the facts and rule/code violations in Ambe’s case from those in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Barneys, 370 Md. 566, 805 A.2d 1040 (2002); and Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brown, 353 Md. 271, 725 A.2d 1069 (1999), even though the unauthorized practice of law was a flagship issue in each. Maj. op. at 135-37, 38 A.3d at 412-13. I part company with the Majority opinion, however, in its rejection of Attorney Grievance Commission v. Harris-Smith, 356 Md. 72, 737 A.2d 567 (1999), the closest case in kind to the present one.
Ambe’s situation shares with Harris-Smith the major contextual attribute of a lawyer with an office in Maryland, although not admitted in Maryland, practicing law in Maryland and using the “federal overlay” (claiming to maintain *142solely a federal practice) in an effort to make obscure the misconduct. In Harris-Smith, the respondent purported to practice exclusively bankruptcy law from her Maryland office. 356 Md. at 74, 737 A.2d at 568. Here, Ambe claimed to practice only immigration law from his Maryland office.
The attorney in Harris-Smith misrepresented or was silent on law firm advertisements, stationery, and business cards as to the limitation on her ability to practice law from her Maryland office. 356 Md. at 75-77, 737 A.2d at 568-69. Ambe did as well. Maj. op. at 104-09, 38 A.3d at 393-96.1
A comparison of the rule and code violations found in Harris-Smith and here are illuminating:
*143[[Image here]]
*144[[Image here]]
There is something wrong with this picture. The discrepancy in treatment cannot be explained by mitigating factors because the hearing judge, in either case, did not find, by a preponderance of evidence, any mitigating factors. It is plainly erroneous and legally incorrect for the Majority opinion here to claim that Harris-Smith “contained more serious infractions than those we perceive in the present case.” Maj. op. at 137, 38 A.3d at 413. There simply is no rational basis to sanction Ambe more leniently than we did Ms. Harris-Smith.
The Majority opinion appears to pluck from the air Attorney Grievance Commission v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 4 A.3d 957 (2010), to bolster its conclusion that a reprimand is appropriate in Ambe’s case. Maj. op. at 141, 38 A.3d at 415. The only tangible link between Edib and the present case is that Edib and Ambe represented clientele involving mostly people from countries other than the United States. Edib’s practice was described as “the representation of Turkish nationals immigrating to, or having business in, the United States,” 415 Md. at 700, 4 A.3d at 960; however, the misconduct that brought *145him to the attention of the Attorney Grievance Commission had nothing to do with the “federal overlay” context or the unauthorized practice of law. Rather, he was found to have violated MRPC 1.16(d) (failure to protect a client’s interest upon termination of representation), 1.4 (failure to keep a client informed about a matter), and 8.4(a) (professional misconduct to violate the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct), arising from his refusal to turn over promptly to his former client (or her new lawyer) documents in his file. Further distancing Edib from the present case is the presence of mitigating circumstances in Edib, 415 Md. at 721, 4 A.3d at 972-3. The facts, violations, and reasoning leading to imposition of a reprimand in Edib offer no insight and have no application to Ambe’s case.
I would suspend Ambe for 30 days.
Judge BARBERA has authorized me to state that she joins in this opinion.

. Aggravating Ambe’s misconduct, he failed to modify his letterhead, even after receiving advice from Bar Counsel (earlier and in an unrelated case) how to do so and before the misconduct charged in the present case occurred. Maj. op. at 104-06, 38 A.3d at 393-95. Essentially, Ambe continued his improper practices in the face of knowing they were wrong.