Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Stancil
Decision Date | 05 August 1983 |
Citation | 296 Md. 325,463 A.2d 789 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. James Earl STANCIL. Misc. (BV) 17. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Glenn M. Grossman, Asst. Bar Counsel, Annapolis (Kendall R. Calhoun, Asst. Bar Counsel, Annapolis, on petition), for petitioner.
George L. Russell, Jr., Baltimore (Kenneth L. Thompson, Baltimore, on exceptions), for respondent.
Argued before SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ., and W. ALBERT MENCHINE, Retired, Specially Assigned Judge.
The Attorney Grievance Commission (Commission) through Bar Counsel filed a petition for disciplinary action against James Earl Stancil (Stancil) alleging violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 b, this Court referred the matter to Judge Robert L. Karwacki of the Eighth Judicial Circuit. On 24 November 1982, after an evidentiary hearing, the hearing judge filed a written Memorandum of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as follows:
"Based upon these facts this Court concludes:
(1) that the respondent violated DR 2-110(B)(4) 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in failing to withdraw from his employment as the attorney for Mr. Morris in the litigation instituted by Mr. Morris against his wife in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City after he was discharged by Mr. Morris on September 19, 1980;
Stancil filed exceptions to the fact that the hearing judge did not make certain findings of fact supported by the record and to the conclusion that he had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5). Additionally, despite his concession that he had violated DR 2-110(B)(4), he recommended that no sanction be imposed. The Commission filed exceptions to the conclusion that Stancil had not violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 4 and recommended that he "be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days...."
We have made an independent review of the record and have concluded that the hearing judge's findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bailey, 294 Md. 526, 535, 451 A.2d 1210, 1214 (1982); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Stewart, 285 Md. 251, 260, 401 A.2d 1026, 1030-31, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 845, 100 S.Ct. 89, 62 L.Ed.2d 58 (1979). Accordingly, we adopt those findings of fact. Additionally, we adopt the hearing judge's conclusion that Stancil violated DR 2-110(B)(4) and DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5).
The only remaining question is the appropriate sanction to be imposed. The severity of the sanction to be imposed for misconduct generally depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Montgomery, 296 Md. 113, 460 A.2d 597, 600 (1983); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Pollack, 289 Md. 603, 609, 425 A.2d 1352, 1355 (1981). This Court has previously determined that under certain circumstances a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction when an attorney has been found to have violated various disciplinary rules, including DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5).
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. O'Neill, 285 Md. 52, 400 A.2d 415 (1979), an attorney made misrepresentations to a judge, an assistant State's attorney, and an agent of the Division of Parole and Probation, indicating that he had paid certain court costs that he had not in fact paid. The attorney was found to have violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6). In determining the appropriate sanction to be imposed, this Court took into account the fact that the attorney was a neophyte; that the three falsehoods occurred on the same day; that on that day he admitted to the judge that he had lied; and that thereafter he expressed contrition. This Court concluded that a public reprimand was the proper sanction.
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Paul
...member of the Bar” and that a reprimand protects the public as well as a short suspension); See Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Stancil, 296 Md. 325, 333, 463 A.2d 789, 792 (1983) (public reprimand imposed where the disciplinary rule violations, one of which was of 8.4(d), results from a difficul......
-
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSIOIN v. Seiden
...from an escrow account without following the correct procedures mandated in this State. This Court, in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Stancil, 296 Md. 325, 333, 463 A.2d 789, 792 (1983), relied on the fact that the attorney misconduct in that case had "resulted from a difficult relationsh......
-
Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Howard
...convincing evidence. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Morris, 298 Md. 299, 308, 469 A.2d 853, 857 (1984); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Stancil, 296 Md. 325, 330-31, 463 A.2d 789, 791 (1983). Accordingly, we adopt those findings of fact. Additionally, we adopt the hearing judge's conclusions tha......
-
Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Myers
...that sanctions short of disbarment have been imposed for misrepresentation, i.e., reprimand, see, e.g., Att'y Griev. Comm'n v. Stancil, 296 Md. 325, 333, 463 A.2d 789, 792 (1983) (reprimand); Att'y Griev. Comm'n v. Heinze, 293 Md. 193, 197, 442 A.2d 570, 572 (1982) (reprimand); Att'y Griev.......