Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Garland
Decision Date | 01 September 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 5,5 |
Citation | 345 Md. 383,692 A.2d 465 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Thomas A. GARLAND. Misc. (Subtitle BV), |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Thomas A. Garland, Cantonville, for Respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, RAKER and WILNER, JJ.
The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Thomas A. Garland, Respondent, for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The petition alleged that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d). 1 Bar counsel recommends an indefinite suspension.
Pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9(b), 2 we referred the matter to Judge Clayton Greene, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Greene found that Respondent had violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d). Respondent filed exceptions to Judge Greene's findings.
The charges in this matter arose out of Respondent's conduct in August, 1992, resulting in his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and driving on a suspended license, and his subsequent failure to comply with the order of the circuit court commanding him to report to the Prince George's County D.W.I. treatment facility. Although these convictions were reversed on appeal, Bar Counsel proceeded with this disciplinary action. After an evidentiary hearing in "1) The Respondent was admitted as a member of the Maryland Bar on October 1, 1959. The Review Board, pursuant to BV-7 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure, directed Bar Counsel to file charges against the Respondent relating to disciplinary actions stemming from the outcome of court proceedings in Anne Arundel County before the Honorable Lawrence H. Rushworth.
this disciplinary matter, Judge Greene made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
years under the supervision of Richard Vincent, Director of Lawyer Counseling for the Maryland State Bar Association. The Respondent was ordered not to operate a motor vehicle and the Court set an appeal bond of $25,000.00. The Respondent admits that he never made an effort to report to the Prince George's County D.W.I. Facility on October 8, 1993. He did not call Judge Rushworth after receiving the order on October 8, 1993 and he never contacted Mr. Bennett or the director of the Lawyer Counseling Service for Maryland State Bar Association as directed by the Court. The Respondent did not report to the D.W.I. facility or call them.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance v. Shaw
...decision as to whether a lawyer has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct rests with this Court. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Garland, 345 Md. 383, 392, 692 A.2d 465, 469 (1997); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Breschi, 340 Md. 590, 599, 667 A.2d 659, 663 (1995); Attorney Grievance Comm'n......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Childress
...been violated by conduct which constitutes a crime, although there has been no criminal conviction. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Garland, 345 Md. 383, 390, 692 A.2d 465, 468 (1997); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Proctor, 309 Md. 412, 418, 524 A.2d 773, 776 (1987). Here, the evidence was ......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Byrd
... 970 A.2d 870 ... 408 Md. 449 ... ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND ... Ralph T. BYRD ... Misc. Docket AG No. 69 ... September Term, 2007 ... Court of ... Garland, 345 Md. 383, 398-99 [692 A.2d 465] (1997). Speaking through Judge Raker, and quoting extensively ... ...
-
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheinbein
...fact are prima facie correct and will not be disturbed unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous.' Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Garland, 345 Md. 383, 392, 692 A.2d 465, 469 (1997) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Goldsborough, 330 Md. 342, 347, 624 A.2d 503, 505 (1993)). Accordingly......