Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Eisenstein
Decision Date | 01 September 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 25,25 |
Citation | 635 A.2d 1327,333 Md. 464 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Myles R. EISENSTEIN. Misc. (Subtitle BV), |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, and Glenn M. Grossman, Asst. Bar Counsel, for Atty. Grievance Com'n of MD, for petitioner.
Benjamin Lipsitz, Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI and ROBERT M. BELL, JJ., and JOHN F. McAULIFFE, * Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals (retired).
The Attorney Grievance Commission (the Commission) charges that Myles R. Eisenstein, respondent, violated a number of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by the manner in which he collected fees and handled the funds of William C. Taylor (the claimant) in connection with a claim brought against ITO Corporation (ITO) under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (hereinafter "LHWCA" or "the Act") and by advancing certain living expenses to the claimant during the pendency of the litigation. Pursuant to Maryland Rule BV 9(b), this Court directed that the charges be heard by Judge Ellen M. Heller of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss certain of the charges, contending that they were not authorized by the Review Board. That issue is preserved by respondent's exceptions, and therefore the motion is moot. Respondent also moved to dismiss the proceedings, or in the alternative for recusal of Bar Counsel, claiming violations of confidentiality and lack of objectivity. This motion is without substance, and is denied.
Judge Heller held hearings on 13 November and 3 December, 1992, and filed written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Exceptions have been filed by Bar Counsel on behalf of the Commission and by respondent.
Judge Heller made the following findings of fact: 1
'Funds advanced on behalf of William C. Taylor $ 7,225.00
Harold Glaser, attorneys' fees 1,500.00
Myles R. eisenstein [sic], attorneys' fee (as of this date) 51,800.00'
That receipt also stated the following:
'IT IS UNDERSTOOD that if attorneys fees in this amount are not approved by the Benefits Review Board, The Deputy Commissioner, Administrative Law Judge, and the U.S. District Court, all funds due will be refunded.
'In addition, when ITO Corporation of Baltimore pays Myeles [sic] R. Eisenstein attorneys fees now pending and approved, these funds will be refunded to William C. Taylor.' "
This receipt was not signed by Mr. Taylor who testified before the Inquiry Panel that he can only read and write 'a little' and did not go beyond the third grade. Despite his limited education, however, this Court finds that Mr. Taylor did agree to Mr. Eisenstein's retention of part of the compensation award in June, 1989.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheinbein
...Comm'n v. Kent, 337 Md. 361, 653 A.2d 909 (1995) (simultaneous representation of two co-defendants); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Eisenstein, 333 Md. 464, 635 A.2d 1327 (1994) (attorney's handling of his claimant's money involved dishonesty); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Goldsborough, 330 M......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Shapiro
...after services have been rendered in the course of the confidential relationship of attorney and client.” Attorney Grievance v. Eisenstein, 333 Md. 464, 478, 635 A.2d 1327, 1334 (1994). In situations where the client has not been “advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and [was n......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Shapiro
...after services have been rendered in the course of the confidential relationship of attorney and client." Attorney Grievance v. Eisenstein, 333 Md. 464, 478, 635 A.2d 1327, 1334 (1994). In situations where the client has not been "advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and [was n......
-
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smolen
...In re Reed, 599 N.E.2d 601 (Ind.1992); Curtis v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 959 S.W.2d 94 (Ky.1998); Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Eisenstein, 333 Md. 464, 635 A.2d 1327 (1994); In re Discipline of Hartke, 529 N.W.2d 678 (Minn.1995); Mississippi Bar v. Attorney HH, 671 So.2d 1293 (Miss.1995)......