Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Palmer
Decision Date | 30 November 2010 |
Docket Number | Misc. Docket AG No. 49, Sept. Term, 2009. |
Citation | 417 Md. 185,9 A.3d 37 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Christopher Allen PALMER. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
James P. Botluk, Asst. Bar Counsel (Glenn M. Grossman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for petitioner.
Christopher Allen Palmer, Esquire, of Berlin, Maryland, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, and BARBERA, JJ.
The Attorney Grievance Commission ("Petitioner"), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Christopher A. Palmer ("Respondent"), charging him with professional misconduct in violating various provisions of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC"), the Maryland Rules, and the Business Occupations & Professions Article of the Maryland Code.Specifically, Petitioner charged that Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1 (competence); 1 1.15(a), (c) (safekeeping property); 2 8.4(b), (c), (d); 3 MarylandRule 16-609 (prohibited transactions); 4 and Maryland Code (2000, 2010 Repl.Vol.), Business Occupations & Professions Article, § 10-306 ( ).5 Pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-752(a) 6 and 16-757(c),7 we referred the case to the Honorable Brett W. Wilson of the Circuit Court for Dorchester County for the conduct of an evidentiary hearing and the preparation of findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law. Judge Wilson conducted the evidentiary hearing on 30 March 2010. He issued his written findings offact and conclusions of law on 6 May 2010. As we cannot envision a better way for the arc of this case to unfold, we intend to flatter Judge Wilson by relating verbatim here his findings and conclusions.
The facts underlying the alleged violations are undisputed. In anticipation of the evidentiary hearing, Petitioner and Respondent stipulated to certain facts which were reduced to writing and admitted into evidence....
(1) Misuse of Escrow Funds
(2) Misrepresentations Regarding Filing of Complaints and Fabrication of Court Documents
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Bonner
...is involved, however, we must still examine the facts, circumstances and mitigation in each case[ ]"); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Palmer , 417 Md. 185, 211, 9 A.3d 37 (2010) (explaining that the Vanderlinde principle, "as clarified in Lane ," is "consistent with the long-chanted mantra th......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. John Michael Coppola.
...of a mental condition was insufficient, we have declined to find compelling extenuating circumstances. See Attorney Grievance v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185, 212–13, 9 A.3d 37, 53 (2010) (reasoning that, “any alleged psychological issues Respondent was dealing with contemporaneously with his miscon......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Kobin
...protect the public and the public's confidence in the legal profession rather than to punish the attorney.” Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185, 206, 9 A.3d 37 (2010) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696, 718, 4 A.3d 957 (2010)). To do so, we consider the “pa......
-
Grievance v. Coppola
...of a mental condition was insufficient, we have declined to find compelling extenuating circumstances. See Attorney Grievance v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185, 212-13, 9 A.3d 37, 53 (2010) (reasoning that, "any alleged psychological issues Respondent was dealing with contemporaneously with his miscon......