Attorney Grievance Comm'n Of Md. v. Bleecker
Decision Date | 12 May 2010 |
Docket Number | Misc. AG No. 27,2009. |
Citation | 994 A.2d 928,414 Md. 147 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLANDv.Lorin Henry BLEECKER. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Raymond A. Hein, Asst. Bar Counsel (Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for petitioner.
Melvin G. Bergman, Greenbelt, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, and BARBERA, JJ.
Lorin Henry Bleecker, Respondent, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on January 14, 1972. On July 16, 2009, the Attorney Grievance Commission (“Petitioner” or “Bar Counsel”), acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751(a),1 filed a “Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action” against Bleecker, charging numerous violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC” or “Rule”), including Rule 1.1 (Competence), 2 Rule 1.3 (Diligence),3 Rule 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication),4 Rule 1.8(h) (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules),5 Rule 1.16(a) (Declining or Terminating Representation),6 Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions),7 Rule 3.3(a)(1) and (b) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 8 Rule 8.1(a) and (b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 9 and Rule 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct).10 The factual bases of the charges involved Bleecker's failure to timely file a complaint on behalf of Carolyn Stelle, his client, in a claim arising from a motor vehicle accident in which she sustained significant personal injuries. This Court referred the matter to Judge Ronald B. Rubin of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a hearing to determine findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-757 (Judicial Hearing). 11
On November 2, 2009, Judge Rubin held an evidentiary hearing, during which Bleecker was represented by counsel, and thereafter, issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in which he found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Bleecker's acts and omissions constituted violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(a), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a) and (d), but not violations of 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c). In so doing, Judge Rubin made the following findings regarding Bleecker's background, as well as his initial representation of Mrs. Stelle:
The hearing judge described Bleecker's continued representation of Mrs. Stelle after the dissolution of the Blaylock and Bleecker firm in July 2004:
Judge Rubin found that in correspondence to insurance carriers, medical providers, and Mrs. Stelle, Bleecker appropriately identified the date of the accident as November 25, 2002:
The hearing judge described Bleecker's failure to prepare a written settlement demand as he had promised in his February 2005 letter to Mrs. Stelle, as well as his failure to timely file the complaint, in which he misrepresented that the accident occurred on November 25, 2003, rather than 2002, ostensibly due to a clerical error:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Dailey
...of the status of the representation ... ‘which tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute.’ " Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bleecker , 414 Md. 147, 175, 994 A.2d 928 (2010) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rose , 391 Md. 101, 111, 892 A.2d 469 (2006) ). We conclude that Ms. Dail......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Sperling
...835.Similarly, without referring to judicial notice, we effectively took judicial notice of a prior public reprimand in AGC v. Bleecker , 414 Md. 147, 994 A.2d 928 (2010). In that case, the hearing judge found that the respondent had established the mitigating factor of the absence of prior......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Edwards
...communicate to Bar Counsel if her duties as a daughter were going to interfere with her legal duties. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bleecker , 414 Md. 147, 174, 994 A.2d 928 (2010) (collecting cases). She took no steps to notify Bar Counsel, and thus we overrule her exception that her mo......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Shapiro
...from representation of a client once their interests become “untenably at odds with [their] client[s'].” Attorney Grievance v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147, 173, 994 A.2d 928, 943 (2010). In Bleecker, the attorney filed accidentally a complaint averring that the date an accident occurred was one y......