Attorney Grievance Commission v. Harris
Decision Date | 06 November 2002 |
Docket Number | Misc. Subtitle AG No. 24 |
Citation | 810 A.2d 457,371 Md. 510 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, v. Alan Edgar HARRIS. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel and Glenn M. Grossman, Deputy Bar Counsel for the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, for petitioner.
Benjamin Lipsitz, Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ CATHELL, Judge.
On September 24, 2001, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, petitioner, by Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, and Glenn M. Grossman, Deputy Bar Counsel, filed1 a petition for disciplinary action against Alan Edgar Harris, respondent, for multiple violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). The petition alleged that respondent, based on his representations of Emily Lewis and Preston Lawrence Henderson, had violated MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), (b) and (c), 1.7(b) and (c), 1.8(a) and (j), 1.9(a) and (b), 3.2, and 8.4(a), (c) and (d).2
On September 27, 2001, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-752,3 this Court transmitted the matter to Judge Marcella A. Holland of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to conduct a hearing and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.4
On March 1 and 4, 2002, an evidentiary hearing was held before the hearing judge. On June 17, 2002, Judge Holland issued her Memorandum of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 3.2 and 8.4(a) in the Lewis matter and MRPC 1.5, 1.7, 1.8(a) and (j), and 8.4(a) in the Henderson matter. The hearing judge further concluded that respondent did not violate MRPC 8.4(d) in the Lewis matter and did not violate MRPC 1.9 and 8.4(c) and (d) in the Henderson matter. The record was then transferred from the hearing judge to our Court for oral argument. Both petitioner and respondent, pursuant to former Maryland Rule 16-711(b)(2),5 filed with this Court exceptions to the hearing judge's Memorandum of Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.6
Respondent was admitted to the Bar of Maryland on June 10, 1960 and maintains his practice of law in his office located in Baltimore City. The Petition for Disciplinary Action filed in this case was based on two complaints, BC Docket No. 2000-120-4-2, Complaint of Emily Lewis and BC Docket No. 2000-282-4-2, Complaint of Preston Lawrence Henderson. Judge Holland's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law7 are as follows:
"The testimony offered at the hearing together with the Exhibits received established by clear and convincing evidence the following facts pertinent to the Petition.
BACKGROUND FACTS
FACTS RELEVANT TO LEWIS, et al. V. MIHIALOVICI, et al.
FACTS RELEVANT TO STATE FARM MUTUAL v. PRESTON HENDERSON & HENDERSON v. ASHLEY LAYNE DESIGNS, INC. et al.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING EMILY AND MICHAEL LEWIS
"With respect to Respondent's representation in the case of Lewis, et al. V. Mihialovici, et al., Petitioner alleges that Respondent violated the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2 and 8.4. This Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent, Alan Edgar Harris, has violated the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically:
1. Rule 1.1 by failing to competently represent the Lewis family.
2. Rule 1.3 by failing to serve all of the defendants, failing to appear for scheduled trial dates, and failing to cure self-imposed defects in the Lewis' case.
3. Rule 1.4(a) by failing to keep the Lewis family reasonably informed of the status of their case.
4. Rule 1.4(b) by failing to explain to Emily Lewis the effect that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance v. Culver
...and 8.4(b) and (c). II. This Court has original jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary proceedings. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harris, 371 Md. 510, 539, 810 A.2d 457, 474 (2002). In the exercise of our obligation, we conduct an independent review of the record, accepting the hearing ......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Byrd
...failed to appear for a scheduled trial. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harris, 366 Md. 376, 403 (2001). See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harris, 371 Md. 510, 545-48 (2002); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ficker, 319 Md. 305, 315 (1990). Although a motion for continuance had been filed, it ......
-
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheinbein
...Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gallagher, 371 Md. 673, 810 A.2d 996 (2002) (misappropriation of client funds); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harris, 371 Md. 510, 810 A.2d 457 (2002) (failure to adequately represent a client); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Barneys, 370 Md. 566, 805 A.2d 1040 (20......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Smith, 27 September Term, 2007.
...A.2d 158, 162 (2003); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Blum, 373 Md. 275, 293, 818 A.2d 219, 230 (2003); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harris, 371 Md. 510, 539-40, 810 A.2d 457, 474-75 (2002); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gavin, 350 Md. 176, 189, 711 A.2d 193, 200 (1998); Attorney Grievance Comm......