Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheinbein
Decision Date | 16 December 2002 |
Docket Number | Misc. AG No. 37 |
Citation | 372 Md. 224,812 A.2d 981 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, v. Sol SHEINBEIN. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel and John C. Broderick, Asst. Bar Counsel for the Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland, for petitioner.
Melvin Bergman, Beltsville, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, and BATTAGLIA, JJ CATHELL, Judge.
Bar Counsel, on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission, petitioner, and at the direction of the Review Board, filed a petition with this Court seeking disciplinary action against Sol Sheinbein, respondent,1 pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-709(a).2 The petition alleges that respondent violated provisions of Rule 8.4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) based on complaints from Bar Counsel and Henry R. Quintero.3 The relevant provisions of Rule 8.4 provide that:
"It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
...
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-709(b) and 16-711(a),4 this Court referred the matter to Judge S. Michael Pincus of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to respondent's case. Respondent was duly served and he filed a timely answer to the petition. On March 20, 2002, that evidentiary hearing took place. Judge Pincus heard testimony from two witnesses, Paul T. Stein, attorney for Samuel Sheinbein and later for respondent, and Detective Paula Hamill, the primary detective investigating the murder of Alfredo Tello, Jr.5 The remaining evidence admitted at the hearing included the application for a search warrant and the warrant that had been served upon respondent prior to any of respondent's actions giving rise to the instant proceeding. Additionally, respondent's admissions were also among the evidence considered. Specifically, the hearing judge admitted the following:
After the hearing, Judge Pincus found, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent violated MRPC 8.4. Respondent filed in this Court several exceptions to Judge Pincus' findings of fact and conclusions of law. We overrule these exceptions and accept the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Considering respondent's egregious conduct, the appropriate sanction is disbarment.
From the evidentiary record below, we include part of Judge Pincus' findings of fact relevant to our inquiry and we hold that they were established by clear and convincing evidence:
...
4. Upon discovery [of the body] the homicide division of Montgomery County Police Department was notified.
...
...
...
...
35. At that time she was advised Respondent had retained counsel.
36. That was the last time she spoke with Respondent.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance v. Garcia
...or the legal profession violates Rule 8.4(d). Whitehead, 405 Md. at 260, 950 A.2d at 810; Attorney Grievance v. Sheinbein, 372 Md. 224, 252-53 & n. 16, 812 A.2d 981, 996-97 & n. 16 (2002); Attorney Grievance v. Richardson, 350 Md. 354, 368, 712 A.2d 525, 532 (1998). Mr. Garcia's acts underm......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Smith, 27 September Term, 2007.
...Opinion n. 8 citing In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968); and Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sheinbein, 372 Md. 224, 261-84, 812 A.2d 981, 1002-16 (2002). 7. Smith's criminal trial commenced April 26, 2005, 425 days after his arrest. After a bench trial, on April ......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Whitehead
...public's image or the perception of the courts or the legal profession violates Rule 8.4(d). Attorney Grievance v. Sheinbein, 372 Md. 224, 252-53 & n. 16, 812 A.2d 981, 996-97 & n. 16 (2002); Attorney Grievance v. Richardson, 350 Md. 354, 368, 712 A.2d 525, 532 (1998). Respondent's self-dea......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm. v. Pennington
...public is protected. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435, 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997). See Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Sheinbein, 372 Md. 224, 255, 812 A.2d 981, 999 (2002); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Hess, 352 Md. 438, 453, 722 A.2d 905, 913 (1999); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Webste......