Attorney Grievance v. Thompson
Decision Date | 13 August 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 9,9 |
Citation | 830 A.2d 474,376 Md. 500 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION of Maryland v. Robert P. THOMPSON. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Melvin Hirshman, Bar and Counsel and Dolores O. Ridgell, Assistant Bar Counsel for the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, for petitioner.
Eric Gordon, Esquire, Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary Action, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-709, alleging that Robert P. Thompson violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8 (Conflict of Interest)1, 1.1 (Competence)2, 1.15 (Safekeeping property)3, and 8.4(d) (Misconduct)4. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-752(a), we referred the matter to Judge M. Brooke Murdock of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Murdock found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had violated Rules 1.15 and 8.4(d).5 Judge Murdock made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (footnotes omitted).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Brooks
...in a single case can rise to the level of "cumulative acts of misconduct" to be a violation of Rule 1.1. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thompson , 376 Md. 500, 512-13, 830 A.2d 474 (2003). "Sound record-keeping is an essential part of competent representation, and an attorney's failure to kee......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Whitehead
...he returned the unapproved fees upon learning that taking them without approval was inappropriate. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Thompson, 376 Md. 500, 519, 830 A.2d 474, 485 (2003), an attorney violated the rules of professional conduct when he failed to pay employee withholding taxe......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Whitehead
...conservatorships.13 We have, however, never held that ignorance of a rule or statute is a defense. See Attorney Grievance v. Thompson, 376 Md. 500, 515, 830 A.2d 474, 483 (2003) ("Ignorance of the law is not a defense."). Therefore, Respondent's reliance on Attorney Grievance v. DiCicco, 36......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm. v. Pennington
...we do not think that such oversight or negligence constitutes sanctionable conduct under Rule 1.1. See Attorney Grievance v. Thompson, 376 Md. 500, 512, 830 A.2d 474, 481 (2003) (stating that "a single mistake does not necessarily result in a violation of Rule 1.1, and may constitute neglig......