Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. McGLADE
425 Md. 524
| Md. | 2012Background
- Attorney McGlade faced a Bar-disciplinary petition for breaches related to Brewis real estate matter.
- Judge North held, by clear and convincing evidence, violations of MRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 3.3, and 8.4(a)–(d).
- McGlade entered a consent order on Feb. 1, 2007 without Brewis's express authority.
- McGlade paid the civil fine himself and did not inform Brewis or obtain consent for the order; he later vacated the order when confronted.
- Remand proceedings addressed remorse evidence; Judge North found only a modicum of remorse.
- The Court of Appeals conducted independent review and affirmed the findings, concluding the sanction should be an indefinite suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entering the consent order without client authority violated MRPC provisions. | Bar Counsel argues liability for lack of client authority and resulting rule violations. | McGlade contends he acted in Brewis's best interests and that some flexibility existed. | Yes; violations found due to lack of express client authorization. |
| Whether failures in diligence and communication violated MRPC 1.3 and 1.4. | Bar Counsel asserts neglect and poor communication harmed client interests. | McGlade claims reasonable efforts under the circumstances. | Yes; violations of 1.3 and 1.4 established by delays and poor notice. |
| Whether Candor Toward the Tribunal under MRPC 3.3 was violated by misrepresentation. | Bar Counsel alleges misrepresentations during consent negotiations and court proceedings. | McGlade denies intentional misrepresentation; aims were to procure favorable settlement. | Yes; court found misrepresentation to the tribunal. |
| Whether the conduct violated MRPC 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). | Bar Counsel seeks discipline for dishonest and prejudicial conduct. | McGlade contends the misconduct is serious but not criminal; accountability warranted. | Yes; violations established. |
| What sanction is appropriate given the conduct and mitigation evidence. | Disbarment favored due to lack of candor and misrepresentation. | Indefinite suspension or shorter term favored given reputation and remorse. | Indefinite suspension approved with costs awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (disbarment default for intentional dishonesty or serious misconduct not present here; distinctions noted)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Tanko, 408 Md. 404 (Md. 2009) (60-day suspension for misleading court; not disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gordon, 413 Md. 46 (Md. 2010) (45-day suspension for intentional misrepresentation in civil matter)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (Md. 2009) (disbarment for conspiracy/fraud-related conduct)
- Keiner, 421 Md. 492 (Md. 2011) (addressed appellate review of attorney discipline and remand/remorse considerations)