Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bocchino
435 Md. 505
| Md. | 2013Background
- Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent David Bocchino on September 27, 2012, alleging violations of MLRPC in two client matters.
- The Embreys alleged violations including competence, diligence, communication, and multiple misconduct counts tied to lemon-law representation and discovery failures.
- Ms. Cleaves alleged violations arising from Respondent’s association with disbarred attorney Ralph Byrd and unauthorized practice of law, plus misconduct in appellate filing and misuse of fees.
- The hearing judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 29, 2013, issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 10, 2013.
- The court adopted the findings, concluding violations in the Embrey matter (1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4) and in the Cleaves matter (1.1, 1.3, 5.5, 8.4).
- Mitigation included Respondent’s military service and PTSD/depression; the court ordered indefinite suspension with costs taxed to Respondent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Respondent violated core duties in Embreys case. | Embreys: incompetence, lack of diligence, and poor communication. | Respondent contends no applicable violations. | Yes; violations found for 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4. |
| Whether Respondent violated duties in Cleaves case and assisted unauthorized practice. | Byrd conducted client contact; Respondent assisted unauthorized practice. | Respondent did not knowingly assist Byrd. | Yes; violations found for 1.1, 1.3, 5.5, 8.4. |
| Whether misconduct was due to mental health and warrants lesser sanction. | Disciplinary action warranted given neglect and deceit. | Mitigating health issues justify lesser sanction. | Indefinite suspension appropriate. |
| Is indefinite suspension the proper sanction given the misconduct and mitigation? | Indefinite suspension protects the public. | Public reprimand with monitoring could suffice. | Indefinite suspension approved. |
| Did the court correctly assess misrepresentations in the Motion to Vacate? | Respondent made false statements to court. | Addressing address misstatement was inadvertent. | Yes; violations of 8.4(c) sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602 (2013) (court conducts independent review of record and uses de novo review for legal conclusions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (2011) (accepts hearing judge’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous; de novo review of law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185 (2010) (limits on review of findings; standard of review for conclusions of law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Manning, 318 Md. 697 (1990) (neglect and disciplinary severity)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. West, 378 Md. 395 (2003) (mitigation factors in discipline; mental illness impact on sanction)