Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brigerman
105 A.3d 467
| Md. | 2014Background
- Attorney Brigerman was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 2003 and faced multiple complaints alleging misconduct in three client matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brigerman violated MLRPC 1.1 (competence) | Grievance Commission proved neglect and failure to provide competent services | Brigerman argues no intentional or systemic incompetence | Yes, violations established under 1.1 |
| Whether Brigerman violated MLRPC 1.3 and 1.4 (diligence and communication) | Clients were not informed; efforts to contact were ignored | Personal issues explained some delays | Yes, violations established under 1.3 and 1.4 |
| Whether Brigerman violated MLRPC 1.15 and 1.16(d) (trust accounting and termination duties) | Failure to safeguard client funds and to protect client interests upon termination | No proper intent to misappropriate; issues were complicated by personal distress | Yes, violations established under 1.15 and 1.16(d) |
| Whether Brigerman violated MLRPC 8.1(a)/(b) and 8.4(d) (dishonesty; misconduct) | There were misrepresentations to Bar Counsel and clients; non-cooperation with Bar Counsel | Misrepresentations were isolated incidents; some failures to respond were due to personal issues | Yes, violations established; 8.4(c) in Copper not charged; overall misconduct supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (Md. 2011) (disbarment appropriate for neglect and failure to cooperate (analogy for severity))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tinsky, 377 Md. 646 (Md. 2003) (disbarment for lack of diligence, misrepresentation, and noncooperation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602 (Md. 2013) (court reviews facts de novo in disciplinary matters)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (disbarment default for serious dishonesty and misconduct; exceptions analyzed)