Attorney Grievance Commission v. Carithers
25 A.3d 181
| Md. | 2011Background
- Carithers admitted to the Maryland Bar on Sept. 26, 2006; Bar Counsel filed a Rule 16-751 petition on Apr. 30, 2010 alleging MRPC 1.15(a) and 8.4 violations tied to unearned fees.
- The matter was referred to Circuit Court Judge Kendra Y. Ausby for an evidentiary hearing; findings were issued after Jan. 5–6, 2010 proceedings.
- The hearing found no trust account was maintained, with unearned client fees deposited into Respondent's personal account; Respondent operated a side practice using firm resources and client files without authorization.
- Respondent deposited CJA and client checks into personal accounts, used B&S letterhead/stationery, and represented former B&S clients while employed full‑time at B&S.
- Respondent retained clients terminated by B&S, failed to disclose the side practice, and used B&S resources for personal gain; the hearing judge issued detailed findings of misconduct and various aggravating and mitigating factors.
- The Court ultimately imposed disbarment, effective 30 days after the order, and taxed costs against Respondent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Respondent violated MRPC 1.15(a) and §10-304(a) by safekeeping funds and failing to maintain a trust account | Carithers deposited unearned fees into his personal account | Carithers argues side practice and Of Counsel status affected practice, not misappropriation | Yes; violations established |
| Whether Respondent violated MRPC 8.4(b) through theft by accepting client payments personally | Stealing fees by honoring side payments harmed B&S | No theft; payments were for services rendered or due; misinterpretation of status | Yes; theft established |
| Whether Respondent violated MRPC 8.4(c) for dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misappropriation | Misuse of firm resources and misrepresentation via side practice and use of firm materials | Of Counsel status allowed side practice; lack of clear disclosure | Yes; conduct deceitful and misappropriative |
| Whether Respondent violated MRPC 8.4(d) by prejudicing the administration of justice | Misappropriation and lack of trust accounting undermined public confidence | Fee dispute context; not intended to prejudice justice | Yes; prejudicial conduct established |
| Whether the aggregate conduct supports Rule 8.4(a) misconduct and warrants disbarment | Multiple Rule violations, taken together, show professional misconduct | No mitigating factors to justify lesser sanction | Yes; disbarment imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359 (2009) (establishes that multiple MRPC violations can violate 8.4(a))
- Attorney Grievance v. Vlahos, 369 Md. 183 (2002) (misappropriation supports 8.4(b) and related sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance v. Ezrin, 312 Md. 603 (1988) (misappropriation of client funds justifies discipline)
- Attorney Grievance v. Snyder, 368 Md. 242 (2002) (misappropriation to 8.4(d) prejudicial to justice)
- Homa v. Friendly Mobile Manor, 93 Md. App. 337 (1992) (of counsel relationship can require clear disclosure of capacity)
- Attorney Grievance v. Brown, 353 Md. 271 (1999) (material omissions in client communications violate MRPC 7.1/7.5)
- Attorney Grievance v. Kapoor, 391 Md. 505 (2006) (MRPC 8.4(d) concerns public confidence in the profession)
- Attorney Grievance v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (2001) (most serious extenuating circumstances required for lesser sanction)