Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cocco
109 A.3d 1176
| Md. | 2015Background
- AGC filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against Cocco for misconduct in Jones’s case.
- Cocco issued an invalid subpoena to Walmart employees to obtain surveillance video in September 2009.
- She threatened personal liability against the employees if they did not comply and presented a knowingly invalid subpoena.
- No lawsuit had been filed against Walmart at the time, and the subpoena did not name a specific recipient.
- Cocco failed to respond to Bar Counsel and attended no evidentiary hearing, leading to default admissions.
- Hearing judge found multiple violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended disbarment; court noted a prior 2010 reprimand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the invalid subpoena violated 3.4(c). | Cocco knowingly issued the invalid subpoena to obtain pretrial evidence. | Cocco contends the subpoena was a legitimate pretrial instrument. | Yes; violated 3.4(c). |
| Whether misrepresentation to third parties violated 4.1(a)(1). | Cocco misrepresented that the subpoena required compliance. | Cocco denied knowingly misrepresenting the subpoena’s enforceability. | Yes; violated 4.1(a)(1). |
| Whether threatening third parties violated 4.4(a). | Cocco used threats to coerce compliance with the invalid subpoena. | Cocco argued no improper coercion occurred. | Yes; violated 4.4(a). |
| Whether failure to respond to Bar Counsel violated 8.1(b). | Cocco refused to respond to information requests during investigation. | Cocco claimed medical or other reasons for nonresponse. | Yes; violated 8.1(b). |
| Whether the overall conduct violated 8.4(a), (c), and (d). | The misconduct reflected dishonesty, abuse of process, and harmed the profession. | Cocco contested the breadth of policy implications. | Yes; violated 8.4(a), (c), and (d). |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Park, 427 Md. 180 (Md. 2012) (sanctions considerations for attorney discipline)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (disbarment for intentional dishonesty; conduct serious)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. West, 378 Md. 395 (Md. 2003) (mitigating factors in sanctions analysis)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Garfield, 369 Md. 85 (Md. 2002) (independent review standard and de novo conclusions of law)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. O’Leary, 433 Md. 2 (Md. 2013) (unanswered admissions deemed admitted; factual binding)