Attorney Grievance Commission v. Coppock
432 Md. 629
| Md. | 2013Background
- Coppock was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 24, 1999 and began practice after prior military service.
- He represented eight Thurmont families in a sewer-system dispute against the Town of Thurmont, working with co-counsel and accepting a favorable fee arrangement.
- Facing personal financial distress, Coppock obtained a $125,000 loan secured by a lien on his anticipated attorney’s fees, with terms for high interest and extensions.
- Coppock misrepresented to the lender the status of the Thurmont fee dispute, the use of the loan proceeds, and later used funds for personal debts.
- A fee dispute arose with co-counsel Hopkins, leading to a settlement/redistribution of fees and ongoing efforts to obtain Coppock’s share.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission charged Coppock with violations of MLRPC 4.2, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d); the hearing judge found no Rule 4.2 violation and no Rule 8.4(c)/(d) violation, while the Commission prevailed on 8.4(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Coppock’s misrepresentations relate to his professional conduct violate Rule 8.4(c)? | Coppock lied about fee status and used loan funds improperly. | Misrepresentations were personal, not about fitness to practice law. | Yes; 8.4(c) violated |
| Whether Coppock’s misrepresentations were prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 8.4(d)? | Deceptions harmed the integrity of legal process. | Misconduct was personal and not tied to judicial processes. | Not violated |
| Did Coppock’s communications with the lender violate Rule 4.2(a)? | Contacts with the lender were on his own behalf, not a client. | Not applicable since no client is involved. | No violation |
| Is a reprimand the appropriate sanction given the misconduct and mitigating factors? | Disbarment or harsher discipline justified due to deceit. | Mitigating factors and lack of client harm support a non-disbarment sanction. | Reprimand |
| Did the Commission properly rely on Consumer Debt Collection Act considerations (CL § 14-202) to support concerns about conduct? | Statutory context bears on permissible conduct. | Act not properly litigated here; not essential to decision. | Sustained exception to not decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hall, 408 Md. 306 (2009) (relevance of dishonesty to fitness to practice in Maryland ethics)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Velasquez, 301 Md. 450 (1984) (attorney deception regarding escrow funds violated 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359 (2009) (non-client deceit can trigger discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Powell, 369 Md. 462 (2002) (discipline for deceit in professional context)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Snyder, 368 Md. 242 (2002) (dishonesty in professional conduct subject to sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jordan, 386 Md. 583 (2005) (disciplinary standards and sanctions framework)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Link, 380 Md. 405 (2004) (prejudicial to administration of justice standard for private conduct)