Attorney Grievance Commission v. Coppola
19 A.3d 431
| Md. | 2011Background
- Coppola, Maryland-licensed lawyer since 1997, concentrated in estates/trusts; de facto Leesburg, VA practice from 2000.
- In 2008, at hospital bedside of Elizabeth West (terminally ill), Coppola prepared an estate plan including a Will, Living Trust, deed, assignment, and power of attorney.
- Ms. West’s children (notably Jeanne Swink) had advocated the plan; West was incapable of reviewing/signing documents at the hospital.
- Swink forged West’s signature on multiple documents; Coppola subsequently notarized and certified those documents and recorded a deed transferring the house to the West Living Trust.
- Court found Coppola formed an attorney-client relationship with West and/or her four children, and engaged in conduct designed to benefit the estate plan despite West’s incompetence; he altered documents and directed staff to falsely attest and record.
- Disciplinary action culminated in disbarment by the Court of Appeals, with noting of mitigating factors but the presence of a pattern of misconduct and substantial experience as aggravators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coppola violated Rule 1.2(d) by assisting in fraudulent estate actions | West or her heirs were clients; Coppola aided fraud. | Coppola argued no clear client relationship with Swink’s group; intent was to fulfill West’s wishes. | Yes, Rule 1.2(d) violated; conduct willfully assisted fraudulent scheme. |
| Whether Coppola violated Rule 8.4 and Crim. Law §8-606 by fraudulent conduct | Conduct involved dishonesty and criminal filing of false deeds. | Argued lack of showing of intent to deceive or that he filed the documents itself. | Yes, violations of Rule 8.4(a),(c) and 8.4(b) and Md. Crim. Law §8-606 were established. |
| Whether there was an attorney-client relationship with West’s four children | Court should find the children were clients due to advice given. | Coppola contends West alone was client; children were not properly clients. | The court found an attorney-client relationship with West and also with the four children. |
| What is the appropriate sanction given Rule 1.2(d) and 8.4 violations | Disbarment warranted due to pattern of dishonesty and public harm. | Public reprimand or limited suspension possible given mitigation. | Disbarment affirmed; Vanderlinde framework applied; substantial mitigating factors considered but insufficient to avoid disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Shoup, 410 Md. 462 (Md. 2009) (attorney-client relationship considerations in discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Brooke, 374 Md. 155 (Md. 2003) (test for attorney-client relationship when advice given to non-client)
- Attorney Grievance v. Marcalus, 414 Md. 501 (Md. 2010) (framework for sanctions in misconduct cases; prejudice to administration of justice)
- Attorney Grievance v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (establishes disbarment as baseline for intentional dishonesty absent compelling extenuation)
- Attorney Grievance v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (Md. 2009) (mitigating factors may reduce sanctions in misconduct cases)
- Attorney Grievance v. Harris, 403 Md. 142 (Md. 2008) (aggravating factors in sanctions including experience and pattern)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sapero, 400 Md. 461 (Md. 2007) (due process limits in charging discipline)
- Ruddy, 411 Md. 30 (Md. 2009) (mitigating/ aggravating considerations in discipline)