Attorney Grievance Commission v. Eckel
115 A.3d 142
| Md. | 2015Background
- Eckel, admitted 1979, was arrested Aug 1, 2009 after an incident in his law office; charged with attempted rape, attempted sexual offense, second-degree assault, fourth-degree sexual offense, and false imprisonment.
- At trial, conflicting accounts: Cannon alleged nonconsensual sexual contact, restraint, and shouting for help; Eckel said a dispute over money led to a physical struggle. Corporal Patton observed Cannon yelling and officers intervened.
- Eckel was convicted of second-degree assault, fourth-degree sexual offense, and false imprisonment; acquitted of attempted rape and attempted second-degree sexual offense. Conviction affirmed on appeal.
- Bar Counsel filed a disciplinary petition under MLRPC 8.4(b); Court of Appeals provisionally suspended Eckel July 21, 2010 and referred the matter for evidentiary hearing. Judge Seaton found by clear and convincing evidence that Eckel violated MLRPC 8.4(b).
- Judge Seaton found mitigating factors (remorse, cooperation, sobriety since Aug 2009, community service, caretaking stress) and aggravating factors (prior 2006 reprimand for cocaine possession, two arrests, unclear sustained recovery).
- The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record, agreed Eckel violated MLRPC 8.4(b), and imposed an indefinite suspension with costs; concurrence would have disbarred if Bar Counsel had sought it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Eckel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eckel committed professional misconduct under MLRPC 8.4(b) by committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on fitness to practice | Conviction for serious crimes (assault, sexual offense, false imprisonment) demonstrates conduct adverse to fitness; merits discipline | Did not contest conduct findings but disputed characterization of his substance-abuse recovery as aggravating | Court: Eckel violated MLRPC 8.4(b) based on his convictions; upheld hearing judge’s conclusions of law |
| Appropriate sanction for the violation | Sought indefinite suspension to allow assessment of fitness for reinstatement | Sought reinstatement / reprimand and nunc pro tunc indefinite suspension to July 21, 2010 | Court: Indefinite suspension imposed (public protection, consistency with precedent); costs assessed |
| Relevance of Eckel’s sobriety and addiction status to sanction | Argued need to assess current fitness; Bar Counsel highlighted lack of demonstrated sustained recovery as aggravating | Eckel asserted five years sobriety and urged that Judge Seaton erred finding he avoided the issue | Court: Did not rely on that disputed aggravating factor for the sanction; indefinite suspension appropriate regardless; reinstatement process will address fitness and substance issues |
| Use of prior discipline in aggravation | Prior 2006 reprimand for cocaine possession supports aggravation and need for significant sanction | Eckel emphasized mitigation and long practice history | Court: Prior sanction and multiple arrests are aggravating; support indefinite suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Cocco, 442 Md. 1 (standard of review and independent review of hearing judge’s conclusions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Post, 350 Md. 85 (MLRPC 8.4(b) interpretation — crimes reflecting on fitness)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thompson, 367 Md. 315 (recognizing violent, sex, and substance offenses as relevant to 8.4(b))
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Nusbaum, 436 Md. 609 (treating conviction as a "serious crime" under Md. Rule 16-701(k) for discipline)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (same — conviction supporting 8.4(b) violation)