Attorney Grievance Commission v. Elliott
12 A.3d 105
| Md. | 2011Background
- Attorney Grievance Commission filed disciplinary action against Elliott on Sept. 15, 2009; hearing by Judge Ballou-Watts found violations of MRPC 1.2, 1.4, 1.15, 8.1, 8.4 and BO 10-306; Elliott appealed thirteen exceptions; Commission seeks disbarment to protect public.
- Hearing findings included that Elliott misappropriated Arcilla’s funds, altered a check’s payee, deposited funds into a personal account, failed to keep records, and did not timely remit funds to the firm; Elliott resigned amid investigation.
- Arcilla retained Macey & Aleman for a Chapter 7 filing; Elliott, as managing attorney, accepted Arcilla’s funds, achieved change of payee to Elliott on the check, and later deposited funds personally.
- Evidence showed Elliott’s statements to Bar Counsel were false or misleading; telephone records did not corroborate his claimed authorization; Arcilla did not authorize the payee change.
- Court reviewed de novo the conclusions of law, upheld the Hearing Judge on credibility determinations, and considered mitigating factors but found them insufficient to avoid disbarment.
- Disbarment ordered; Elliott must pay all costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MRPC 1.2 violations were proven | Grievance Commission | Elliott | Yes, violations established |
| Whether MRPC 1.4 violations were proven | Grievance Commission | Elliott | Yes, violations established |
| Whether Elliott violated MRPC 1.15, 8.1, 8.4 and BO 10-306 through misappropriation | Grievance Commission | Elliott | Yes, violations established |
| Whether disbarment is the appropriate sanction | Grievance Commission | Elliott | Disbarment warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (2008) (Court reviews discipline with de novo legal scrutiny of facts; original jurisdiction over attorney discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Adams, 349 Md. 86 (1998) (Affirms independent review of record; deference to hearing judge's credibility findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Zdravkovich, 375 Md. 110 (2003) (Credibility and sufficiency standards for findings of fact)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Monfried, 368 Md. 373 (2002) (Deference to hearing judge; clear and convincing standard for facts)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. O'Toole, 379 Md. 595 (2004) (Concludes de novo review of conclusions of law; credibility not disturbed absent error)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Walter, 407 Md. 670 (2009) (Affirms use of inferences in fact-finding; credibility discretion to the hearing judge)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185 (2010) (Disbarment standard for misappropriation absent compelling extenuating circumstances)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ezrin, 312 Md. 603 (1988) (Mitigating factors considered; misconduct severity dictates sanctions)
- Md. State Bar Ass'n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543 (1974) (Compelling extenuating circumstances required to avert disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Nwadike, 416 Md. 180 (2010) (Misappropriation and dishonesty support disbarment)