Attorney Grievance Commission v. Levin
438 Md. 211
| Md. | 2014Background
- AGC filed Petition for Disciplinary Action against Levin for misconduct at JGL (Dec 2010–Nov 2011).
- Employment agreement set initial $200,000 salary plus 50% of NOI, with quarterly performance reviews determining adjustments.
- Levin misrepresented caseload and expected fees and created fictitious clients/papers to conceal poor performance.
- Final audit showed a $151,191.17 deficiency between salary and NOI; Levin repaid the amount after leaving the firm.
- Hearing court found violations of MRLPRC 8.4(a) and (c); rejected 8.4(b) and (d); on review, Court sustained the dispositive findings and imposed disbarment as sanction.
- Disbarment followed per curiam order in 2014, with costs awarded against Levin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Levin violated MRPC 8.4(a) and (c). | AGC argues misrepresentations and fictitious filings show dishonesty. | Levin admits some violations but contends not all elements met. | Yes; violations of 8.4(a) and (c) sustained. |
| Whether Levin violated MRPC 8.4(b) by criminal conduct. | AGC asserts intentional deception constitutes a crime under CL §7-104(b). | Levin contends no permanent deprivation or crime proven. | No; 8.4(b) not proven. |
| Whether Levin violated MRPC 8.4(d) by prejudicing the administration of justice. | AGC argues deceit harms public confidence in the profession. | Levin argues conduct was private and not prejudicial. | Yes; 8.4(d) proven as a consequence of 8.4(b) finding. |
| What sanction is appropriate for Levin’s misconduct. | Disbarment warranted for willful dishonesty for personal gain. | Public reprimand or lesser sanction possible given mitigating factors. | Disbarment appropriate; mitigating factors insufficient to avoid ultimate sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guberman, 392 Md. 131 (Md. 2006) (disbarment for willful dishonesty for personal gain)
- Lane v. State, 60 Md. App. 412 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984) (intent may be inferred from circumstances in theft statutes)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Kapoor, 391 Md. 505 (Md. 2006) (conduct dishonest, deceitful, and criminal; prejudicial to justice)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Carithers, 421 Md. 28 (Md. 2011) (prejudice to administration of justice requires egregious conduct)
- Tanko v. Att’y Grievance Comm’n, 427 Md. 15 (Md. 2012) (actual conviction not required to prove 8.4(b))