Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mungin
439 Md. 290
| Md. | 2014Background
- Mungin mishandled his attorney trust account across nine client matters and engaged in cash withdrawals from the trust account; overdraft occurred in March 2011 prompting disciplinary action; hearing found multiple trust-account deficiencies but no finding of intentional dishonesty; personal difficulties and counseling were noted as context for misconduct; weekly reconciliations and new accounting measures implemented after findings; court suspended him indefinitely with right to reinstate after six months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mungin violated MLRPC 1.1 by incompetence | Mungin failed to properly maintain settlement funds. | Mungin argues negligence, not intentional misconduct. | Yes, violated 1.1. |
| Whether Mungin violated MLRPC 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) (safekeeping property and prompt accounting) | Funds were not held separately and were not promptly disbursed. | Misconduct due to negligence, not deceit. | Yes, violated 1.15(a) and (d). |
| Whether Mungin violated MLRPC 8.4(d) and 8.4(a) (conduct prejudicial to justice and violation of rules) | Mungin’s overall mishandling harmed the profession and violated multiple rules. | No proof of intentional dishonesty; negligent misconduct. | Yes for 8.4(d) and 8.4(a). |
| Whether Mungin violated MLRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit) | Mungin intentionally misrepresented liens and misappropriated funds. | Record shows negligence, not intentional dishonesty; court did not find 8.4(c) proven. | Not proven given record and scope of exception. (No 8.4(c) violation sustained.) |
| Sanction appropriate for misconduct under ABA standards and relevant rules | Disbarment urged for serious misconduct. | Indefinite suspension with right to reinstatement after six months. | Indefinite suspension with right to reinstatement after six months. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. James, 385 Md. 637 (Md. 2005) (negligence supports 1.1 violation; improper handling of settlement funds)
- Moeller v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 427 Md. 66 (Md. 2012) (trust account mismanagement violates 1.15(a))
- DiCicco v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 369 Md. 662 (Md. 2002) (negligence vs intentional misconduct; factors for sanction; potential indefinite suspension)
- Sperling v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 380 Md. 180 (Md. 2004) (indefinite suspension with right to reinstatement when serious trust-account shortfalls but no client losses)
- Dore v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 433 Md. 685 (Md. 2013) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; standard for 8.4(d))
- Whitehead v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 405 Md. 240 (Md. 2008) (8.4(c) violations involve dishonesty or misappropriation; negligent conduct analyzed)
- Calhoun v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 391 Md. 532 (Md. 2006) (negligence can support 8.4(c) in some contexts but depends on evidence of intent)
- Davy v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 435 Md. 674 (Md. 2013) (aggravating/mitigating factors; sanctions framework)