Attorney Grievance Commission v. Palmer
417 Md. 185
| Md. | 2010Background
- Respondent Christopher A. Palmer, Maryland attorney, admitted 1998, mostly practices family law, occasional criminal panel work.
- Attorney Grievance Commission filed a disciplinary petition alleging violations of MRPC 1.1, 1.15, 8.4, Rule 16-609, and §10-306 of the Business Occupations & Professions Article.
- Undisputed facts show Respondent moved client funds from escrow to the Firm’s general account to bolster partnership prospects and received one-third of those funds.
- Respondent also drafted but did not file certain complaints and fabricated documents to mislead Firm partners and clients about filing status.
- Firm discovered misappropriations, reimbursed clients, and Respondent faced a firm-level internal investigation leading to his December 2008 termination.
- Court referred the matter to a circuit court for an evidentiary hearing; Judge Wilson issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, later adopted by the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Respondent violated MRPC provisions through misappropriation | Palmer engaged in intentional misappropriation of client funds | Palmer disputes the degree of misconduct or argues mitigations | Yes, violations proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the misconduct warrants disbarment or lesser sanction | Disbarment warranted due to willful misappropriation and dishonesty | Indefinite suspension or lesser sanction could be appropriate given mitigations | Disbarment appropriate; no compelling extenuating circumstances found |
| Role of Vanderlinde/Lane mitigating framework in this case | Mitigation requires compelling mental-disability factors as root cause | Mitigations like remorse, cooperation may reduce sanction | Vanderlinde framework not giving less than disbarment here; mitigations insufficient to avoid disbarment |
| Impact of self-reporting and cooperation on sanction | Self-reporting may reduce sanction | Self-reporting occurred after discovery by others; not a per se mitigation | Self-reporting considered but not sufficient to avoid disbarment under facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (2001) (discusses compelling extenuating circumstances in misappropriation cases; root-cause mental disability standard)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633 (2002) (applies Vanderlinde framework case-by-case; not bright-line rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Nussbaum, 401 Md. 612 (2007) (keeps default rule that sanctions depend on facts and circumstances; reviews de novo conclusions of law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696 (2010) (discusses public protection over punishment; framework for sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (2006) (mitigation factors evaluated; no less than disbarment for serious misconduct)