Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patton, 69 A.3d 11

Petitioner filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Richard V. Patton, III and the case was referred to a circuit court for a hearing.
Patton was personally served and failed to answer or provide documents; default was entered and later vacated after timely but untimely responses.
An evidentiary hearing was held September 20, 2012; sanctions for discovery noncompliance were imposed, limiting Patton’s testimony to mitigation only.
Findings show Patton’s practice involved mismanagement, missed court appearances for multiple clients, and failure to communicate; his conduct affected several clients across cases.
Patton had a history of legal and personal issues, including narcotics/tranquilizer dependence, criminal charges, jury duty failures, and failures to complete treatment programs.
The hearing court concluded Patton’s drug dependency incapacitated him from practicing law and that the misconduct included misappropriation, abandonment of clients, and dishonesty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to respond to discovery violated the Rules of Professional Conduct	Patton’s discovery failures are sanctionable; Bar Counsel argued 1.4/8.1/8.4 violations.	Patton denied improper purpose; the discovery failures cannot form the sole basis for discipline.	Failure to respond supported by sanctions; some discovery-related claims treated as aggravating factors, not sole basis.
Whether Patton’s misrepresentation in deposition violated 8.1/8.4	Deposition misrepresentations show dishonest conduct and reflect on fitness.	Misrepresentations were not a basis for the charged violations or were not properly charged.	Misrepresentation found to violate 8.1(a) and 8.4(c) (and tied to other violations); sustained.
What sanction is appropriate for Patton’s misconduct	Disbarment warranted given pattern, multiple offenses, and harm to clients.	Indefinite suspension with right to reapply could be appropriate due to addiction and mitigation potential.	Disbarment warranted; aggravating factors present and root-cause mitigation insufficient.

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (Md. 2006) (standard for sanctions and public protection; Vanderlinde threshold guidance)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (root-cause illness standard; very strict mitigation criteria)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kenney, 339 Md. 578 (Md. 1995) (indefinite suspension for alcoholism with mitigation considerations)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Williams, 335 Md. 458 (Md. 1994) (drug addiction impact on misconduct and sanctions)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bakas, 323 Md. 395 (Md. 1991) (misappropriation usually leads to disbarment absent extenuating circumstances)
In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 1968) (notice and opportunity to defend in disciplinary proceedings)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mahone, 398 Md. 257 (Md. 2007) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; respect for court orders)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jarosinski, 411 Md. 432 (Md. 2009) (court’s independent review of record in attorney discipline)