Attorney Grievance Commission v. Payer
38 A.3d 378
| Md. | 2012Background
- Bar Counsel filed a disciplinary petition against Michele Payer based on two client complaints (Berow and Mughal).
- An evidentiary hearing before Judge Cahill resulted in findings against Payer on multiple MLRPC provisions.
- Judge Cahill found Berow violations of 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(b), and 1.7, and, for both complaints, violations of 1.15, 16-607, 8.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
- Judge Cahill concluded Mughal conduct violated 8.1 and 8.4 in addition to credibility issues, while some other asserted violations were not proven.
- Respondent filed extensive exceptions; the Court sustained most exceptions, but upheld the sanctions and ultimately disbarment.
- The Court ordered disbarment and costs, and criticized the unprofessional manner of the exceptions filed by respondent’s counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Payer violated key MLRPC provisions in Berow matter | Berow asserted multiple ethical breaches were proven | Payer contested credibility and interpretation of facts | Yes; multiple violations sustained (1.1, 1.3, 1.4(b), 1.7) and related rule violations |
| Whether Payer violated 1.15 and 16-607 and related misconduct | Misuse of funds and commingling alleged | Arguments insufficient to prove safekeeping/commingling | Yes; violations sustained for 1.15 and 16-607 (and related misrepresentations to Bar Counsel) |
| Whether Mughal allegations establish dishonesty and misrepresentation | Respondent lied about escrow deposits and document handling | Some charges not proven | Yes on 8.1, 8.4; judge found pattern of dishonesty and falsified documents |
| Whether conflict of interest and disclosure failures violated 1.7 | There was a potential conflict in representing both bankruptcy and Sinai action | Conflict, if any, was not adequately proven or disclosed | Conditional finding; court sustained as exception but ultimately rejected as clear MLRPC 1.7 violation in final ruling |
| What sanction is appropriate for proven misconduct | Disbarment is warranted for dishonesty and pattern of misrepresentation | Sanction less severe may be appropriate given circumstances | Disbarment affirmed; costs awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Khandpur, 421 Md. 1 (Md. 2011) (hearing judge may select evidence credibility in disciplinary matters)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harris, 366 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (clear and convincing standard requires credible witnesses and precise memory)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Smith, 405 Md. 107 (Md. 2008) (affirming use of clear and convincing standard in discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kemp, 303 Md. 664 (Md. 1985) (credibility determinations permitted in discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1 (Md. 1999) (reaffirmed credibility-based approach in discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Pal〈 Pak, 400 Md. 567 (Md. 2000) (disbarment and discipline standards in misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Keiner, 421 Md. 492 (Md. 2011) (disbarment when intentional dishonest conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Link, 380 Md. 405 (Md. 2004) (professionalism and civility expectations in filings)
- Henderson v. Maryland Bar, 38 A.3d 378 (Md. 2012) (disbarment upheld for pattern of dishonesty (case at issue))