Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sucklal, 12 A.3d 650

Attorney Grievance Commission filed a disciplinary action against Sirina Sucklal on July 16, 2009; the Court ordered the matter to be heard by Judge C. Philip Nichols, Jr. under Maryland Rule 16-757.
Judge Nichols found multiple violations of MRPC Rules (5.5, 1.4, 1.5, 7.1, 7.5, 8.4, etc.) and unfiled exceptions by Respondent; Respondent did not object to the findings.
A writ of summons was issued twice for service; the second summons was issued December 1, 2009, and Respondent allegedly served December 7, 2009, though service was contested.
Petitioner moved for an order of default claiming Respondent failed to respond; the court entered a default and scheduled a hearing for April 14, 2010, after which evidence was presented.
Respondent argued lack of personal jurisdiction; the court rejected this defense and proceeded with the disciplinary hearing; Judge Nichols issued findings and conclusions on July 1, 2010.
The Court of Appeals, after de novo review, disbarred Respondent to protect the public, and ordered payment of costs pursuant to Md. Rule 16-761.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over Respondent	Petitioner asserts Court has original, complete Maryland jurisdiction over attorney discipline anywhere in the state.	Respondent contends no personal jurisdiction because she resides outside Prince George's County and the misconduct occurred elsewhere.	No merit; Court has original jurisdiction over attorney discipline regardless of Respondent's residence or location of misconduct.
Unauthorized practice and misrepresentation of status	Respondent violated 5.5, 7.1, and 7.5 by establishing an law firm, misrepresenting Maryland admission, and using improper professional designation.	Respondent disputes the evidence; argues lack of authority to practice in Maryland.	Respondent disbarred for practicing law without Maryland admission and related misrepresentations.
Dishonesty and misrepresentation in client dealings; fee-related misconduct	Respondent engaged in dishonesty and deceit in dealings with Smith and Powell; charged unreasonable or undisclosed fees.	Respondent disputes fee practices and client communications.	Disbarment warranted for serious misconduct including dishonesty, deceit, and improper billing under MRPC 8.4 and related rules.

Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rand, 411 Md. 83 (2009) (Court recognized broad jurisdiction in attorney discipline proceedings)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alsafty, 379 Md. 1 (2003) (Disbarment appropriate where conduct involves dishonesty and public trust issues)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kimmel & Silverman, 405 Md. 647 (2008) (Disciplinary sanctions guided by reciprocal considerations and public protection)
Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41 (2007) (Discipline to protect the public and sanction proportionally to gravity of violations)