Attorney Grievance Commission v. Usiak
18 A.3d 1
| Md. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Attorney Grievance Commission charged Respondent with MRPC 8.4(d) misconduct for his representation of Paz-Rubio in a Frederick County District Court traffic matter.
- On May 15, 2008, after a contested motion to continue, Judge Ambrose attempted to proceed; Respondent urged discovery delays and objected to the court's handling.
- The State moved to stet the case; Respondent and the Prosecutor discussed preferred dispositions and Respondent walked out when the court denied stet.
- Paz-Rubio remained in court; a bench warrant issued for him; Respondent later advised Paz-Rubio to not return and to pursue habeas corpus outside the courtroom.
- The circuit court and later this Court held Respondent's conduct violated ethical duties, leading to a sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Respondent's conduct violate MRPC 8.4(d)? | Usiak disrupted proceedings to advance own agenda. | Usiak believed actions protected client interests and lawful stet authority existed. | Yes; conduct violated MRPC 8.4(d). |
| Was Respondent's walkout prejudicial to administration of justice and the court's authority? | Disruption wasted court time and undermined proceedings. | Actions were intended to protect client; not prejudicial if in good faith. | Yes; conduct prejudicial and improper. |
| Was the judicial process properly supported by the evidentiary record to sustain contempt findings? | Record shows clear conscious decisions to depart and undermine court order. | Record insufficient to show contempt or misrepresentations intended to harm court. | Record supports contempt findings; properly evaluated by court. |
| Is a 60-day suspension an appropriate sanction in light of mitigating factors? | 60-day suspension warranted for prejudicial conduct. | Case warrants lesser sanction or Peer Review reconsideration. | 60-day suspension appropriate; mitigated by first discipline and isolated incident. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mahone, 398 Md. 257 (2007) (reprimand in similar disruption case; sanction depends on aggravating factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Alison, 317 Md. 523 (1989) (90-day suspension for extensive courtroom misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 408 Md. 404 (2009) (affirmed de novo review; credibility findings upheld)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 546 (2005) (ABA mitigation standards referenced in sanction decisions)
- Ussiak v. State, 413 Md. 384 (2010) (disposition and appellate transfer context for related discipline)