77 A.3d 1100
Md.2013Background
- Vanderslice, admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1999 and to the Maryland Bar in 2000, was suspended in Delaware for one year in 2012 for misappropriation and related misconduct.
- Maryland interim suspension of Vander_slice’s Maryland license was entered on December 5, 2012 under Md. Rule 16-773(d).
- Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in Maryland on December 5, 2012, attaching a certified Delaware Supreme Court per curiam opinion and the Delaware findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The Delaware Supreme Court concluded that Vander_slice intentionally committed theft from his law firm on eight occasions over ten months, and that retainer agreements were deficient, violating multiple Delaware Rules corresponding to Maryland Rules.
- Vanderslice did not report the Delaware discipline to Maryland Bar Counsel, contrary to Md. Rule 16-773(a).
- On September 10, 2013, Vander_slice failed to appear at oral argument; Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred him, explaining why reciprocal discipline was not appropriate and that substantially different discipline was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Maryland impose reciprocal discipline or a different sanction? | Bar Counsel seeks reciprocal discipline retroactive to October 12, 2012. | Vanderslice contends the Maryland Court should impose substantially different discipline or disbarment only if warranted by Maryland law. | Disbarment appropriate; substantial difference warranted. |
| Do the Delaware findings support Maryland misconduct and sanctions? | Delaware findings establish intentional misappropriation and misconduct under MD rules. | Respondent disputes Maryland’s application of equivalents or severity. | Yes; misconduct warrants disbarment under Maryland standards when similar acts occur. |
| Are there exceptional circumstances to avoid reciprocal disbarment? | Exceptional circumstances do not justify lesser discipline given aggravated conduct. | Respondent argues mitigating factors and lack of Maryland discipline justify lesser sanction. | Exceptionally, substantial different discipline warranted; not eligible for reciprocal disbarment. |
| Did the respondent’s failure to report the Delaware action affect sanctions? | Failure to report supports harsher discipline as evidence of deceit and lack of candor. | Respondent argues mitigating circumstances could limit sanctions. | Failure to report supports disbarment; no mitigating impact sufficient to avoid substantially different discipline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (extreme misconduct may warrant disbarment absent compelling conditions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Katz, 429 Md. 308 (Md. 2012) (considers balancing reciprocal discipline with Maryland policies)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Weiss, 389 Md. 531 (Md. 2005) (sanctions depend on whether misconduct would be similarly sanctioned in Maryland)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Whitehead, 390 Md. 663 (Md. 2006) (reciprocal discipline analysis and deference to original jurisdiction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gordon, 413 Md. 46 (Md. 2010) (imposes sanctions consistent with public interest and similar misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Beatty, 409 Md. 11 (Md. 2009) (indefinite suspension may be appropriate where warranted in state cases)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 380 Md. 180 (Md. 2004) (purpose of rule 16-773 is uniform sanctions for similar misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zodrow, 419 Md. 286 (Md. 2011) (disbarment appropriate where misconduct involves theft and dishonesty in reciprocal action)
- In re Vanderslice, 55 A.3d 322 (Del. 2012) (Delaware Supreme Court; one-year suspension for misappropriation with restitution and no prior discipline)
- In re Staropoli, 865 A.2d 322 (Del. 2005) (considerations for disciplinary severity with restitution and lack of prior discipline)
- In re Figliola, 652 A.2d 1071 (Del. 1995) (misappropriation with restitution and mitigating factors)
- Haas v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 412 Md. 536 (Md. 2010) (conclusive effect of other jurisdiction’s adjudication in reciprocal discipline)