Attorney Grievance Commission v. Zodrow
19 A.3d 381
Md.2011Background
- Reciprocal discipline arising from Colorado discipline of Respondent for admitted misconduct.
- Colorado suspended Respondent for one year and one day after accepting his Conditional Admission of Misconduct.
- Maryland AGC petitioned for disciplinary action under Md. Rules 16-773 and 16-751, attaching Colorado order and admission.
- Judge Kiessling held a November 8, 2010 hearing and found the Colorado admissions established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated MRPC 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4.
- The Court held that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in Maryland, despite the Colorado suspension, based on the gravity and dishonesty involved in Respondent’s bankruptcy conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reciprocal discipline is appropriate here | Bar Counsel argues Maryland should align sanctions with Colorado. | Zodrow contends reciprocal discipline should mirror Colorado. | Disbarment warranted; substantial differences justify Maryland sanction. |
| Whether Respondent violated MRPC 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4 | AGC proved violations via Colorado admission of misconduct. | Respondent admitted the conduct but seeks mitigation. | Yes, violations proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| What sanction Maryland should impose | Discipline should reflect Colorado sanction. | Suspension sufficient under Maryland standards. | Disbarment is the appropriate sanction. |
| Whether Colorado conditional admission is conclusive in Maryland | Admission should be treated as conclusive evidence under Md. Rule 16-773(g). | Admission should be conditional unless accepted. | Admissions accepted and controlling; conclusive evidence under Md. Rule 16-773(g). |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Weiss, 389 Md. 531 (2005) (discretion to impose different sanctions in reciprocal discipline; public protection)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Whitehead, 390 Md. 663 (2006) (limit of reciprocal discipline; deference to other jurisdiction's sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gordon, 413 Md. 46 (2010) ( maryland-sanction fit for conduct; disbarment often for intentional dishonesty)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Byrd, 408 Md. 449 (2009) (disbarment for intentional dishonesty in bankruptcy context)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (2009) (disbarment for conspiracy-related dishonesty; strong sanction for 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Willcher, 340 Md. 217 (1995) (example of disbarring for deceitful conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sucklal, 418 Md. 1 (2011) (purpose of discipline; deterrence and public protection)