248 A.3d 1019
Md.2021Background
- Nicholas G. Karambelas was Ida Moss’s longtime attorney (met 1996); Moss died in 2002 and Karambelas delayed opening her estate until 2005.
- Karambelas knew of a 1995 will and signed a 1997 codicil appointing him successor personal representative, but filed the estate as intestate and withheld the will from the Register of Wills/Orphans’ Court.
- He directed sale of the Wheaton property; the $852,305.50 net proceeds were wired to his D.C. IOLTA account and he transferred funds to his personal account and paid personal/family expenses; an expert later attributed about $576,990.82 to misappropriation.
- Karambelas filed misleading inventory/accounts with the Orphans’ Court (omitting assets and mischaracterizing beneficiaries), failed to advise or timely handle estate tax returns/taxes, and lied to his client that proceeds were lost in the 2008 market crash.
- A civil malpractice suit settled for $850,000 (malpractice carrier $500,000; Karambelas $350,000 paid by 2015). Bar Counsel filed a disciplinary petition; the Court of Appeals adopted the hearing judge’s findings and disbarred Karambelas (per curiam order Oct. 6, 2020).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misappropriation / safekeeping (MRPC 1.15; D.C. Rule 1.15; Md. Bus. Occ. §10-306) | Karambelas placed estate sale proceeds in his IOLTA, commingled funds, transferred large sums to personal account, kept no ledgers — willful misappropriation (~$576,990). | Karambelas points to the settlement and payments made (partial restitution) and challenges characterization. | Court found clear-and-convincing misappropriation, violation of MRPC 1.15, D.C. Rule 1.15, and §10-306; conduct was willful and supported sanctioning. |
| Candor to tribunal (MRPC 3.3) | He knowingly misrepresented that Moss died intestate, withheld the will, and filed false/incomplete inventories/accounts with the Orphans’ Court. | He claimed he never saw the original/final will and that documents were kept by clients. | Court rejected defenses, held statements and omissions were knowingly false, violating Rule 3.3. |
| Competence and communication (MRPC 1.1, 1.4) | He failed to timely open/administer the estate, failed to advise or secure estate tax compliance, failed to file required accounts, and failed to keep client reasonably informed. | He argued he was not tax counsel, cited health and long practice without prior discipline. | Court held he breached duties of competence and communication; violations of Rules 1.1 and 1.4 proven. |
| Sanction & mitigation | Petitioner sought disbarment given misappropriation and dishonesty. | Karambelas urged mitigation: no prior discipline, restitution via settlement, remoteness, and unlikelihood of repetition. | Court found only absence of prior discipline as mitigating; numerous aggravating factors outweighed mitigation and imposed disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642 (Md. 2019) (standard of review in disciplinary proceedings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (Md. 2006) (failure of thoroughness/preparation supports Rule 1.1 violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (Md. 2012) (untimely or omitted action can violate Rule 1.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 334 (Md. 1991) (estate funds belong to estate; misappropriation intolerable)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. 124 (Md. 2005) (intentional misappropriation is deceit/dishonesty under Rule 8.4)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sullivan, 369 Md. 650 (Md. 2002) (misappropriation ordinarily warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Joseph, 422 Md. 670 (Md. 2011) (intentional dishonest conduct supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Whitehead, 405 Md. 240 (Md. 2008) (post-inquiry reimbursement does not necessarily mitigate misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Miller, 467 Md. 176 (Md. 2020) (timeliness and good faith of restitution are relevant mitigation factors)