Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. D ocket A G No . 4 September Term, 2006 ______________________________________

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

JOHN H. MIDLEN, JR.

______________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Wilner, J. ______________________________________ Filed: December 4, 2006

This is a reciproca l discipline cas e govern ed by Mar yland Rule 1 6-773. In A pril, 2006, Bar Co unsel, havin g learned th at, in November, 2005, the District of Columbia C ourt of Appeals had found that respondent, John Midlen, Jr., violated certain D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (DCRPC) and had suspended him from the practice of law for a period of eightee n mon ths, filed a petition seekin g recipr ocal dis cipline in Marylan d. The petition, filed pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-773(b), alleged that, based on the findings of the D.C. Court, Midlen h ad violated Maryland R ules of Pro fessional C onduct (MRPC) 1.15 (safekeeping property in which a client has an interest), 1.1 6 (requirem ents upon termination of representation), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (violating other MRPC; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that is prejudicial to administration of justic e). In accordance with Rule 16-773(c) we issued an order directing the parties to show cause why, based on any of the grounds s et forth in Rule 16-773(e), corresponding discipline should not be imposed. Both parties responded to that order. Mr. Midlen's principal response was (1) that the suspension by the D.C. Court of Appeals violated his right to due process of law in that the cou rt, by adopting th e recomm endation o f its Board of Professional Responsibility, effectively discarded the factual findings of the Hearing Committee that had been appointed to consider the complaint of the D.C. Ba r Counsel, findings w hich, in Mr. Midlen's view, were binding on the court, and (2) that the eighteen month suspension conflicted with sanctions impo sed by this Court for comparable violations. We find no merit in Midlen's response, b ut shall exam ine the ma nner in w hich the rec iprocal sanc tion should

be implemented. To address Midlen's response, it is necessary to understand both the procedure for resolving disciplinary complaints in the District of Columbia and the nature of the charges filed against him in that jurisdiction . We desc ribed the disc iplinary proced ure in the District in Attorney G riev. Comm'n v. Parsons, 310 M d. 132, 1 38-39 , n.6, 527 A.2d 3 25, 328 , n.6 (1987), and it appears from the current D.C. Bar Rules that the procedure there has not changed substantially since then. In addition to Bar Co unsel, whose duties are to receive and investigate co mplaints an d prosecu te disciplinary proceedings, there are three layers to the disciplinary process

Download Attorney Grievance v. Midlen.pdf

Maryland Law