Preview:

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dana Andrew Paul, AG No. 51, September 2007 HEADNOTES Legal Ethics > Sanctions > Disciplinary Proceedings > General Overview: See Md. Rule 16-751(a). Legal Ethics > Candor Toward the Tribunal: See Md. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3. Legal Ethics > Professional Conduct > Illegal Conduct: See Md. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4. Legal Ethics > Sanctions > Disciplinary Proceedings > General Overview: See Md. Rule 16-752(a). Legal Ethics > Sanctions > Disciplinary Proceedings > General Overview: See Md. Rule 16-757(c). Legal Ethics > Sanctions > Disciplinary Proceedings > General Overview: See Md. Rule 16-757(b). Maryland Rules > General Provisions > Signing of Pleadings: See Md. Rule 1-311(b). Maryland Rules > General Provisions > Filing of Pleadings: See Md. Rule 1-322(b). Legal Ethics > Sanctions > Disciplinary Proceedings > General Overview: See Md. Rule 16-758(b). Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > Clearly Erroneous Review: Exceptions will be overruled when the findings are not clearly erroneous. Legal Ethics > Professional Conduct > Intent: The respondent's actions subsequent to making the alteration were relevant to determine his intent. Specifically, what the respondent did when confronted with the alteration and how he defended the disciplinary action brought as a result are relevant to a determination of his intent in, and justification for, making the alteration. Legal Ethics > Sanctions > General Overview: The purpose of attorney discipline is not to punish the erring attorney, but to protect the public and ensure the integrity of the bar. Legal Ethics > Sanctions > General Overview: The appropriate sanction for the particular misconduct generally depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case,

including any aggravating or mitigating circumstances and the attorney's prior grievance history; we also look to our past cases involving attorney discipline when imposing sanctions. Legal Ethics > Sanctions > General Overview: Model Code of Prof'l Responsibility Std. 3.0 creates an organizational framework in determining a sanction for lawyer misconduct which calls for considering four questions: (1) What is the nature of the ethical duty violated? (2) What was the lawyer's mental state? (3) What was the extent of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct? (4) Are there any aggravating or mitigating circumstances? Legal Ethics > Sanctions > General Overview: The mitigating factors in determining sanctions against a lawyer, listed in the American Bar Association Standards, include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, personal or emotional problems, timely good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct, full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, inexperience in the practice of law, character or reputation, physical or mental disability or impairment, delay in disciplinary proceedings, interim rehabilitation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, remorse, and finally, remoteness of prior offenses. Legal Ethics > Sanctions > Reprimands: The Court of Appeals of Maryland has determined that under certain circumstances a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction when an attorney has been found to have violated various disciplinary rules, including Md. Rules 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 3.3(a). Legal Ethics > Sanctions > Reprimands: Where the respondent's misconduct did not prejudice and was not detrimental to his clients, and where, although his alteration of the document was intentional, his misconduct was not willful and his motivation for the alteration was not fraudulent, a reprimand and not a suspension is ordered. Legal Ethics > Sanctions > Reprimands: Such remedial actions as expressing remorse for misconduct and seeking ethics counseling and other forms of rehabilitation dramatically reduce the likelihood that the conduct will be repeated.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 51 September Term, 2007

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. DANA ANDREW PAUL

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia *Murphy Adkins Barbera Eldridge, John C., (Retired, specially assigned) JJ.

Opinion by Bell, C.J. Battaglia, Adkins and Barbera dissent.

Filed: October 31, 2011 *Murphy, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary Action against Dana Andrew Paul, the respondent. The petition charged that the respondent violated Rules 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal2 and 8.4, Misconduct,3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812, and Maryland Code (2002)

Download Attorney Grievance v. Paul.pdf

Maryland Law