Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 43 September Term, 2010 _________________________________________

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. ROBERT J. PLESHAW _________________________________________

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Adkins Barbera,

JJ. _________________________________________

ORDER Harrell and Murphy, JJ., Dissent. _________________________________________

Filed: March 22, 2011

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. ROBERT J. PLESHAW

* * * * *

In the Court of Appeals of Maryland Misc. Docket AG No. 43 September Term, 2010

O R D E R
Upon consideration of the petition for disciplinary or remedial action filed in the above entitled matter in accordance with Md. Rule 16-773 and a response only having been made by Bar Counsel to the show cause order, it is this 22nd day of March, 2011 ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland (a majority concurring), that Robert J. Pleshaw be, and he is hereby, disbarred, effective immediately, from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, until such time he is reinstated to the practice of law in and by the District of Columbia, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall forthwith strike the name of Robert J. Pleshaw from the register of attorneys, in this Court and shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State in accordance with Rule 16760(e).

/s/ Robert M. Bell CHIEF JUDGE Dissenting Opinion by Harrell and Murphy, JJ., attached.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 43 September Term, 2010

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. ROBERT J. PLESHAW

Bell, C.J., Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Adkins Barbera, JJ.

Dissenting Opinion by Harrell, J., which Murphy, J., joins

Filed: March 22, 2011

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ("D.C. Court"), on 12 August 2010, disbarred Robert J. Pleshaw ("Pleshaw") from the practice of law in the District of Columbia ("D.C.") for an ethical faux-pas he committed in a probate matter in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. As Pleshaw is also admitted to practice law in Maryland, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel, petitioned this Court under Md. Rule 16-773(b), to impose reciprocal discipline, i.e., disbarment. We issued a Show Cause Order, requiring Pleshaw to "show cause . . . why reciprocal discipline shall not be ordered by this Court." Pleshaw did not respond. The Court Majority disbarred Pleshaw by order. That Pleshaw failed to respond, however, does not relieve this Court of its duty to engage in critical thought regarding what the proper reciprocal discipline is in this matter. Before imposing reciprocal discipline, this Court has a longstanding and independent duty to consider what discipline is appropriate, i.e., consistent with Maryland attorney disciplinary jurisprudence. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Cafferty, 376 Md. 700, 727, 831 A.2d 1042, 1058 (2003). With no apparent analysis, the Majority here imposes disbarment. Comparing the conceded facts of the present case to similar Maryland attorney disciplinary matters (in particular, Attorney Grievance Commission v. Whitehead, 390 Md. 663, 890 A.2d 751 (2006)) reveals to me, however, that disbarring Pleshaw is inconsistent with our cases and, therefore, not proper reciprocal discipline. Because, in my view, Pleshaw should not be disbarred, I dissent. I. I open with a brief recitation of the relevant facts. In its opinion, In re Robert J.

Pleshaw, 2 A.3d 169 (D.C. 2010), the D.C. Court imposed disbarment on the basis of a single violation in a single incident involving the misappropriation of conservator funds

Download Attorney Grievance v. Pleshaw.pdf

Maryland Law