Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 27 September Term, 2002

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. ALAN FRANK LYN POST

Bell, C.J. *Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia JJ.

Opinion by Bell, C.J. File: December 23, 2003 * Eldridge, 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 Cons titution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decisio n and a doptio n of this opinio n.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar C ounsel, acting at the direction of the Review Board , see Maryland Rule 16-709,1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary Action ag ainst Alan F ranklyn Post, th e respond ent, in which it was charged that the responde nt violated Rules 1.15, and 8.4, Misconduct2 of the Maryland Rules of

1

Until July 1, 2001, Maryland Rule 16-709, as relevant, provided:

"a. Who may file. Charges against an attorney shall be filed by the Bar Coun sel actin g at the d irection of the R eview Board ." Adopted November 30, 2000, effective July 1, 2001, Maryland Rule 16-741 now governs the filing of statements of charges after that date. It provides: "(a) Filing of Statement of Charges. "(1) Upo n comple tion of an in vestigation, B ar Coun sel shall file with the Commission a Statement of Charges if Bar Counse l determines that: "(A) the attorney either engaged in conduct constituting p rofessiona l miscondu ct or is incapacitated; "(B) the professional misconduct or the incapacity doe s not warra nt an imm ediate Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action; "(C) a Co nditional D iversion A greemen t is either not appropriate under the circumstances or the parties were unable to agree on one; and "(D) a reprimand is either not appropriate under the circumstances or (i) one was offered and rejected by the attorney, or (ii) a proposed reprimand was disapproved by the Commission and Bar Counsel was directed to file a Statem ent of C harges ."

2

Rule 8.4, as relevant, provides: "It is professio nal miscon duct for a la wyer to: * * * * (b) c omm it a cr imin al act that refle cts adversely o n the lawyer's h onesty,

Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812. Bar Counsel also alleged that the responde nt violated M aryland Rule 16-609 3 and Maryland Code (1989, 1995 The alleged

Replacement Volume)

Download Attorney Grievance v. Post.pdf

Maryland Law