Preview:

Circuit Co urt for Baltim ore City Case No. 24-C-03-000384

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 92 September Term, 2002 ______________________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. STEVEN JOHN POTTER ______________________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Eldridge, John C. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ. ______________________________________________ Opinion by Raker, J. ______________________________________________ Filed: March 9, 2004

The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against Steven John Potter, alleging violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. The Commission charged respondent with violating Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (Communication),1 1.7 (Conflict of interest),2 and 8.4 (Misconduct).3 Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-752(a), we referred the matter to
1

Rule 1.4 provides as follows: "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation." Rule 1.7 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation. (c) The consultation required by paragraphs (a) and (b) shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and any limitations resulting from the lawyer's responsibilities to another, or from the lawyer's own interests, as well as the advantages and risks involved." Rule 8.4 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty,

2

3

Judge Stuart R. Berger of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to make findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law. Judge Berger held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that respondent had not violated any of the Rules.

I. Judge Berger made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT "1. Respondent, Steven J. Potter, Esq. is 39 years old. He graduated from law school in 1989 and was ad mitted to the M aryland B ar in 19 90. After completing a judicial clerkship, he began to practice law thereafte r as an employee with the Law Office of Sheldon Braiterm an, P.A. In February 1992, he left his employment at the Law Office of Sheldon Braiterman. From 1992 1997, the Respondent had his own practice. There is no evidence of any prior disciplinary complaints filed against the Respondent during his 13 year tenure as a member o f the Maryland Ba r. "2. Andr

Download Attorney Grievance v. Potter.pdf

Maryland Law