aggravating and mitigating factors in Maryland

2024We consider “the rules that were violated, the mental state of the attorney, the injuries, if any, inflicted by the attorney’s misconduct, and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Taniform, 482 Md. 272, 316 (2022) (citing Allenbaugh, 450 Md. at 277 ).

2023Allenbaugh, 450 Md. at 277 . 39 The Commission, relying primarily on Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lang, 461 Md. 1 (2018), urges us to indefinitely suspend Mr. Farmer.

2024We consider “the rules that were violated, the mental state of the attorney, the injuries, if any, inflicted by the attorney’s misconduct, and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Taniform, 482 Md. 272, 316 (2022) (citing Allenbaugh, 450 Md. at 277 ).

2022In Slate, 457 Md. at 649 , 180 A.3d at 157 , applying the principles discussed, in light of the attorney’s misconduct and the aggravating and mitigating factors, “[w]e fully agree[d] with Bar Counsel that” disbarment was the appropriate sanction, given that the attorney “knowingly engaged in dishonesty in multiple instances.” We stated that there was “little doubt that, had [the attorney]’s dishonesty come to light during the bar application process, we would have determined that he lacked the character and fitness necessary for admission to the Bar of Maryland.” Id. at 649 , 180 A.3d at 157 (

2022In Slate, 457 Md. at 649 , 180 A.3d at 157 , applying the principles discussed, in light of the attorney’s misconduct and the aggravating and mitigating factors, “[w]e fully agree[d] with Bar Counsel that” disbarment was the appropriate sanction, given that the attorney “knowingly engaged in dishonesty in multiple instances.” We stated that there was “little doubt that, had [the attorney]’s dishonesty come to light during the bar application process, we would have determined that he lacked the character and fitness necessary for admission to the Bar of Maryland.” Id. at 649 , 180 A.3d at 157 (

2022Aggravating Factors “Aggravating factors are essentially the antithesis of mitigating factors and militate in favor of a more severe sanction.” Miller, 467 Md. at 233 (internal quotations omitted).

2018See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Lane , 367 Md. 633 , 646, 790 A.2d 621 , 628 (2002) ("[W]e must examine the facts, circumstances, and mitigation involved in each case and not take a procrustean approach").

2018See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Lane , 367 Md. 633 , 646, 790 A.2d 621 , 628 (2002) ("[W]e must examine the facts, circumstances, and mitigation involved in each case and not take a procrustean approach").

2016Pursuant to Standard 9.22 of the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, this Court has recognized the following aggravating factors in attorney disciplinary cases: (a) prior disciplinary offenses; (b) dishonest or selfish motive; (c) a pattern of misconduct; (d) multiple offenses; (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; (f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process; (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful

2016Pursuant to Standard 9.22 of the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, this Court has recognized the following aggravating factors in attorney disciplinary cases: (a) prior disciplinary offenses; (b) dishonest or selfish motive; (c) a pattern of misconduct; (d) multiple offenses; (e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; (f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process; (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful

2003See Maziarz v. State, 302 Md. 1, 6 , 485 A.2d 245, 247 (1984) (finding that the standard applied by the trial court, that “death is said to be ‘mandated’ unless the mitigating circumstances are ‘overwhelming’ ... grossly distorts the statute to prejudice the accused”). *602 Bryant further insists that the court’s use of the 51% figure in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors represents a kind of mechanistic counting criticized by this Court in Jones v. State, 310 Md. 569, 600-01 , 530 A.2d 743, 758-59 (1987), vacated on other grounds, 486 U.S. 1050, 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d 916 (

2003See Maziarz v. State, 302 Md. 1, 6 , 485 A.2d 245, 247 (1984) (finding that the standard applied by the trial court, that “death is said to be ‘mandated’ unless the mitigating circumstances are ‘overwhelming’ ... grossly distorts the statute to prejudice the accused”). *602 Bryant further insists that the court’s use of the 51% figure in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors represents a kind of mechanistic counting criticized by this Court in Jones v. State, 310 Md. 569, 600-01 , 530 A.2d 743, 758-59 (1987), vacated on other grounds, 486 U.S. 1050, 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d 916 (

2003See Maziarz v. State, 302 Md. 1, 6 , 485 A.2d 245, 247 (1984) (finding that the standard applied by the trial court, that “death is said to be ‘mandated’ unless the mitigating circumstances are ‘overwhelming’ ... grossly distorts the statute to prejudice the accused”). *602 Bryant further insists that the court’s use of the 51% figure in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors represents a kind of mechanistic counting criticized by this Court in Jones v. State, 310 Md. 569, 600-01 , 530 A.2d 743, 758-59 (1987), vacated on other grounds, 486 U.S. 1050, 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d 916 (

2003See Maziarz v. State, 302 Md. 1, 6 , 485 A.2d 245, 247 (1984) (finding that the standard applied by the trial court, that “death is said to be ‘mandated’ unless the mitigating circumstances are ‘overwhelming’ ... grossly distorts the statute to prejudice the accused”). *602 Bryant further insists that the court’s use of the 51% figure in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors represents a kind of mechanistic counting criticized by this Court in Jones v. State, 310 Md. 569, 600-01 , 530 A.2d 743, 758-59 (1987), vacated on other grounds, 486 U.S. 1050, 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d 916 (

2003See Maziarz v. State, 302 Md. 1, 6 , 485 A.2d 245, 247 (1984) (finding that the standard applied by the trial court, that “death is said to be ‘mandated’ unless the mitigating circumstances are ‘overwhelming’ ... grossly distorts the statute to prejudice the accused”). *602 Bryant further insists that the court’s use of the 51% figure in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors represents a kind of mechanistic counting criticized by this Court in Jones v. State, 310 Md. 569, 600-01 , 530 A.2d 743, 758-59 (1987), vacated on other grounds, 486 U.S. 1050, 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d 916 (

2003See Maziarz v. State, 302 Md. 1, 6 , 485 A.2d 245, 247 (1984) (finding that the standard applied by the trial court, that “death is said to be ‘mandated’ unless the mitigating circumstances are ‘overwhelming’ ... grossly distorts the statute to prejudice the accused”). *602 Bryant further insists that the court’s use of the 51% figure in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors represents a kind of mechanistic counting criticized by this Court in Jones v. State, 310 Md. 569, 600-01 , 530 A.2d 743, 758-59 (1987), vacated on other grounds, 486 U.S. 1050, 108 S.Ct. 2815 , 100 L.Ed.2d 916 (

1992The statute at issue in both State v. Hunt, 115 N.J. 330 , 558 A.2d 1259 (1989) and State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123 , 524 A.2d 188 (1987) provided: The jury, or if there is no jury, the court shall return a special verdict setting forth in writing the existence or non-existence of each of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection.

1992The statute at issue in both State v. Hunt, 115 N.J. 330 , 558 A.2d 1259 (1989) and State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123 , 524 A.2d 188 (1987) provided: The jury, or if there is no jury, the court shall return a special verdict setting forth in writing the existence or non-existence of each of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection.

1992The statute at issue in both State v. Hunt, 115 N.J. 330 , 558 A.2d 1259 (1989) and State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123 , 524 A.2d 188 (1987) provided: The jury, or if there is no jury, the court shall return a special verdict setting forth in writing the existence or non-existence of each of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection.

1992The statute at issue in both State v. Hunt, 115 N.J. 330 , 558 A.2d 1259 (1989) and State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123 , 524 A.2d 188 (1987) provided: The jury, or if there is no jury, the court shall return a special verdict setting forth in writing the existence or non-existence of each of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection.

1983We view such arguments as improper.” 290 Md. at 125, 428 A.2d at 440.

1983We view such arguments as improper." 290 Md. at 125, 428 A.2d at 440.