member bar in Maryland

2015See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mininsohn, 380 Md. 536, 562, 573 , 846 A.2d 353 (2004) (disbarring an attorney for “willfully and regularly” violating MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d) because that misconduct demonstrates a “lack of honesty and proclivity for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e have held that disbarment follows as a matter of course ‘when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstan

2015See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mininsohn, 380 Md. 536, 562, 573 , 846 A.2d 353 (2004) (disbarring an attorney for “willfully and regularly” violating MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d) because that misconduct demonstrates a “lack of honesty and proclivity for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e have held that disbarment follows as a matter of course ‘when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstan

2016See Zodrow, 419 Md. at 304 , 19 A.3d at 392 . “[Disbarment follows as a matter of course, ‘when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstancesId. (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guberman, 392 Md. 131, 137 , 896 A.2d 337, 340-41 (2006)).

2016See Zodrow, 419 Md. at 304 , 19 A.3d at 392 . “[Disbarment follows as a matter of course, ‘when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstancesId. (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guberman, 392 Md. 131, 137 , 896 A.2d 337, 340-41 (2006)).

1985To do other than disbar the respondent in this case, therefore, would constitute a travesty of our responsibility.” 271 Md. at 553, 318 A.2d at 817.

1977Bar Ass'n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543 , 318 A.2d 811 (1974): "[W]hen a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances, ... disbarment follow[s] as a matter of course." 271 Md. at 553, 318 A.2d at 817.

1999Bar Ass’n v. Callanan, 271 Md. 554 , 318 A.2d 809 (1974), that when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances, not shown to be present here, disbarment followed as a matter of course.

1999Bar Ass’n v. Callanan, 271 Md. 554 , 318 A.2d 809 (1974), that when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances, not shown to be present here, disbarment followed as a matter of course.

1996We said: “[WJhen a member of the bar of this Court is found to have betrayed the high trust imposed in him by appropriating to his own use funds of others entrusted to him, as Marshall did, then, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances, which we do not find to be present here, disbarment should follow as a matter of course.” 269 Md. at 520 , 307 A.2d at 682 (emphasis added).

1996We said: “[WJhen a member of the bar of this Court is found to have betrayed the high trust imposed in him by appropriating to his own use funds of others entrusted to him, as Marshall did, then, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances, which we do not find to be present here, disbarment should follow as a matter of course.” 269 Md. at 520 , 307 A.2d at 682 (emphasis added).

2019"Ghost-writing is best described as when a member of the bar represents a pro se litigant informally or otherwise, and prepares pleadings, motions, or briefs for the pro se litigant which the assisting lawyer does not sign, and thus escapes the professional, ethical, and substantive obligations imposed on members of the bar." In re Dreamplay, Inc. , 534 B.R. 106 , 120 (Bankr.D.Md.2015) (quoting In re Mungo , 305 B.R. 762 , 767 (Bankr.D.S.C.2003) ).

2019“Ghost-writing is best described as when a member of the bar represents a pro se litigant informally or otherwise, and prepares pleadings, motions, or briefs for the pro se litigant which the assisting lawyer does not sign, and thus escapes the professional, ethical, and substantive obligations imposed on members of the bar.” In re Dreamplay, Inc., 534 B.R. 106, 120 (Bankr.D.Md.2015) (quoting In re Mungo, 305 B.R. 762, 767 (Bankr.D.S.C.2003)).

2019"Ghost-writing is best described as when a member of the bar represents a pro se litigant informally or otherwise, and prepares pleadings, motions, or briefs for the pro se litigant which the assisting lawyer does not sign, and thus escapes the professional, ethical, and substantive obligations imposed on members of the bar." In re Dreamplay, Inc. , 534 B.R. 106 , 120 (Bankr.D.Md.2015) (quoting In re Mungo , 305 B.R. 762 , 767 (Bankr.D.S.C.2003) ).

2019“Ghost-writing is best described as when a member of the bar represents a pro se litigant informally or otherwise, and prepares pleadings, motions, or briefs for the pro se litigant which the assisting lawyer does not sign, and thus escapes the professional, ethical, and substantive obligations imposed on members of the bar.” In re Dreamplay, Inc., 534 B.R. 106, 120 (Bankr.D.Md.2015) (quoting In re Mungo, 305 B.R. 762, 767 (Bankr.D.S.C.2003)).

2011Respondent’s conduct “involv[ed] dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, [which] carries] the risk of the ultimate sanction by this Court.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. White, 354 Md. 346, 366 , 731 A.2d 447, 458 (1999). “[W]e have held that disbarment follows as a matter of course “when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances....’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guberman, 392 Md. 131, 137 , 896 A.2d 337, 340-41 (2006) (quoting Maryland State Bar Ass’n, Inc. v. Agnew,

2011Respondent’s conduct “involv[ed] dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, [which] carries] the risk of the ultimate sanction by this Court.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. White, 354 Md. 346, 366 , 731 A.2d 447, 458 (1999). “[W]e have held that disbarment follows as a matter of course “when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances....’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guberman, 392 Md. 131, 137 , 896 A.2d 337, 340-41 (2006) (quoting Maryland State Bar Ass’n, Inc. v. Agnew,

2010Yet, at bottom, Respondent fails to persuade us that something short of disbarment is appropriate in order to protect the public and deter other attorneys from similar misconduct."); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Lazerow, 320 Md. 507, 515-16 , 578 A.2d 779, 783 (1990) ("[Respondent]'s general good character and reputation, the lack of prior misconduct, his restitution of the funds, and his remorse and shame are not compelling extenuating circumstances that would warrant a sanction less than disbarment."). [17] This Court has long held that "when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dish

2010Yet, at bottom, Respondent fails to persuade us that something short of disbarment is appropriate in order to protect the public and deter other attorneys from similar misconduct."); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Lazerow, 320 Md. 507, 515-16 , 578 A.2d 779, 783 (1990) ("[Respondent]'s general good character and reputation, the lack of prior misconduct, his restitution of the funds, and his remorse and shame are not compelling extenuating circumstances that would warrant a sanction less than disbarment."). [17] This Court has long held that "when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dish

1989The scope of Kennedy’s activity as a member of the bar of the federal court in Maryland is analogous to the problem presented in Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 , 83 S.Ct. 1322 , 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963).

1989The scope of Kennedy’s activity as a member of the bar of the federal court in Maryland is analogous to the problem presented in Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 , 83 S.Ct. 1322 , 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963).

2006Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440, 446 , 635 A.2d 1315, 1318 (1994), we have held that disbarment follows as a matter of course “when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances ...” Agnew, 271 Md. at 553-54 , 318 A.2d at 817 .

2006Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440, 446 , 635 A.2d 1315, 1318 (1994), we have held that disbarment follows as a matter of course “when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances ...” Agnew, 271 Md. at 553-54 , 318 A.2d at 817 .

2016See Zodrow, 419 Md. at 304 , 19 A.3d at 392 . “[Disbarment follows as a matter of course, ‘when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstancesId. (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guberman, 392 Md. 131, 137 , 896 A.2d 337, 340-41 (2006)).

2016See Zodrow, 419 Md. at 304 , 19 A.3d at 392 . “[Disbarment follows as a matter of course, ‘when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstancesId. (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guberman, 392 Md. 131, 137 , 896 A.2d 337, 340-41 (2006)).

2015See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mininsohn, 380 Md. 536, 562, 573 , 846 A.2d 353 (2004) (disbarring an attorney for “willfully and regularly” violating MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d) because that misconduct demonstrates a “lack of honesty and proclivity for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e have held that disbarment follows as a matter of course ‘when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstan

2015See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mininsohn, 380 Md. 536, 562, 573 , 846 A.2d 353 (2004) (disbarring an attorney for “willfully and regularly” violating MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d) because that misconduct demonstrates a “lack of honesty and proclivity for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e have held that disbarment follows as a matter of course ‘when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstan

2014Petitioner underscores that we have found disbarment to be appropriate when addressing “ ‘repeated material misrepresentations that constitute a pattern of deceitful conduct, as opposed to an isolated instance[.]’ ” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337, 373 , 910 A.2d 429, 450 (2006) (quoting Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633, 647 , 790 A.2d 621, 629 (2002)).

2014Petitioner underscores that we have found disbarment to be appropriate when addressing “ ‘repeated material misrepresentations that constitute a pattern of deceitful conduct, as opposed to an isolated instance[.]’ ” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337, 373 , 910 A.2d 429, 450 (2006) (quoting Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633, 647 , 790 A.2d 621, 629 (2002)).

2014Petitioner underscores that we have found disbarment to be appropriate when addressing “ ‘repeated material misrepresentations that constitute a pattern of deceitful conduct, as opposed to an isolated instance[.]’ ” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337, 373 , 910 A.2d 429, 450 (2006) (quoting Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633, 647 , 790 A.2d 621, 629 (2002)).

2014Petitioner underscores that we have found disbarment to be appropriate when addressing “ ‘repeated material misrepresentations that constitute a pattern of deceitful conduct, as opposed to an isolated instance[.]’ ” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337, 373 , 910 A.2d 429, 450 (2006) (quoting Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633, 647 , 790 A.2d 621, 629 (2002)).

2013See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ellison, 384 Md. 688, 716 , 867 A.2d 259, 275 (2005) (“Unlike matters relating to competency, diligence and the like, intentional dishonest conduct is closely entwined with the most important matters of basic character to such a degree as to make intentional dishonest conduct by a lawyer almost beyond excuse.” (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418 , 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001))); Vance, 273 Md. at 84-85 , 327 A.2d at 770 (noting that “[i]t is questionable whether [acts of misrepresentation and dishonesty] can ever be so lightly

2013See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ellison, 384 Md. 688, 716 , 867 A.2d 259, 275 (2005) (“Unlike matters relating to competency, diligence and the like, intentional dishonest conduct is closely entwined with the most important matters of basic character to such a degree as to make intentional dishonest conduct by a lawyer almost beyond excuse.” (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418 , 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001))); Vance, 273 Md. at 84-85 , 327 A.2d at 770 (noting that “[i]t is questionable whether [acts of misrepresentation and dishonesty] can ever be so lightly

2013See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ellison, 384 Md. 688, 716 , 867 A.2d 259, 275 (2005) (“Unlike matters relating to competency, diligence and the like, intentional dishonest conduct is closely entwined with the most important matters of basic character to such a degree as to make intentional dishonest conduct by a lawyer almost beyond excuse.” (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418 , 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001))); Vance, 273 Md. at 84-85 , 327 A.2d at 770 (noting that “[i]t is questionable whether [acts of misrepresentation and dishonesty] can ever be so lightly

2013See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ellison, 384 Md. 688, 716 , 867 A.2d 259, 275 (2005) (“Unlike matters relating to competency, diligence and the like, intentional dishonest conduct is closely entwined with the most important matters of basic character to such a degree as to make intentional dishonest conduct by a lawyer almost beyond excuse.” (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418 , 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001))); Vance, 273 Md. at 84-85 , 327 A.2d at 770 (noting that “[i]t is questionable whether [acts of misrepresentation and dishonesty] can ever be so lightly

2013See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ellison, 384 Md. 688, 716 , 867 A.2d 259, 275 (2005) (“Unlike matters relating to competency, diligence and the like, intentional dishonest conduct is closely entwined with the most important matters of basic character to such a degree as to make intentional dishonest conduct by a lawyer almost beyond excuse.” (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418 , 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001))); Vance, 273 Md. at 84-85 , 327 A.2d at 770 (noting that “[i]t is questionable whether [acts of misrepresentation and dishonesty] can ever be so lightly

2013See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ellison, 384 Md. 688, 716 , 867 A.2d 259, 275 (2005) (“Unlike matters relating to competency, diligence and the like, intentional dishonest conduct is closely entwined with the most important matters of basic character to such a degree as to make intentional dishonest conduct by a lawyer almost beyond excuse.” (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418 , 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001))); Vance, 273 Md. at 84-85 , 327 A.2d at 770 (noting that “[i]t is questionable whether [acts of misrepresentation and dishonesty] can ever be so lightly

2011Under Palmer, 3 and Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ezrin, 312 Md. 603, 609 , 541 A.2d 966, 969 (1988), the mitigat *677 ing factors found by the Hearing Judge do not constitute “compelling extenuating circumstances ... that would warrant a sanction other than disbarment.” As this Court stated in Palmer, supra: This Court has long held that “when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, cheating, or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances, disbarment follow[s] as a matter of course.” Md.

2011Under Palmer, 3 and Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ezrin, 312 Md. 603, 609 , 541 A.2d 966, 969 (1988), the mitigat *677 ing factors found by the Hearing Judge do not constitute “compelling extenuating circumstances ... that would warrant a sanction other than disbarment.” As this Court stated in Palmer, supra: This Court has long held that “when a member of the bar is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, cheating, or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances, disbarment follow[s] as a matter of course.” Md.

2011IV, § 2, it is "not necessary for a judge of an orphans’ court to be a member of the bar.” Kadan v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 273 Md. 406, 407 , 329 A.2d 702, 702 (1974).

2011IV, § 2, it is "not necessary for a judge of an orphans’ court to be a member of the bar.” Kadan v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 273 Md. 406, 407 , 329 A.2d 702, 702 (1974).

2009State Bar Assoc, v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 550 , 318 A.2d 811 (1974), Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alison, 317 Md. 523, 540 , 565 A.2d 660, 668 (1989), citing In Re Segall, 117 I11.2d 1, 109 Ill.Dec. 149 , 509 N.E.2d 988, 990 (1987).

2009State Bar Assoc, v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 550 , 318 A.2d 811 (1974), Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alison, 317 Md. 523, 540 , 565 A.2d 660, 668 (1989), citing In Re Segall, 117 I11.2d 1, 109 Ill.Dec. 149 , 509 N.E.2d 988, 990 (1987).

2009State Bar Assoc, v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 550 , 318 A.2d 811 (1974), Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alison, 317 Md. 523, 540 , 565 A.2d 660, 668 (1989), citing In Re Segall, 117 I11.2d 1, 109 Ill.Dec. 149 , 509 N.E.2d 988, 990 (1987).

2009State Bar Assoc, v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 550 , 318 A.2d 811 (1974), Attorney Grievance Commission v. Alison, 317 Md. 523, 540 , 565 A.2d 660, 668 (1989), citing In Re Segall, 117 I11.2d 1, 109 Ill.Dec. 149 , 509 N.E.2d 988, 990 (1987).

2007See also Daly, 200 N.W.2d at 914 (recognizing that none of the persons seeking to become judge was admitted to the Minnesota Bar).

2007See also Daly, 200 N.W.2d at 914 (recognizing that none of the persons seeking to become judge was admitted to the Minnesota Bar).