integrity bar in Maryland

2013“Because an attorney’s character must remain beyond reproach, this Court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 27 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1157 (1999) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Deutsch, 294 Md. 353, 368-69 , 450 A.2d 1265, 1273 (1982)).

2013“Because an attorney’s character must remain beyond reproach, this Court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 27 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1157 (1999) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Deutsch, 294 Md. 353, 368-69 , 450 A.2d 1265, 1273 (1982)).

2017In Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1 , 741 A.2d 1143 (1999), we said: Because 'an attorney's character must remain beyond reproach ' this Court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.

2017In Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1 , 741 A.2d 1143 (1999), we said: Because 'an attorney's character must remain beyond reproach ' this Court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.

2001In Proctor, supra, we quoted what Judge Digges said for the Court in Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 549 , 318 A.2d 811, 814 (1974): "`A court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.

2001In Proctor, supra, we quoted what Judge Digges said for the Court in Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 549 , 318 A.2d 811, 814 (1974): "`A court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.

1985City v. Siegel, 275 Md. 521 , 340 A.2d 710 (1975), Judge Digges said for the Court: “[B]ecause ‘an attorney’s character must remain beyond reproach,’ this ‘Court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.

1985City v. Siegel, 275 Md. 521 , 340 A.2d 710 (1975), Judge Digges said for the Court: “[B]ecause ‘an attorney’s character must remain beyond reproach,’ this ‘Court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.

2013Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440, 447 , 635 A.2d 1315, 1318 (1994) (quoting Agnew, 271 Md. at 549 , 318 A.2d at 814 ).

2013Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440, 447 , 635 A.2d 1315, 1318 (1994) (quoting Agnew, 271 Md. at 549 , 318 A.2d at 814 ).

1992Comm’n v. Kahn, 290 Md. 654, 682 , 431 A.2d 1336, 1351 (1981), and the need to maintain the integrity of the bar in order to protect its image.

1992Comm’n v. Kahn, 290 Md. 654, 682 , 431 A.2d 1336, 1351 (1981), and the need to maintain the integrity of the bar in order to protect its image.

2025See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 28 Kremer, 432 Md. 325, 337 (2013) (noting that sanctions are imposed “to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute”) (citation modified).

2015Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325, 337 , 68 A.3d 862 (2013).

2013Sanctions are imposed not to punish lawyers, but to protect the public from those attorneys who violate their duties to their clients and “to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar[,] and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Whitehead, 405 Md. 240, 261-62 , 950 A.2d 798, 811 (2008) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 27 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1157 (1999)).

2013Sanctions are imposed not to punish lawyers, but to protect the public from those attorneys who violate their duties to their clients and “to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the bar[,] and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Whitehead, 405 Md. 240, 261-62 , 950 A.2d 798, 811 (2008) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 27 , 741 A.2d 1143, 1157 (1999)).

2013Therefore, this Court must exercise its disciplinary authority “to protect the public and its confidence in the legal profession.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Goodman, 426 Md. 115, 131 , 43 A.3d 988, 997 (2012).

2013Therefore, this Court must exercise its disciplinary authority “to protect the public and its confidence in the legal profession.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Goodman, 426 Md. 115, 131 , 43 A.3d 988, 997 (2012).

2006When imposing sanctions, we have enunciated that, "`[t]he public is protected when sanctions are imposed that are commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed.'" Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gore, 380 Md. 455, 472 , 845 A.2d 1204, 1213 (2004).

2006When imposing sanctions, we have enunciated that, "`[t]he public is protected when sanctions are imposed that are commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed.'" Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gore, 380 Md. 455, 472 , 845 A.2d 1204, 1213 (2004).

2005Therefore, the public interest is served when sanctions designed to effect general and specific deterrence are imposed on an attorney who violates the disciplinary rules....’” Sperling, 380 Md. at 191 , 844 A.2d at 404 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440, 447 , 635 A.2d 1315, 1318 (1994)); see also White, 354 Md. at 365 , 731 A.2d at 458 .

2005Therefore, the public interest is served when sanctions designed to effect general and specific deterrence are imposed on an attorney who violates the disciplinary rules....’” Sperling, 380 Md. at 191 , 844 A.2d at 404 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440, 447 , 635 A.2d 1315, 1318 (1994)); see also White, 354 Md. at 365 , 731 A.2d at 458 .

2001See also Clay v. City of Chicago Dep’t of Health, 143 F.3d 1092 , 1094 (7th Cir.1998). *435 In this case, the integrity test occurred on December 4, 1997, and appellant was charged with disciplinary violations on December 12, 1997.

1999See e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garland, 345 Md. 383 , 692 A.2d 465 (1997)(failure to report to court-ordered DWI clinic); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Protokowicz, 329 Md. 252 , 619 A.2d 100 (1993) (breaking and entering); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lazerow, 320 Md. 507 , 578 A.2d 779 (1990)(misrepresentation and misappropriation of home purchasers’ money); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Greenspan, 313 Md. 180 , 545 A.2d 12 (1988)(making false representations to a savings and loan); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Proctor, 309 Md. 412 , 524 A.2d 773 (1987) (possession of controlled danger

1999See e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garland, 345 Md. 383 , 692 A.2d 465 (1997)(failure to report to court-ordered DWI clinic); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Protokowicz, 329 Md. 252 , 619 A.2d 100 (1993) (breaking and entering); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lazerow, 320 Md. 507 , 578 A.2d 779 (1990)(misrepresentation and misappropriation of home purchasers’ money); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Greenspan, 313 Md. 180 , 545 A.2d 12 (1988)(making false representations to a savings and loan); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Proctor, 309 Md. 412 , 524 A.2d 773 (1987) (possession of controlled danger

1997“In determining the appropriate sanction for an offending attorney, we have recognized that ‘the severity of the sanction to be imposed is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case’ and the Court ‘may consider facts in mitigation....’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kenney, 339 Md. 578, 587 , 664 A.2d 854, 858 (1995) *593 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pollack, 279 Md. 225, 238 , 369 A.2d 61, 68 (1977)). “[A] less severe sanction than that ordinarily dictated may be appropriate when an attorney is able to establish the existence of compelling extenuating circumstances.” Id. at

1997“In determining the appropriate sanction for an offending attorney, we have recognized that ‘the severity of the sanction to be imposed is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case’ and the Court ‘may consider facts in mitigation....’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kenney, 339 Md. 578, 587 , 664 A.2d 854, 858 (1995) *593 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pollack, 279 Md. 225, 238 , 369 A.2d 61, 68 (1977)). “[A] less severe sanction than that ordinarily dictated may be appropriate when an attorney is able to establish the existence of compelling extenuating circumstances.” Id. at

1997“In determining the appropriate sanction for an offending attorney, we have recognized that ‘the severity of the sanction to be imposed is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case’ and the Court ‘may consider facts in mitigation....’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kenney, 339 Md. 578, 587 , 664 A.2d 854, 858 (1995) *593 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pollack, 279 Md. 225, 238 , 369 A.2d 61, 68 (1977)). “[A] less severe sanction than that ordinarily dictated may be appropriate when an attorney is able to establish the existence of compelling extenuating circumstances.” Id. at

1997“In determining the appropriate sanction for an offending attorney, we have recognized that ‘the severity of the sanction to be imposed is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case’ and the Court ‘may consider facts in mitigation....’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kenney, 339 Md. 578, 587 , 664 A.2d 854, 858 (1995) *593 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pollack, 279 Md. 225, 238 , 369 A.2d 61, 68 (1977)). “[A] less severe sanction than that ordinarily dictated may be appropriate when an attorney is able to establish the existence of compelling extenuating circumstances.” Id. at

1993Perhaps most importantly, public confidence in the integrity of the bar would be eroded if conduct proscribed for one lawyer could be performed by his partner. 410 A.2d at 671 (citations omitted).