Rejecting Bar Counsel's call for an indefinite suspension, a five-judge majority imposed a 60-day suspension on a lawyer whose search for a mentor misfired.
Issue: What sanction should the Court impose upon a young lawyer whose joint venture with a more experienced immigration attorney led to the denial of a labor certification, complaints of inadequate communications and inaccuracies on a resume?
Holding: Beyond what the majority viewed as misrepresentations on her resume, the Court believed that this inexperienced lawyer's failure to verify the expertise of her supervising attorney, numerous errors made on the case and an alleged failure to adequately communicate with the client warranted a 60-day suspension.
Alleged Violations: Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication Generally), 7.1 (Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services), 8.4(a) (Violating MLRPC), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice).
Argued: March 10, 2014
Decided: May 23, 2014
|By The Lawyer's Lawyers | Kramer & Connolly and Irwin R. Kramer who are responsible for the content of this informational website.||This website is designed for lawyers faced with attorney grievances. As cases do differ, past performance does not guarantee future results.|
NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND