Ordered March 22nd, 2007 -- Order of Judge Irma Raker
Upon a Joint Petition for Order Placing Respondent on Inactive Status, the Court of Appeals placed Respondent on inactive status indefinitely with the condition precedent to Maryland reinstatement that he must first be reinstated in the Commonwealth of Virginia. No additional factual or legal details were provided with the Order.
The one-page Order is available here in PDF format.
Showing posts with label reciprocal discipline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reciprocal discipline. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Atty Grievance Comm. v. Midlen (Ct. of Appeals)
December 4, 2006--Opinion by Judge Alan Wilner.
This is a reciprocal discipline case governed by Maryland Rule 16-773. In April, 2006, Bar Counsel, having learned that, in November, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had found that respondent, John Midlen, Jr., violated certain D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (DCRPC) and had suspended him from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, filed a petition seeking reciprocal discipline in Maryland. The petition, filed pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-773(b), alleged that, based on the findings of the D.C. Court, Midlen had violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.15 (safekeeping property in which a client has an interest), 1.16 (requirements upon termination of representation), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (violating other MRPC; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that is prejudicial to administration of justice).
In accordance with Rule 16-773(c), the Court of Appeals issued an order directing the parties to show cause why, based on any of the grounds set forth in Rule 16-773(e), corresponding discipline should not be imposed.
Attorney was suspended for a period of eighteen months.
The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
This is a reciprocal discipline case governed by Maryland Rule 16-773. In April, 2006, Bar Counsel, having learned that, in November, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had found that respondent, John Midlen, Jr., violated certain D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct (DCRPC) and had suspended him from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, filed a petition seeking reciprocal discipline in Maryland. The petition, filed pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-773(b), alleged that, based on the findings of the D.C. Court, Midlen had violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 1.15 (safekeeping property in which a client has an interest), 1.16 (requirements upon termination of representation), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (violating other MRPC; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that is prejudicial to administration of justice).
In accordance with Rule 16-773(c), the Court of Appeals issued an order directing the parties to show cause why, based on any of the grounds set forth in Rule 16-773(e), corresponding discipline should not be imposed.
Attorney was suspended for a period of eighteen months.
The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
