 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Garland4/16/1997
ard County Detention Center. The court recessed for the State's Attorney to inquire whether there was available space at the Prince George's County D.W.I. Facility. After the court reconvened, the State's Attorney informed the court that a bed was available and recommended to the court that Respondent report the following Friday.
Judge Rushworth then addressed Respondent directly and stated: "the court orders you to surrender yourself Friday a week to the Prince Georges County D.W.I. facility. . . ." At the end of the sentencing proceeding, the court established that Respondent was to report by 5:00 p.m. on Friday. On the day of the sentencing, Respondent signed an order for probation. That order stated that Respondent was to spend "33 days at P.G. Co. DWI Facility -- No driving while at P.G. Co., DWI Facility -- After DWI Facility def. enter and complete 30 day out-patient program as directed by Richard Vincent." Respondent signed this order for probation, indicating that he understood these conditions, consented to them, and agreed to follow them.
Respondent never reported to the D.W.I. facility. On Friday, October 8, 1993, he went about his normal business and represented a client in a case before the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. On that Friday afternoon, he received the following written order of court:
The Defendant shall be confined to the jurisdiction of the Prince George's County DWI Facility, 5000 Rhode Island Avenue, Hyattsville, MD 20781, for a period of thirty-three (33) days, commencing October 8, 1993 at 9:00 a.m.
Respondent now argues that because the order states that he was to report by 9:00 a.m., and that he received a copy of the order after 9:00 a.m., that the order had expired and he was therefore relieved of his duty to report to the facility.
Respondent knew that he was to report to the D.W.I. facility on October 8, 1993; he made no attempt to contact the facility, the court or the State's Attorney concerning his duty to report. Judge Greene found that Respondent's contention that he was not required to report to the D.W.I. facility because he did not receive the judge's order timely was totally devoid of merit. We agree. Accordingly, Respondent's third exception is overruled.
III.
We turn now to the appropriate sanction to be imposed. At the present time, Respondent is not practicing law, He stands decertified for failure to contribute the amount due to the Clients' Security Trust Fund. It is well settled, and often stated, that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the errant attorney, but to protect the public and preserve the public confidence in the legal system. Attorney Griev. Comm. v. Breschi, 340 Md. 590, 601, 667 A.2d 659, 665 (1995). In determining whether a particular attorney's misconduct in failing to obey a court order warranted discipline, the Supreme Court of California held:
Disobedience of a court order, whether as a legal representative or as a party, demonstrates a lapse of character and a disrespect for the legal system that directly relate to an attorney's fitness to practice law and serve as an officer of the court.
In re Kelley, 52 Cal. 3d 487, 801 P.2d 1126, 1131, 276 Cal. Rptr. 375 (Cal. 1990). Respondent's behavior evidences both an alcohol problem and a lack of respect for the legal system. If not addressed, it may affect his professional practice and injure the public. See Danny R. Veilleux, Misconduct Involving Intoxication as Grounds For Disciplinary Action Against Attorney, 1 A.L.R. 5th 874 (1992).
Judge Greene found that Respondent's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. We agree.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|