ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND v. Berger

RODOWSKY, Judge. This case returns here following our remand to Judge Ellen M. Heller in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Berger, 323 Md. 428 , 593 A.2d 1103 (1991). We remanded to give the Respondent, Stephen L. Berger (Berger), an opportunity to explain certain documentary evidence that appeared to contradict his description of the events underlying the charge. These events are fully set out in our prior opinion.

After the hearing on remand Judge Heller concluded that she could not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Berger knowingly misappropriated client funds. She instead characterized Berger’s actions as “gross and wanton negligence amounting to a total disdain and disregard for ¹³¹ his duties to safeguard his client’s money.” Bar Counsel has excepted to the failure to find an intentional misappropriation, but Judge Heller’s findings are not clearly erroneous. We turn, then, to the issue of sanction, mindful that the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is the protection of the public. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 334, 355 , 587 A.2d 511, 521 (1991).

It is well settled that intentional misappropriation of client funds will ordinarily result in disbarment. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lazerow, 320 Md. 507, 513 , 578 A.2d 779, 782 (1990); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ezrin, 312 Md. 603, 608-09 , 541 A.2d 966, 969 (1988). Berger’s conduct falls short of intentional misappropriation. In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Owrutsky, the attorney had demonstrated