Attorney Grievance Commission v. Demyan

PER CURIAM. The Court having considered the petition of the respondent, Michael Demyan, that he be placed on inactive status from the practice of law in which he avers that due to extreme loss of memory, from which he has been suffering for the past two years, respondent feels that he can no longer be professionally responsible or competent in the practice of law; and The Court having considered the response to the aforesaid petition filed by Bar Counsel who alleges that the petition for disciplinary action in the instant case involves conduct similar to that for which the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued two reprimands to respondent in the years of 1976 and 1979, and having considered the recommendation of Bar Counsel that respondent be placed on inactive status until such time as he can satisfy the Court that his condition permits him to be reinstated to the active practice of law; and ⁶⁵⁴ The Court having considered the medical report, dated May 4, 1984, prepared by Michael K. Spodak, M.D., which reflects that Dr. Spodak conducted a psychiatric evaluation of respondent on April 25, 1984, and concluded that, due to respondent’s loss of confidence in his ability to practice law coupled with respondent’s memory difficulties, respondent is