Maryland case law › Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moore

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moore

301 Md. 169 (1984) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: OtherPer Curiam✓ Good law
HoldingThe Attorney Grievance Commission, through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Philip Wyatt Moore, III, alleging violations of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5), and (6), DR 9-102(A)(1) and (2), and DR 9-102(B)(3) and (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

PER CURIAM. The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for Disciplinary Action against Philip Wyatt Moore, III, alleging violations of DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6), DR 9-102(A)(1) and (2) and DR 9-102(B)(3) and (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We referred the matter, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 b, to Judge Raymond G. Thieme, Jr., Associate Judge of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Judge Thieme observed that, as alleged in the disciplinary petition, the Respondent had earlier been charged with the identical disciplinary infractions in the District of Columbia, where the misconduct occurred, and had been disbarred from the practice of law in that jurisdiction on June 10, 171 1983.

Judge Thieme found as a fact that the Respondent willfully misappropriated $25,000 of the funds of a client. He also found that Respondent repeatedly evaded the client’s inquiries concerning the misappropriated funds in an effort to hide the defalcation. Judge Thieme concluded that the Respondent’s misappropriation involved moral turpitude and that there were no mitigating circumstances in explanation of the misconduct. The court concluded that the Respondent had

This is a preview of Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moore. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.