Attorney Grievance Commission v. Rosen

PER CURIAM: The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Sol Zalel Rosen, alleging that he violated the following disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 4-101(B)(1) (A lawyer shall not knowingly “[rjeveal a confidence or secret of his client.”); DR 6-101(A)(3) (A lawyer shall not “[njeglect a legal matter entrusted to him.”); and DR 7-101(A)(1) (A lawyer shall not intentionally “[f]ail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means____”). We referred the matter, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 b, to Judge Raymond G. Thieme, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. ³⁹ 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 and had been suspended from the practice of law in that jurisdiction by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for six months, beginning March 8, 1984. See Matter of Rosen, 470 A.2d 292 (1983). Judge Thieme noted that under Maryland Rule BV10 e 1 the final adjudication of respondent’s misconduct by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals “is conclusive proof of the misconduct in the hearing of charges pursuant to this Rule.” 1 Neither party took exceptions to Judge Thieme’s findings and conclusions.

Bar Counsel has recommended that the respondent be suspended for six months. The respondent, while not disagreeing with Bar Counsel’s recommendation, urges that the period of