Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shuler

Harrell, J. “Saying that something is so does not make it so necessarily,” Old Adage (Anonymous) Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, by its then Bar Counsel, Glenn M. Grossman, Esq., and Assistant Bar Counsel, Amy S. Paulick, Esq., filed with the Court of Appeals on 25 February 2016 public charges in this matter against Respondent, Melodie Venee Shuler. The charges stemmed from a complaint lodged by Calvin A. Keene, a former client of Respondent. Respondent was charged with violating the following Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC): 1 (1) Rule 1.1 (Competence); (2) Rule 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer); (3) Rule 1.3 (Diligence); (4) Rule 1.4 (Communication); (5) Rule 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and, (6) Rule 8.4 (a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). ²⁰⁴ The charges were assigned by this Court to the Hon. Ronald A. Silkworth of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County for the conduct of an evidentiary hearing and the rendition of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The hearing occurred over two days, 14 October and 1 November 2016. 2 Respondent, who lived apparently in South Carolina at the time, participated in the hearings by telephone. See Rules 16-757 and 2-513. On 25 January 2017, Judge Silkworth filed with the Court his written findings of fact and conclusions of law, dated 13 January 2017. He concluded that Respondent violated MLRPC 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4(a), 1.4(b), 8.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

In addition, he found that Petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence nine aggravating factors infecting Respondent’s misconduct. Respondent did not persuade Judge Silkworth, by a preponderance of the evidence, of the existence of any mitigating factor. Petitioner filed no exceptions to Judge Silkworth’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended this Court disbar Respondent, noting also that Respondent stood before the Court suspended from the practice of law in Maryland as a result of a prior disciplinary action, Atty. Griev.

Comm’n v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494 , 117 A.3d 38 (2015). Respondent filed written exceptions. Concurrently with filing her exceptions, Respondent filed a motion requesting the Court to sanction Assistant Bar Counsel Paulick for making allegedly false assertions during the proceedings regarding the amount and payment of the legal fee to Respondent on Mr. Keene’s behalf, by his mother, Ms. Gale Scoggins. The Court denies Respondent’s motion to sanction Assistant Bar Counsel Paulick.

Oral argument before the Court of Appeals on Respondent’s exceptions and Bar Counsel’s recommendation for disbarment was scheduled for a date in March 2017, with notice to the ²⁰⁵ parties. Respondent sought a continuance. The Court, by order of 29 March 2017, granted a continuance to 3 April 2017 and required Respondent’s appearance at that time. Assistant Bar Counsel Paulick appeared before the Court on April 3.

Respondent did not, nor did she communicate contemporaneously with the Court as to why she could not appear. The case was submitted on the papers and record. The Court entered a per curiam order disbarring Respondent the same day. 3 We explain now the basis for that order. STANDARDS OF REVIEW As Chief Judge Barbera noted, writing for the Court recently in Atty.

Griev. Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 452 Md. 26, 37 , 156 A.3d 134, 140 (2017), reconsideration denied (Apr. 21, 2017): “In attorney discipline proceedings, this Court has original and complete jurisdiction.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602, 626 , 62 A.3d 163 (2013). If no exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact are filed, this Court may treat the facts as conclusively established. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kwarteng, 411 Md. 652, 659-60 , 984 A.2d 865 (2009).

If exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact are filed, we will not overrule the findings unless we are persuaded that they are clearly erroneous. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mahone, 435 Md. 84, 104 , 76 A.3d 1198 (2013). This Court conducts a de novo review of the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507, 515 , 979 A.2d 146 (2009).

Accordingly, this Court must determine, based on a “clear and convincing” standard of proof, whether sufficient evidence existed in the record to support the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15, 27 , 45 A.3d 281 (2012). ²⁰⁶ HEARING JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Satisfied that Bar Counsel met the clear and convincing evidence standard placed on it (see Md. Rule 16-757(c)) in attorney disciplinary cases, the hearing judge found the following facts, which we summarize. Ms. Gale Scoggins, mother of Calvin Keene and herself apparently a person of modest means, retained Respondent in March 2011 to represent her son in pursuit of a modification of sentence in two criminal cases in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. 4 Scoggins paid Respondent $750 in cash to obtain her representation of Keene in the modification matter. According to Md. Rule 4-345(e)(1)(B), governing the revisory power of a sentencing court over sentences, the sentencing court’s ability to revise/modify a sentence expires five years “from the date the sentence originally was imposed .... ” Accordingly, because Keene had been sentenced on 14 August 2008, any modification had to be acted on or before 14 August 2013, or the sentencing court would lose its authority to act in such regard.

Respondent entered her appearance as Counsel for Keene in the two criminal matters on 8 June 2011. Although she acted promptly to gain access to Keene’s pre-trial sentencing report in the cases (which the trial court granted on 14 June 2011), Respondent’s communications with Scoggins about the sentence modification initiative became sporadic quite soon thereafter. According to Scoggins, many of her telephone and ²⁰⁷ text messages to Respondent seeking status updates went unanswered for weeks at a time. According to Scoggins, it was not until 3 April 2012 that Respondent recommended that October 2012 would be the “best time” to file a Motion for Modification of Sentence “because that would be five years after the offense.” Respondent promised to visit Keene in jail in May of 2012 and to seek a meeting later in April 2012 with the State’s Attorney’s Office to attempt to gain support for sentence modification.

Respondent did none of these things in the time frames promised or otherwise, and continued not to respond timely to Scoggins’s letters seeking updates on efforts. On 5 February 2013, Scoggins sent Respondent an email expressing concern about Respondent’s uncommunicative posture. Respondent responded to the email, offering excuses about having personal problems that prevented her from receiving telephone, email, or regular mail. She promised that she would visit Keene and file the modification motion later in February.

She did not accomplish either task, however. Similar representations were made by Respondent to Scoggins in March, May, July, and August of 2013, all of which proved equally hollow. In a surprise to Scoggins, Respondent requested on 2 October 2013 an additional $500 to complete the representation of Keene, stating that Respondent discovered only lately that Keene had been sentenced in two criminal cases, rather than one (seemingly overlooking the fact that on 8 June 2011 she entered her appearance as Keene’s counsel in both cases). On or about 4 February 2014, Scoggins paid an additional $300, as an installment, to Respondent.

The cycle of unfulfilled promises to act by Respondent resumed in May, June, and September of 2014. On 15 October 2014, Respondent represented to Keene that she was “in the process of filing” a Motion for Post-Conviction Relief on his behalf. At the same time, she solicited an additional $400, noting that the new total fee would be $1,500. Respondent stated, however, that the payment of the balance claimed ²⁰⁸ would not prevent her from completing her representation of Keene. 5 Apparently appreciating that, by operation of the time bar of Md. Rule 4-345(e)(1)(B), the trial court no longer could grant relief to modify his sentences, Keene acquiesced initially in January 2015 to Respondent’s suggestion to file instead a post-conviction petition.

Despite all that had gone before, Respondent, in February 2015, now used the excuse that, because pursuit of the modification motion was no longer viable, she needed more time to draft a post-conviction petition. She promised Scoggins that it would be filed before the end of March 2015. Instead, Respondent filed a motion to withdraw as Keene’s counsel on 30 April 2015, having not filed any of the motions for relief she was engaged to prepare and prosecute, when she learned that Keene had filed a bar complaint about her representation. Indeed, Keene filed with Petitioner on 16 February 2015 a complaint against Respondent.

Respondent did not respond to Bar Counsel’s multiple requests in February and March for a response to the complaint. She did respond, of a sort, to Bar Counsel’s third invitation by advising Bar Counsel that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia on or about 26 February 2015. Thereafter, Respondent rebuffed Bar Counsel’s investigatory requests for information and indicated that she would respond, if at all, solely to emails. Respondent’s intransigence continued to the time of public charges in the matter.

After the two days of hearings, the hearing judge concluded as follows regarding the charges against Respondent and relevant aggravating/mitigating factors bearing on the sanction, if any: Rule 1.1 Competence Rule 1.1 provides that: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal ²⁰⁹ knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for representation. If an attorney “fails to act or acts in an untimely manner, resulting in harm to his or her client,” generally the Court finds a violation of Rule 1.1. Atty.

Griev. Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298, 319 , 44 A.3d 344, 357 (2012). Evidence that an attorney failed “to apply the requisite thoroughness and/or preparation in representing a client is sufficient alone to support a violation of Rule 1.1.” Atty. Griev.

Comm’n v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388, 398 , 946 A.2d 1009, 1015 (2008); Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 223 , 46 A.3d 1169, 1177 (2012) (concluding that failure to take “necessary, fundamental steps to further the client’s case” is a violation of Rule 1.1). The Attorney Grievance Commission argues that Respondent violated this rule because she failed to request a hearing on behalf of her client on the two motions, Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence and Application of Review of Sentence, filed prior to the start of her representation.

However because this Court takes Judicial Notice of the fact that the Motion for Reconsideration was held sub curia and the Application for Review of Sentence was acted upon by a three judge review panel and the sentence was confirmed without change by Order of Court dated November 19, 2008, this Court concludes that requesting a hearing would not have been the proper procedural step regarding the Application for Review of Sentence. By the time that Respondent was heard, this was already finally resolved. Because of this, the Court cannot find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent was acting as an incompetent attorney when she failed to obtain a hearing on the review Application. The Court does find, however, that the Respondent violated Rule 1.1 because she failed to. check on the status of her client’s Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence and inform her client of that status.

Instead, she left him unapprised of the status of those motions and allowed the five year deadline to run out without checking on the status of those ²¹⁰ motions or requesting a hearing on the Reconsideration request. It is clear that Respondent was aware of the five year deadline because she advised Ms. Scoggins on March 14, 2013 that “It will be 5 years and time to file in Motion in May or June.” [ ][ 6 ] Failing to check on the status of the case or promptly inform her client at any point was clearly incompetent representation. While it is not clear that the trial judge would have granted a modification, any opportunity to address the trial judge to convince him was lost. Respondent also violated Rule 1.1 by giving her client contradictory and false information.

After the deadline passed for a Motion for Modification to be ruled on, Respondent told Ms. Scoggins and Mr. Keene that there was no deadline and continued to attest that she would file a Motion for Modification, even though one had already been filed by her client. [ ] It is clear that the Respondent gave her client misinformation about the status of his case because she had, in violation of Rule 1.1, not made an attempt to verify the status of his case or to take any of the next procedural steps. Had Respondent appropriately reviewed his case file, she would have determined that a significant portion of Mr. Keene’s sentence (18 years) was to be served without the possibility of parole. Appropriate research would have been required to determine his eligibility for drug treatment pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 8-507 . This would have required a separate motion which would not have been barred by the five year limit discussed herein.

This was not done. Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer Rule 1.2 provides that: (a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives ²¹¹ of the representation and, when appropriate, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter.

In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial, and whether the client will testify. When an attorney fails to file the legal documents that a client retained her to file, the attorney violates Rule 1.2. See Atty. Griev.

Comm’n v. Kreamer, 404 Md. 282 , 946 A.2d 500 (2008) (holding that an attorney violated Rule 1.2 when he failed to dissolve the client’s corporation as per the client’s request); Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Granger, 374 Md. 438 , 823 A.2d 611 (2003) (holding that an attorney violated Rule 1.2 when he failed to immediately file for bankruptcy on her behalf where the client instructed the attorney to do so in order to avoid foreclosure on her home). Here, Respondent violated Rule 1.2 by failing to consult with her client in order to discuss how to pursue the client’s objectives in light of the fact that a Motion for Modification of Mr. Keene’s criminal sentence had already been filed prior to the expiration of the trial court’s jurisdiction over the matter in accordance with Maryland Rule 4-345(e)(1)(B).

Respondent failed to determine the status of the previously filed application for Review of Sentence, although as stated herein, that issue was resolved prior to Respondent being retained. Respondent made no mention of the impact of a sentence without parole on the modification previously filed. Nor did she consider Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 8-507 . Rule 1.3 Diligence Rule 1.3 provides that: A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. ²¹² An attorney violates this Rule when she takes no action whatsoever in representing her client.

Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534, 554 , 16 A.3d 181, 193 (2011); Atty Griev. Comm’n v. Shakir, 427 Md. 197, 205 , 46 A.3d 1162, 1167 (2012).

Failing to keep a client informed as to the status of the case and failing to respond to the client’s inquiries also violates Rule 1.3. See Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Park, 427 Md. 180, 192 , 46 A.3d 1153, 1160 (2012).

In this case, Respondent violated Rule 1.3 by failing to meet with Mr. Keene in order to discuss the necessary steps to be taken in light of the fact that a Motion for Modification of Mr. Keene’s criminal sentence had already been filed. Furthermore, Respondent failed to determine the status of the previously filed application for Review of Sentence. Respondent also violated Rule 1.3 by failing to file or pursue the previously filed Motion for Modification on Mr. Keene’s behalf while the judge still had jurisdiction over the matter (i.e., within five years) pursuant to Maryland Rule [4-3451(e)(1)(B) [sic]. Respondent further failed to consider what options Mr. Keene had for treatment in light of the sentence [he] was serving without parole.

Rule 1.4(a) Communication (a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(f), is required by these Rules; (2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (4) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyers’ conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. Comment [5] to Rule 1.4 explains that: “[t]he client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of ²¹³ the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued .... Adequacy of communication depends in part on the kind of advice or assistance that is involved. Atty.

Griev. Comm’n v. Narasimhan, 438 Md. 638, 656 , 92 A.3d 512, 523 (2014). Paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this Rule, respectively, require a lawyer to keep her client “reasonably informed” about the status of the case, and to promptly respond to reasonable requests for information from the client. Atty.

Griev. Comm’n v. Van Nelson, 425 Md. 344, 354-55 , 40 A.3d 1039, 1045 (2012). In Van Nelson , the Court of Appeals found that the attorney failed to return his client’s persistent telephone calls and email requests. Id.

Further, the client learned that a $10,000.00 payment she had made had been seized by the federal government not from her own attorney, but from opposing counsel. Id. She only learned this by virtue of her own efforts to secure information about her case. Id.

As such, the attorney in Van Nelson did not keep his client reasonably informed. Id. The Court found, therefore, by clear and convincing evidence that Van Nelson violated Rule 1.4(a)(2) and (3). Id.

In the instant case, Respondent failed to “promptly inform the client of any decision ... with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required” when she failed to notify him that she would be unable to pursue the previously filed Motion for Modification of Sentence while the trial judge still had jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(e)(1)(B). After she missed the deadline, she failed to inform Mr. Keene that the court no longer had jurisdiction. Instead, she tried to convince him that a Motion for Post Conviction Relief would be more advantageous in his case. When Mr. Keene and Mrs. Scoggins informed Respondent that they believed that there was a five year deadline, she brushed aside their concerns by saying, “Of course it is not to[o] late.

Attorneys usually wait until 5 years to do it and just don’t do it sooner because it has been the practice of the courts in Maryland to want the person to wait at least 5 years to do so. But no, it is never a ²¹⁴ time limit,” [] Respondent also failed to investigate the status of the Application for Review of Sentence although this failure caused no harm to Mr. Keene because it was due long before Respondent was even hired and there was nothing she could have done to change or appeal the ruling. Lastly, as stated herein, Respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Keene [regarding] [sic ] his sentence without parole and any options available to him as a result. Rule 1.4(b) Communication Rule 1.4(b) requires that a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

See Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Narasimhan, 438 Md. 638, 668-59 , 92 A.3d 512, 523-24 (2014) (citing Atty. Griev.

Comm’n v. Rand, 429 Md. 674, 716 , 57 A.3d 976, 1001 (2012)). In Rand , the Court of Appeals held that, when analyzing whether or not an attorney has violated Rule 1.4(b), [] its analysis needs to “take into account the entire interaction between [the attorney] and [the client] and the information that was communicated.” Id. at 717 , 57 A.3d at 1001 . In the instant case, Mrs. Scoggins’s testimony and her emails with the Respondent clearly show that Respondent did not explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Respondent continually promised that she would visit Mr. Keene in jail to discuss his case, file a Motion for Modification of Sentence, and schedule a hearing before the judge.

She never did so. She did not explain to Mr. Keene and Mrs. Scoggins that the judge only had jurisdiction over Mr. Keene’s criminal matter for five years. In fact, when confronted by the client and his mother, she denied that there was a five year deadline. Her failure to communicate that there was a five-year time limit within which Mr. Keene’s sentence could be modified was a violation of Rule 1.4(b).

See Rand at 429 Md. 674, 716 , 57 A.3d 976, 1001 . Further, Respondent did not determine the status of the Application for Review of Sentence and explain that status to Mr. Keene. Respondent failed to review and ²¹⁵ explain to Mr. Keene his options in light of his sentence without parole, i.e., Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 8-507 . Rule 8.1 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters Rule 8.1(b) makes it a violation to “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information ... [from Bar Counsel].” See Atty.

Griev. Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 226 , 46 A.3d 1169, 1179 (2012) (failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s request for information is a violation of Rule 8.1(b)). See also Atty. Griev.

Comm’n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325, 336 , 68 A.3d 862, 869 (2013) (failing to respond to Bar Counsel after being asked repeatedly, promising to do so, and then never doing so, constituted a violation of Rule 8.1(b)). Here, Respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) because she failed to meaningfully answer Petitioner’s correspondence regarding her representation of Mr. Keene. Petitioner sent three letters to Respondent before she provided a response to the Complaint. When she did respond, her responses were incomplete.

For example, she answered, “You should ask Mr. Keene for copies of the letters” and “I will not talk to you because you are a dishonest person.” [ ] When Petitioner’s Investigator contacted Respondent, she refused to return his calls. When Assistant Bar Counsel asked Respondent to return the Investigator’s calls, Respondent replied that she would not do so. Id. Finally, when Assistant Bar Counsel sent correspondence asking Respondent for additional information, she replied, “I spent my entire summer dealing with your bogus claims involving Mr. Kevin Wilson; I will not spend my entire summer with this matter.

Therefore, it will not be within 10 days that I will review this matter but in September.” [] In her dealings with Bar Counsel, whether it be refusing to accept certified mail, refusing to speak to Bar Counsel’s investigator, or refusing to respond to Bar Counsel requests for information in a timely fashion, Respondent violated Rule 8.1 in that she “knowingly fail[ed] to respond to a lawful demand for information from [an] authority.” Disciplinary Rule 8.4(a) Misconduct ²¹⁶ “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.” Id. Because the Court finds that Respondent has violated Rules 1.1,1.2,1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d), it therefore finds that Respondent has violated Rule 8.4(a). Rule 8.4(c) Misrepresentation Rule 8.4(c) provides, “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation!!.]” “Dishonest acts, in and of themselves are violative of [RULE] 8.4(c).” Atty. Griev.

Comm’n v. Barnett, 440 Md. 254, 266 , 102 A.3d 310, 318 (2014) (citation omitted). In this case, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made several misrepresentations to Mr. Keene and Ms. Scoggins. First, she continually represented that she would visit Mr. Keene, visit the State’s Attorney’s Office, and file a Motion for Modification of Sentence for him, but after having the representation for almost four years, she never did so. [ ] Next, she misrepresented to Mrs. Scoggins and Mr. Keene that there was no deadline for obtaining a hearing on a Motion for Modification of a Sentence. [ ] Specifically, she stated, “time to file has not passed .... Usually for serious offenses the [ ] modification is requested within [fjive years ... a little more time for filing would be beneficial.” Once Mr. Keene and Mrs. Scoggins confronted Respondent with the knowledge they obtained from other sources regarding the five year deadline, Respondent again misrepresented the significance of the deadline to them by stating, “Of course it is not to[o] late.

Attorneys usually wait until 5 years to do it and just don’t do it sooner because it has been the practice of the courts in Maryland to want the person to wait at least 5 years to do so. But no, it is never a time limit. It can be done at any time. It can be done sooner than 5 years or later.” [ ] ²¹⁷ Knowing that this statement was false, Respondent then tried to convince Mr. Keene and Ms. Scoggins that a Motion for Post-Conviction Relief would be more beneficial to Mr. Keene. [ ] When Mr. Keene persisted in having a Motion for Modification of Sentence filed instead[,] Respondent then drafted a Belated Motion for Modification of Sentence. [ ] She further misrepresented the reason for her delay in filing the motion when, in the body of the motion, she states: “The undersigned counsel informed the defendant that the court does not have jurisdiction to modify a Sentence after five years of sentencing under Maryland Rule 4—845(b) but given the following circumstances he should be entitled to a belated motion for modification of his sentence.” [ ] She then blamed Mr. Keene for failing to communicate with her. [ ] She blamed Mrs. Scoggins for failing to timely pay her fees, [] Finally, she blamed the jail for refusing to allow her visitation. [ ] Rule 8.4(d) Misconduct Rule 8.4(d) states that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Conduct which is likely to impair the public confidence in the profession, impact the image of the legal profession and engender disrespect for the court is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Childress, 360 Md. 373, 381-82 , 768 A.2d 117 , 121 (2000). Respondent’s failure to pursue a previously filed Motion for Modification of Sentence on Mr. Keene’s behalf is a violation of Rule 8.4(d).

Her failures constitute conduct which is likely to impair public confidence in [ ] the legal profession. AGGRAVATING FACTORS In Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494, 606-07 , 117 A.3d 38, 46 (2016), the Court of Appeals stated: This Court sanctions a lawyer not to punish the lawyer, but instead to protect the public and the public’s confidence in the legal profession.

This Court accomplishes ²¹⁸ these goals by: (1) deterring other lawyers from engaging in similar misconduct; and (2) suspending or disbarring a lawyer who is unfit to continue to practice law. In determining an appropriate sanction for a lawyer’s misconduct, this Court considers: (1) the MLRPC that the lawyer violated; (2) the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the injury that the lawyer’s misconduct caused or could have caused; and (4) aggravating factors and/or mitigating factors. Aggravating factors include: (1) prior attorney discipline; (2) a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) a pattern of misconduct; (4) multiple violations of the MLRPC; (5) bad faith obstruction of the attorney discipline proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the Maryland Rules or orders of this Court or the hearing judge; (6) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the attorney discipline proceeding; (7) a refusal to acknowledge the misconduct’s wrongful nature; (8) the victim’s vulnerability; (9) substantial experience in the practice of law; (10) indifference to making restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s consequences; (11) illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled substances; and (12) likelihood of repetition of the misconduct. Mitigating factors include: (1) the absence of prior attorney discipline; (2) [the] absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) personal or emotional problems; (4) timely good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify [the misconduct’s] consequences []; (5) full and free disclosure to the Commission or a cooperative attitude toward the attorney discipline proceeding; (6) inexperience in the practice of law; (7) character or reputation; (8) [a] physical disability; (9) a mental disability or chemical dependency[,] including alcoholism or drug abuse[,] where: (a) there is medical evidence that the lawyer is affected by a chemical dependency or mental disability; (b) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct; (c) the lawyer’s recovery from the chemi ²¹⁹ cal dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained