Attorney Grievance Commission v. Thorup

PER CURIAM. The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Kent Davis Thorup, alleging violations of the disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We referred the matter, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 b, to Judge Irma S. ¹⁹⁰ Raker of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, Judge Raker filed detailed findings and conclusions as follows: “This matter comes before this Court on the Petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland for disciplinary action against Kent Davis Thorup.

The Respondent was served by private process server on October 27, 1983. Respondent failed to appear or file a response to the petition. “A hearing on the Petition was held in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on January 23, 1984. The Petition alleges the Respondent did unethically and unprofessionally violate Disciplinary Rules: “1-102—Misconduct. (A) A lawyer shall not: (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. “6-101—Failing to Act Competently. (A) A lawyer shall not: (3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. “7-101—Representing A Client Zealously. (A) A lawyer shall not intentionally: (1) Fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR7101(B). A lawyer does not violate this Disciplinary Rule, however by acceding to reasonable requests of opposing counsel which do not prejudice the rights of his client, by being punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments, by avoiding offensive tactics, or by treating with courtesy and consideration all persons involved in the legal process. ¹⁹¹ “The misconduct alleged in this Petition arose from Respondent’s representation of three clients in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

On February 25, 1983, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ordered the Respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of two years. The Board of Professional Responsibility for the D.C. Bar [Board] found Respondent violated DR1-102(A)(5), DR6-101(A)(3) and DR7-101(A)(1) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. At the hearing on January 23,1984, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, copies of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals opinion and judgment, the Board’s findings and recommendations and the Hearing Committee’s findings of fact in D.C. Bar Docket Numbers 498-78, 92-79 and 111-79 were admitted in evidence. “Findings of Fact “1. Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State of Maryland on December 9, 1965. 2.

Respondent was personally served with the pleadings in this matter on October 27, 1983. 3. A hearing was held on the Petition for Disciplinary Action on January 23, 1984, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. 4.