# Attorney Grievance Commission v. Snyder

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · September 9, 2008 · 406 Md. 21

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752599

## Case

- **Full name:** ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Albert Russell SNYDER
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** September 9, 2008
- **Citations:** 406 Md. 21; 956 A.2d 147; 2008 Md. LEXIS 510
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Murphy
- **Judges:** Bell, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Murphy, Wilner, Cathell
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752599

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- Stating the purposes of attorney discipline are "to protect the public, to deter other lawyers from engaging in violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, and to maintain the integrity of the legal profession! ]’’

## Opinion text

MURPHY, J.
concurs and dissents.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by MURPHY, J.
I agree that a reprimand is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s violation of Rule 1.16. I am persuaded, however, that dismissal is the appropriate disposition for the Rule 1.1 violation.
As to the appropriate sanction for the violation of Rule 1.16(d), the case at bar is clearly distinguishable from Rees, which involved a lawyer who (1) withdrew from her escrow account $2,140 in unearned fees, and (2) had not made a full refund of unearned fees as of the date on which this Court imposed a thirty day suspension. Rees, supra, 396 Md. at 251-53, 913 A.2d 68 . Respondent (1) actually did the work he was paid to do, (2) proposed to return two-thirds of the fee after the Carmonas retained new counsel, and (3) prior to the circuit court hearing, he returned to Mr. Carmona the entire fee plus interest. Moreover (as noted by the majority, and expressly found by the circuit court), “[Respondent] assisted in every way to avoid prejudice to Mr. Carmona.” A dismissal with a warning, however, is an inappropriate response to an unreasonable delay in the return of funds that a lawyer agrees to return.
*34 As to the appropriate response to the Rule 1.1 violation, Md. Rule 16-759(b)(2) does not require that this Court impose a sanction merely because Respondent did not take exception to any of the hearing judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. As was the situation in Stolarz and in Attorney Grievance Com’n v. Saridakis, 402 Md. 413 , 936 A.2d 886 (2007), Respondent is a lawyer who had no prior disciplinary record. The mistake that Respondent made during his representation of Mr. Carmona did not prejudice any of Mr. Carmona’s rights. The record shows that Mr. Carmona’s present immigration counsel filed a “motion to reopen” so that Mr. Carmona could seek “cancellation of removal.” That request was granted, making Mr. Carmona eligible to pursue the relief that should have been requested by Respondent.
The record also shows that Respondent’s mistake “did not enure in any measure to [Respondent’s] benefit.” Stolarz, supra, 379 Md. at 405, 842 A.2d at 52. We are persuaded that Respondent’s expression of remorse is sincere, and that it is most unlikely that his failure to provide competent representation will be repeated. Under these circumstances, for the reasons stated by this Court in Pennington, supra, Thompson, supra, and Brown, supra, the charge that Respondent violated Rule 1.1 should be dismissed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752599. Public record. Not legal advice.