Unconditionally Disbarred

The Maryland Court of Appeals has disbarred an attorney who had violated the terms of a conditional diversion agreement.

This attorney discipline proceeding involves a lawyer who abandoned his representation of clients in two unrelated cases and dishonestly refrained from informing Bar Counsel that he had violated a conditional diversion agreement.

The agreement

[Thomas] will abstain from all use of alcohol and/or opiates[.] During the pendency of the [Conditional Diversion] Agreement, [Thomas] will attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at least once per week and provide Bar Counsel with proof of his attendance[.] Within thirty [] days of the date of th[e Conditional Diversion] Agreement, [Thomas] will arrange for counseling through the Alleg[]any County Health Department. [Thomas] will . . . waive confidentiality to the extent necessary for Bar Counsel to confirm that [Thomas] is receiving counseling for his substance abuse problems and that [Thomas] is abstaining from the use of alcohol and/or opiates[.] If, during the duration of the Conditional Diversion] Agreement, [Thomas] resumes the use of alcohol or opiates, [Thomas] will immediately voluntarily cease practicing law, notify all active clients, return files and unearned fees[,] and withdraw his appearance in any and all court proceedings.

On sanction

We note seven aggravating factors. First, Thomas had a dishonest or selfish motive, as Thomas’s refraining from informing Bar Counsel that he was using alcohol and/or opiates and that on two occasions he had been discharged from a substance abuse program for failing to attend the required number of counseling sessions, constituted dishonesty that was motivated by Thomas’s desire to continue practicing law. Second, Thomas committed multiple violations of the MLRPC. Third, Thomas has substantial experience in the practice of law, as he had been a member of the Bar of Maryland for more than a decade at the time of his misconduct. Fourth, Thomas has shown indifference to making restitution, as he never provided Lee and/or Walker with a refund, and provided Sines with a refund only after she filed a complaint against him with the Commission.

Even more importantly, fifth, sixth, and seventh, Thomas has received prior attorney discipline, has demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, and has shown that he is likely to repeat his misconduct.

The court found that alcoholism did not mitigate the misconduct. (Mike frisch)