Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ficker

163 A.3d 190, 454 Md. 76, 2017 WL 2830760, 2017 Md. LEXIS 458
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided June 30, 2017·No. 1ag/17·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the filing of a Joint Petition for Reprimand by Consent pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736. Upon consideration thereof, and in accordance with Maryland Rule 19—743(b), it is this 30th day of June, 2017,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Robin Keith Annesley Ficker, Respondent, is hereby reprimanded for engaging in professional misconduct violating (1) Rule 8.4(d) of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) then in effect based upon his failure to arrive punctually in the District Court of Maryland for Howard County on December 17, 2016 for a scheduled court hearing in the case of State of Maryland v. Rosalyn Marie Morales, thereby disrupting the docket of the tribunal and causing his client, Ms. Morales, to have to address the court without representation when her case was initially called; and (2) Rule 5.3(d) of the MLRPC based upon his failure to comply with the notice of employment and associated provisions of that rule when, in 2013, he employed as a nonlawyer a *77 formerly admitted lawyer who had been disbarred by this Court; and it is further

ORDERED, that within (10) days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall send written apologies for his late arrival in court on December 17, 2015 to Judge Marc Rasinsky and to Rosalyn Marie Morales and shall file copies of same with this Court and with Bar Counsel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ficker, 163 A.3d 190, 454 Md. 76, 2017 WL 2830760, 2017 Md. LEXIS 458 (Md. 2017).

163 A.3d 190 (Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ficker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Attorney Grievance v. Ficker
477 Md. 537 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2022)