 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Ponds12/15/2005
t Thompson's letter dated July 21, 1997 did not indicate an intent to terminate the representation with sufficient clarity to support a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 (a)(3) (failure to withdraw when discharged). The Board did conclude, however, that respondent violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (b) (conflict of interest). The Board noted that an attorney cannot "jump in and out of a representation as it suits that attorney's needs or purposes" and that, because respondent had not withdrawn from representing Thompson, he was still Thompson's attorney and was therefore "operating under an actual conflict of interest during the hearing on the plea withdrawal as his client . . . had accused him, in so many words, of coercion and ineffective assistance which made his guilty plea involuntary." Having found that respondent had a conflict of interest, the Board then concluded that respondent also violated rule Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 (a)(1) (lawyer shall withdraw from representation of a client if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct) because "it is clear that lawyers must withdraw where their client's interests are in conflict with their own professional or personal interests."
Respondent maintains that the Board erred in concluding that his conduct violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7 (b) and 1.16 (a)(1). The thrust of respondent's argument is that he did not have a conflict of interest with his client and therefore was not required to withdraw from the representation. He claims there was no conflict because "he had no interests of his own to advance by staying in the case after Thompson indicated that he wished to withdraw his guilty plea." Alternatively, respondent contends that even if he did have a conflict, the court "implicitly ordered Respondent to remain in the case." Thus, even though there were grounds for withdrawal, under Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 (c), respondent had to continue to represent Thompson. We disagree on both points.
Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (b) provides, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third party, or by the lawyer's own interests. We agree with the Board that, in these circumstances, respondent's representation of Thompson was materially limited by his own interests. Because Thompson alleged coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel as grounds for his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, respondent could not argue the motion to withdraw without possibly admitting serious ethical violations and subjecting himself to possible liability for malpractice. As a result, due to the conflict, Thompson was unrepresented by counsel on the issue relating to the request to withdraw the guilty plea.
Having concluded that respondent's representation of Thompson was materially limited by his personal interests, we further conclude that respondent was obligated to withdraw as counsel under Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 (a)(1), and failed to do so. Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that a lawyer shall withdraw from representation if the representation will result in a violation of the rules of professional conduct. In this case, since respondent had a conflict of interest, in violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (b), it was mandatory that he withdraw under Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 (a)(1).
Finally, respondent maintains that " he Court's actions by first allowing Mr. Thompson
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 District of Columbia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|