Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stephen Howard Sacks, Misc. Docket AG No. 42, September Term, 2016 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – DISBARMENT – Court of Appeals disbarred lawyer who engaged in numerous forms of serious misconduct that involved multiple clients and included misappropriating funds, fabricating documents, and making misrepresentations to courts, clients, and opposing counsel. Lawyer’s conduct violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 1.2(a) (Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(b) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Reasonable Fees), 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 1.15(e) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Terminating Representation), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.4(c), 3.4(d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 8.1(b) (Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(b) (Criminal Act), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (Conduct That Is Prejudicial to Administration of Justice), and 8.4(a) (Violating MLRPC). Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-16-005698 Argued: March 6, 2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 42 September Term, 2016 ______________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. STEPHEN HOWARD SACKS ______________________________________ Barbera, C.J. Greene Adkins McDonald Watts Hotten Getty, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Watts, J. ______________________________________ Filed: April 20, 2018 This attorney discipline proceeding involves a lawyer who, chief among various forms of serious misconduct, misappropriated funds, fabricated documents, and made misrepresentations to courts, clients, and opposing counsel. In this case, Stephen Howard Sacks, Respondent, a member of the Bar of Maryland, represented seven clients, and himself, in separate matters that resulted in the institution of an attorney disciplinary proceeding and numerous findings of misconduct. Specifically, Sacks was retained to represent Jermaine D. Harris in a criminal case, to assist Joy Whyte with a meeting with an Assistant United States Attorney, to assist Erick E. Chen in attempting to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation return certain personal property to him, to represent Daniel W. Anderson in criminal cases and an immigration case, to represent Rondall Range in a criminal case, to represent Anita Range in a child support case, and to represent William D. Smith in a domestic matter. In these matters, Sacks engaged in assorted forms of misconduct, including misappropriation of funds that he had been paid to represent Whyte, Chen, Anderson, Rondall Range, and Smith. While representing himself, Sacks initiated eight frivolous actions or appeals against multiple parties, including his landlord, Tindeco Wharf, LLC (“Tindeco”), and its counsel, Adam M. Spence. Harris, Whyte, Chen, Anderson, Craig Kadish (Mr. Range’s new counsel), Smith, and Spence filed complaints against Sacks with Bar Counsel. On October 3, 2016, on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission, Petitioner, Bar Counsel filed in this Court a “Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action” against Sacks, charging him with violating Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 1 1.2(a) (Allocation of Authority), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5(a) (Reasonable Fees), 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 1.15(e) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Terminating Representation), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 2 3.4(a), 3.4(b), 3.4(c), 3.4(d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 4.1(a)(1) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 3 8.1 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals