Attorney Grievance Commission v. Garland Montgomery Jarrat Sanderson, Miscellaneous Docket No. 3, September Term, 2018. Opinion by Getty, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – DISBARMENT: Respondent, Garland Montgomery Jarrat Sanderson violated several provisions of the Maryland Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) and the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) in his representation of former clients Olugboyega Odubanjo, Sharon Ozel, Duane Wilkinson, Darren Parham, and Toumany Sangare. He also violated these provisions with respect to a non-client Tuesday Isom-Cyrus. Mr. Sanderson engaged in a pattern of mismanaging client funds held in escrow, including making cash withdrawals, depositing funds from his operating account to his attorney trust account, and failing to timely deliver settlement proceeds. In addition, Mr. Sanderson failed to maintain records associated with his attorney trust account, failed to appear in court on behalf of several clients, failed to respond to requests by both Bar Counsel and clients, urged a former client to provide Bar Counsel with misinformation in attempt to interfere with the investigation, and failed to adequately communicate with his clients. Mr. Sanderson violated: (1) MLRPC 1.1; (2) MLRPC 1.2; (3) MLRPC 1.3; (4) MLRPC 1.4; (5) MLRCP 1.5; (6) MLRCP 1.15; (7) MLRPC 3.4; (8) MLRPC 8.1; (9) MLRPC 8.4; (10) Maryland Rule 19-407; (11) Maryland Rule 19-408; (12) Maryland Rule 19-410; and Md. Code (1984, 2014 Repl. Vol.), Business Occupations and Professions § 10-306. Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-18-002381 AG Argued: April 5, 2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 3 September Term, 2018 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. GARLAND MONTGOMERY JARRAT SANDERSON Barbera, C.J. Greene, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Battaglia, Lynne A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ. Opinion by Getty, J. Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. Filed: July 23, 2019 2019-07-23 13:02-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-721, Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Respondent, Garland Montgomery Jarrat Sanderson, in this Court on March 26, 2018. In the Petition, Bar Counsel charged Mr. Sanderson with multiple violations of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct,1 throughout his representation of several clients, including: (i) MLRPC 1.1 (Competency); (ii) MLRPC 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Attorney); (iii) MLRPC 1.3 (Diligence); (iv) MLRPC 1.4 (Communication); (v) MLRPC 1.5 (Fees); (vi) MLRPC 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney); (vii) MLRPC 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and (viii) MLRPC 8.4 (Misconduct). The Petition also alleged several violations of the provisions regulating attorney trust accounts including: (i) Maryland Rule 19-407; (ii) Maryland Rule 19-408; (iii) Maryland Rule 19- 410; and (iv) Md. Code (1984, 2014 Repl. Vol.), Business Occupations and Professions (“BOP”) § 10-306. The charges emanated from various complaints filed with Bar Counsel against Mr. Sanderson, stretching across Mr. Sanderson’s representation of several clients. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722, we referred the Petition to Judge John ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals