Attorney Grievance Commission v. Goodman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because respondent could not provide any evidence to refute Bar Counsel’s claims regarding misappropriation of money, a permissible inference is that the respondent misappropriated the funds of the client
• “[T]he commingling of personal and client funds, including the failure to maintain a separate trust account, is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
• “ ‘[Misappropriation of funds by an attorney is an act infected with deceit and dishonesty and ordinarily will result in disbarment in the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser sanction.’ ”
• “An attorney who agrees to pay client medical bills from recoveries in connection with his/her representation, and fails to do so in a timely manner after receipt of settlement or judgment funds, acts without reasonable diligence and promptness.”
• “[Misappropriation of client or third-party funds violates MLRPC 8.4(c

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).