Attorney Grievance Commission v. Vanderlinde

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Rule 8.4(a), (b), and (c) was violated where attorney embezzled money from her employer
• holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction where an attorney engaged in a pattern of intentional dishonest conduct designed to conceal his lack of diligence
• explaining that intentional dishonesty “is closely entwined with the most important matters of basic character to such a degree as to make intentional misconduct by a lawyer almost beyond excuse.”
• finding that “in cases of intentional dishonesty, misappropriation cases, fraud, ... and the like, we will not accept, as ‘compelling extenuating circumstances,’ anything less than the most serious and utterly debilitating mental or physical health conditions”
• noting that the “hearing court’s duties are to consider all evidence properly submitted in the discipline process. Absent indications that such evidence is not considered, we presume it was considered along with all the other evidence”
• affirming the notion that, absent extenuating circumstances, intentional dishonest conduct implicates an attorney’s basic character and warrants the sanction of disbarment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).