Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Nicholas G. Karambelas

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered attorney-discipline charges arising from Nicholas G. Karambelas’s administration of the Ida Moss estate. The court found violations involving competence, communication, safekeeping property, candor toward the tribunal, misconduct, District of Columbia trust-account rules, and misuse of trust money, principally based on intentional misappropriation of estate funds and misrepresentations. In conjunction with aggravating factors, the court imposed disbarment.

Holdings

1. Karambelas violated Rule 1.1 by failing to provide competent representation in administering the Moss estate and representing Patricia Brandon, including by delaying the opening of the estate, failing to disclose the known will, failing to address tax and filing obligations, failing to appear at a show-cause hearing, and filing materially incomplete or inaccurate estate documents.
2. Karambelas violated Rule 1.4(a) and (b) by failing to keep Brandon reasonably informed and failing to explain matters necessary for informed decisions concerning estate administration, taxes, filings, property sales, and entrusted funds.
3. Karambelas violated Maryland Rule 1.15(a) and (d) and District of Columbia Rule 1.15(a) and (c) by commingling estate funds, misappropriating them, failing to maintain records, failing to notify beneficiaries, failing to make required distributions, and failing to render an accounting.
4. Karambelas violated Rule 3.3(a)(1) by knowingly making false statements and withholding material information from the Orphans' Court, including falsely representing that Moss died intestate and omitting estate assets, sale proceeds, disbursements, and beneficiaries.
5. Karambelas violated Rule 8.4(a)-(d) and § 10-306 by committing multiple professional-conduct violations, engaging in intentional misappropriation and dishonesty, prejudicing the administration of justice, and willfully using entrusted trust money for unauthorized purposes.
6. The evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish a violation of Rule 5.5(a), and the court did not disturb the hearing judge's conclusion that no such violation occurred.
7. Disbarment was the appropriate sanction for Karambelas's intentional misappropriation, pattern of dishonesty, multiple rule violations, substantial experience, and aggravating factors.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the hearing judge's findings and conclusions established violations of Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4, 1.15, 3.3, and 8.4, District of Columbia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15, and Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Article § 10-306.
2. Whether the evidence established a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5(a) for unauthorized practice of law.
3. Whether the asserted mitigating factors, including restitution, remoteness, cooperation, and likelihood of repetition, were established.
4. What sanction was appropriate for the misconduct.

Disposition

other