Ethics Hotline & Opinions

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1988-59

"

MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1988-59

Doctors and Dentists: Threat By Attorney to Have Expert Witness Brought to Court by Sheriff


We have read all of the information that you provided to us, and from that information, and without consideration of any other information, it appears that the consideration expected of one professional towards another may not have been provided. However, the purpose of our Committee is not to make moral judgments, but is to interpret and provide guidance with respect to the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers.

  From a review of those Rules it appears that only one is applicable. Rule 4.4 provides as follows:

  ""In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or to use methods of obtaining evidence that the lawyer knows violates the legal rights of such a person.""

  It appears to us that the instant case provides a perfect example of poor communication and perhaps a lack of consideration, but that the attorney's means had a purpose other than-to embarrass, delay or to burden you.

  The Rules of Professional Conduct are not intended to exhaust the moral and ethical considerations that should inform a lawyer. Rather, they set a framework of rules for which noncompliance is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process. The conduct described does not rise to the level of a violation of a Rule that would subject a 1awyer to discipline.

  From your inquiry it appears that, you perceive the Committee on Ethics to be the body responsible for attorney discipline. This Committee has no power to discipline, but, rather, is charged with offering opinions on issues concerning attorneys' ethics. The Attorney Grievance commission in Annapolis is responsible for discipline.


"
DISCLAIMER: Opinions of the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) Ethics Committee are an uncompensated service of the MSBA. This Committee’s opinions are not binding on the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, MSBA or this Committee. The reader is advised that subsequent judicial opinions, revisions to the rules of professional conduct, and future opinions of this Committee may render the Opinions stated herein outdated. As such, the Committee’s opinions are advisory only and neither the Committee nor the MSBA assumes any liability whatsoever with respect thereto. Accordingly, reliance upon the opinions of this Committee is solely at the risk of the user.