Skip to main content

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. Dechowitz

Md.March 10, 2000No. Misc. (Subtitle AG) No. 18, Sept. Term, 1999Cited 21 times
Defendant WinDechowitz
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Eldridge
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Attorney Cary David Dechowitz was disbarred from the practice of law in Maryland following his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The court found clear and convincing evidence of violations of professional conduct rules and rejected his request for suspension with reinstatement eligibility in favor of permanent disbarment.

What This Ruling Means

**Attorney Disbarred After Drug Conviction** This case involved attorney Cary David Dechowitz, who was convicted of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute it. The Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission brought disciplinary action against him for violating professional conduct rules that lawyers must follow. The court decided to permanently disbar Dechowitz, meaning he can never practice law again in Maryland. Dechowitz had asked for a temporary suspension that would allow him to eventually return to practicing law, but the court rejected this request. The court found clear and convincing evidence that his criminal conviction violated the professional standards required of attorneys. This case matters for workers because it shows how seriously the legal profession takes misconduct by attorneys. When lawyers face criminal charges, they can lose their license to practice law permanently, not just temporarily. For workers who rely on attorneys for employment issues, workplace disputes, or other legal matters, this demonstrates that there are strong accountability measures in place. However, since this is a disciplinary action against a lawyer rather than an employment dispute, it doesn't directly change workers' rights or protections in the workplace.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.