Background
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland initiated disciplinary proceedings against John S. Lopatto, III, a Maryland attorney. The matter arose from conduct governed by Rule 1.15(a) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires lawyers to safekeep property and funds belonging to clients or third parties.
Rather than proceed through contested hearings, the parties negotiated a resolution. On June 18, 2026, the Attorney Grievance Commission and Lopatto filed a Joint Petition for Disbarment pursuant to Maryland Rules 19-736 and 19-737, the procedures governing consent disbarments in Maryland. Lopatto acknowledged that his conduct violated Rule 1.15(a) and consented to disbarment as the appropriate disposition.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland granted the Joint Petition for Disbarment and ordered that John S. Lopatto, III be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, effective immediately. The disbarment is predicated on Lopatto’s violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, concerning the safekeeping of client property and funds.
The Court further ordered the Clerk to provide notice of the disbarment order in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761, which governs notification procedures following attorney discipline. The order was signed by Senior Justice Shirley M. Watts.
Key Takeaways
- Lopatto consented to disbarment, admitting his conduct violated Rule 1.15(a) of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct — the rule requiring attorneys to properly safekeep client funds and property.
- The disbarment was effective immediately upon entry of the order on June 18, 2026.
- Maryland’s consent disbarment procedure (Rules 19-736 and 19-737) allowed the parties to resolve the matter by joint petition without a contested evidentiary hearing.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates Maryland’s consent disbarment framework, which permits an attorney facing serious misconduct charges to agree to disbarment rather than undergo full disciplinary proceedings. The agreed disposition streamlines resolution while achieving the same protective outcome for the public.
The case also highlights that Maryland can discipline attorneys based on violations of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct — relevant where an attorney is admitted in, or subject to the professional rules of, multiple jurisdictions. Mishandling client funds remains among the most serious categories of attorney misconduct, consistently resulting in disbarment across jurisdictions.