Background
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and respondent Yaakov Mordechai Rappaport filed a joint petition for disbarment by consent on September 28, 2026, under Maryland Rule 19-736.
According to the order, Rappaport agreed that the conduct described in the joint petition violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rule of Professional Conduct 19-308.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). He also consented to disbarment as the appropriate sanction.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland granted the joint petition for disbarment by consent. Effective immediately, the court disbarred Rappaport from practicing law in Maryland.
The order identifies the basis for discipline as violations of Rule 19-308.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). The court also directed its clerk to provide notice under Maryland Rule 19-761.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted a jointly requested disbarment by consent.
- Rappaport agreed that his conduct violated four provisions of Rule 19-308.4.
- The disbarment took effect immediately.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates Maryland’s consent-discipline procedure: when the parties jointly seek disbarment and the respondent accepts responsibility for the identified professional-conduct violations, the Supreme Court may impose immediate disbarment without a merits opinion detailing the underlying conduct.
Because the order does not describe that conduct, the decision’s operative result is limited to the consent disbarment and the specified rule violations.