we shall “treat the findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions, if any.” Maryland Rule 16 — 759(b)(2)(A). On the other hand, as Rule 16 — 759(b)(1) mandates that we do, we “shall review de novo the Circuit Court judge’s conclusions of law.” That non-deferential review convinces us that the conclusions of law drawn by Judge Norman are supported by the facts found and, so, we shall accept, and adopt, them as established by clear and convincing evidence. This leaves for determination only the appropriate sanction. On January 18, 2013, the date set for oral argument, we issued a Per Curiam Order immediately disbarring the respondent “for reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed.” We now sta Md. 560, 572, 810 A.2d 487, 494 (2002) (<HOLDING>).” Although not making a sanction
holding that disbarment was proper where the attorney misappropriated payments from clients of his firm for his own use and took steps to conceal his conduct from his firm holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorneys repeated material misrepresentations holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction where an attorney misappropriated funds from his real estate partners holding that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for an attorney who converted partnership money to his own use without authorization and without disclosure to his other partners holding that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for misappropriating approximately 15000 in funds he had received from clients