357 Md. 554, 568, 745 A.2d 1037, 1044 (2000)). To determine the proper sanction, we also consider the facts and circumstances of an individual case, including the “nature of the ethical duties violated[,]” and “any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shephard, 444 Md. 299, 339, 119 A.3d 765, 788 (2015) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Paul, 423 Md. 268, 284, 31 A.3d 512, 522 (2011). Considering the facts presented before us, and absent mitigating circumstances, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. We have consistently held that repeated failures to respond to Bar Counsel’s investigative requests can be a violation of MARPC § 19-308.1(b). See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gray, 436 Md. 513, 521-22, 83 A.3d 786, 791 (2014) (<HOLDING>); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harmon, 435 Md.
holding that because attorney violated several rules of professional conduct the attorney also violated rule 84a holding an attorney violated rule 84c when the attorney made misrepresentations about holding two clients money in trust holding that suspension for fortyfive days with requirement of paying restitution of 47950 to client plus costs was appropriate disciplinary sanction for attorneys conduct relating to representation of client in divorce action in failing to act with diligence failing to keep client informed failing to adequately explain matters to client and failing to return unearned advancefee upon termination of representation and for attorneys conduct in failing to respond to two letters from office of bar counsel seeking explanation of inconsistencies in attorneys response to bar complaint holding remedies not available to prisoner where officials failed to respond to his grievance during time period required by regulations holding attorney violated rule 81b by failing to respond to two letters from the commission regarding grievance complaint