is shown to be willfully dishonest for personal gain by means of fraud, deceit, cheating or like conduct, absent the most compelling extenuating circumstances ...” Agnew, 271 Md. at 553-54, 318 A.2d at 817. To do otherwise, we concluded, “would constitute a travesty of our responsibility.” Id. And, because “[cjandor and truthfulness are two of the most important moral character traits of a lawyer,” [Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440, 449, 635 A.2d 1315, 1319 (1994) ] deliberate and systematic conduct amounting at least to “fraud or deceit” has resulted in the imposition of the ultimate sanction of disbarment. Guberman, 392 Md. at 137-38, 896 A.2d at 340-41 (footnote and citations omitted). See also Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Spery, 371 Md. 560, 567, 810 A.2d 487, 491 (2002) (<HOLDING>). We explained the rationale behind this
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 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 an attorney was subject to disbarment based on his willful disobedience of a probate court order requiring him to return excess attorney fees paid to the executor of an estate 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