are two of the most important moral character traits of a lawyer.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440, 449, 635 A.2d 1315 (1994). For that reason, “[cjonduct involving fraud, dishonesty, or deceit will ordinarily result in disbarment.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ross, 428 Md. 50, 86, 50 A.3d 1166 (2012) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keiner, 421 Md. 492, 523, 27 A.3d 153 (2011)). Dishonesty is not the flagship violation in Respondent’s case, however. Although he did make misrepresentations to the Circuit Court for Frederick County in the Motion to Vacate he filed on behalf of the Embreys, Respondent did not engage in a “pattern of ... deceitful conduct over an extensive period of time.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633, 647, 790 A.2d 621 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Respondent violated his duty not to
holding that disbarment is the presumptively appropriate sanction under both the florida standards for imposing lawyer sanctions and case law when a lawyer misappropriates trust funds holding that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for misappropriating approximately 15000 in funds he had received from clients 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 was the appropriate sanction for an attorneys repeated material misrepresentations