Friday, December 8, 2006

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hodgson (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed December 8, 2006--Opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell.

The Respondent, after being engaged to provide legal services, failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in carrying out that representation, thereby violating Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct (MPRC) 1.3. After filing the divorce complaint for the client, the Respondent failed to keep her client reasonably informed about the status of the representation and did not respond to reasonable requests for information, thereby violating MRPC 1.4(a). The Respondent also violated MRPC 1.4(b) by not explaining to her client the dismissal of her complaint to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Furthermore, the Respondent has clearly abandoned her law practice and her clients as she has been, and still currently is, decertified for her failure to pay her assessment to the Client Protection Fund and has not attempted to get reinstated.

The Respondent further violated MRPC 8.1(b) when she knowingly failed to respond to lawful demands for information from the office of Bar Counsel.

Taken in its totality, the Respondent's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and therefore violated MRPC 8.4 (d).

The Respondent was disbarred.

The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.

No comments: