Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mba-Jonas (Ct. of Appeals)

Decided March 20, 2007 -- Opinion of Chief Judge Robert M. Bell

Respondent had entered a Condition Diversion Agreement ("CDA") with Petitioner ("the Commission") after a client complaint to Petitioner, the specifics of which complaint were not identified. Respondent's monitor ("Monitor") under the CDA came to learn of escrow account irregularities in Respondent's account including three overdrafts, one of which post-dated the execution of the CDA, and that settlement funds pertaining to one client's accident case were used to satisfy other escrow payments for other clients and to third-party medical care providers who had not treated that client.

The Commission charged Respondent with violations of

• MLRPC Rule 1.15 Safekeeping Property
• MLRPC Rule 8.1 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters
• MLRPC Rule 8.4 (a) and (d) Misconduct, as adopted by Rule 16-812
• Rule 16-604
• Rule 16-607
• Rule 16-609
• Maryland Code, BP §§10-304,-306 and -307.

The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County found violations of Rules 1.15 and 8.4(a) and of Rule 16-604 and -607, but no other violations, and noted mitigation evidence in Respondent's lack of intent to deceive and personal difficult circumstances.

The Commission filed four exceptions to the Maryland Court of Appeals, regarding the Circuit Court's failure to find violations of Rule 16-609, Code § 10-306 and Rules 8.1 and Rule 8.4(d). The Court of Appeals sustained the Commission's first three exceptions but overruled it on
the matter of Rule 8.4(d), noting that the Commission's reliance on the existence of contradictory testimony at the fact hearing was not a proper basis for a valid exception to the hearing judge's finding on that point.

The Court of Appeals noted the breadth of Rule violations in this case and the failure of Respondent to take the opportunity that the Commission afforded him under the CDA. Examining prior precedents involving conduct similar to Respondent's but also critically distinguished therefrom, the Court of Appeals suspended Respondent indefinitely with leave to reapply for reinstatement after 90 days.

The full opinion is available here in PDF format.

Proposed Changes to Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct

The Rules Committee of the Maryland Court of Appeals has submitted a Letter Report to the Court of Appeals, transmitting thereby proposed new Rule 16-606.1 (Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping) and proposed amendments to Rules 16-602 (Definitions) and 16-609 (Prohibited Transactions) and Appendix: Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.15 (Safekeeping Property).

Interested persons are asked to consider the Committee’s Report and proposed rules changes and to forward on or before March 5, 2007 any written comments they may wish to make to:

Sandra F. Haines, Esq.
Reporter, Rules Committee
2011-D Commerce Park Drive
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

The Court's open meeting on the rule change is scheduled for March 12 at 2 P.M.

Copies of the proposed rule changes are available in WordPefect and PDF.

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

Filed December 18, 2006 - Opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell.

Upon disciplinary referral from the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City found the following facts to be true:

1. Respondent agreed to represent the complainant, an interested party in a unfiled decedent's estate, and took a retainer for such representation. The decedent had domiciled in Montgomery County, but Respondent agreed to pursue a claim of the decedent's estate in Anne Arundel County regarding decedent's real estate claims there involving a disputed debt and lien. Respondent failed to open an estate in Anne Arundel County, and ignored several notices from the Registrar of Wills and the Orphans' Court of that county including an adverse petition for judicial probate.

2. Respondent represented to the complainant that he was able to proceed in Maryland or the District of Columbia without assistance of other counsel. Respondent did proceed to file a civil action in the District of Columbia with an attorney barred in that jurisdiction, but Respondent was not a barred attorney in the District of Columbia at any time relevant.

3. Respondent made a further false representation on his pro hac vice motion to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, stating that he had no open disciplinary actions in Maryland when the Attorney Grievance Commission has opened and notified Respondent of a then-unresolved disciplinary proceeding approximately two months prior to his statement. Due to service of process issues, the civil action co-filed by Respondent was dismissed twice without prejudice, but Respondent falsely represented to the complainant on one such dismissal that the case had merely been continued, not dismissed.

4. The Orphans' Court for Anne Arundel County proceeded to transfer the related probate case to the Orphans' Court for Montgomery County, but Respondent failed to make many required estate filings in that court, prompting a threat of discharge of the complainant as personal representative of the decedent's estate and her discharge of Respondent as her counsel.

5. During the period of Respondent's failure to act, the size of a disputed debt claim against the decedent's estate rose from approximately $50,000,00 to $57,000.00 and continued to grow with interest thereafter.

The Circuit Court for Baltimore City found violations of Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence) (two such violations), 1.4 (a) (duty to keep client informed) and (b) (duty to explain for informed decision-making), 1.5(a) (fees commensurate with services) and 8.4 (misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.)

Neither party took subsequent exception to these findings of fact or of Rule violations by the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeals accordingly accepted them as established for purposes of imposing a sanction. Respondent had already been suspended indefinitely by the Court of Appeals for the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary action identified in paragraph 3 above. In light of that aggravating factor and weighing the totality of Respondent's dishonest and unprofessional conduct in this matter, the Court of Appeals disbarred Respondent.

The full opinion is available in WPD and PDF.

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

December 14, 2006--Opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell

Respondent, who was 75 and in practice for 48 years in Maryland and for shorter times in D.C. and California, had very little civil trial experience and virtually no experience in family law and custody matters. Nonetheless, in 2002 he undertook the representation of the complainant in a custody dispute with her ex-husband, to set aside a consent custody order entered the previous year, which had been based in part on the diagnosis of complainant as suffering bipolar disorder with paranoid tendencies.

In early 2003, after meeting with the complainant over fifty times and spending many hours of general background research, but without consulting the relevant Maryland rules, statutes or case law, respondent filed a petition, supported by the complainant's affidavit, declarations of persons who knew the complainant, and a memorandum of law raising the theory that the diagnosis was false, the licensed psychologist who made the diagnosis was incompetent to do so, and that the psychiatric community was engaged in "pseudo science." For these services, respondent billed the complainant for $25,000, and later in 2003 filed suit against complainant for his unpaid fees.

Respondent had been the subject of earlier disciplinary proceedings, in California in 1990 and, as a result of the California proceedings, in Maryland in 1993.

Upon consideration of these matters, the hearing court found support for violation of Rules 1.1, Competence, 1.5(a), Fees, 3.1, Meritorius Claims and Contentions, and 8.4(d), Misconduct, but did not violate Rules 1.3, Diligence, or 1.4(b), Communication and found some mitigating circumstances.

Based on the hearing court's findings, the petitioner filed its recommendation for sanction, indefinite suspension, and noted its exception to the hearing court's failure to find that the respondent acted in bad faith and with intent to defraud the complainant, and was not in fact contrite. The respondent failed to formally file an exception, but did file to urge that a lesser sanction be applied due to the unique circumstances presented in this matter.

The Court of Appeals overruled petitioner's exception, finding ample evidence to support the findings of fact made by the hearing court, and the conclusions drawn from those findings of fact. Nonetheless, the sanction of indefinite suspension was upheld, since the conduct, while not rising to the level that would require disbarment, was quite serious and could not be condoned, and left the issue of the efficacy of proposed "safeguards" until consideration of whether to readmit the respondent is raised later.

The full opinion is available in WordPerfect or PDF format.

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

Filed December 11, 2006--Opinion by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a monetary sanction against Respondent for his failure to comply with orders of discovery in a a civil case, said failures resulting in the entry of summary judgment against Respondent's client. Respondent failed to pay the monetary sanction or to explain that failure, was ordered to show cause for such failure and, upon his failure to appear, was held in contempt and subsequently arrested. A disciplinary action was instituted in the Disciplinary Committee of the U.S. District Court and Respondent was disbarred by the U.S. District Court.

Upon receiving notice of the federal disbarment, the Attorney Grievance Commission filed reciprocal disciplinary charges against Respondent for violating the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, and those charges were consolidated with two unrelated disciplinary cases against Respondent in this State relating, respectively, to Respondent's failure to file or preserve a timely claim for professional negligence against a nursing home and Respondent's failure to proceed with the filing of an expungement petition, in both such cases failing to communicate with his clients as well. Respondent failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel regarding its investigation of these complaints.

The Court of Appeals upheld the findings and rulings of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County regarding Maryland's rules on reciprocal discipline and regarding the facts as proven, and found violations of Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16 (Declining or terminating representation) and 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters). For these violations and for the aggravating factor of the federal disbarment, the Court of Appeals disbarred Respondent.

The full opinion is available in WordPerfect and PDF.

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.

Application of Chavez for Admission To the Bar (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed December 7, 2006--Per Curiam.

The unfavorable recommendations of the State Board of Law Examiners and the Character Committee are accepted, and Roderick M. Chavez is denied admission to the Bar of Maryland.

The full order is available in WordPerfect and PDF.