Ethics and Professionalism Update - BALTIMORE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 VOL8 | NO1 - Bar Association of ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
BARRISTER
BALTIMORE
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 VOL 8 | NO 1
Ethics and Professionalism Update
P U B L I S H E D Q U A R T E R LY BBACK
Y T HTO
E TABLE
B A R OF
A SCONTENTS
S O C I AT I O N O F B A LT I M O R E C I T Y
1
BARRISTER
The Baltimore Barrister
Editorial Offices
The Bar Association of Baltimore City
111 N. Calvert Street, Suite 627
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
410.539.5936
info@baltimorebar.org
www.baltimorebar.org
Communications and News Journal Committee
Evelyn L. Cusson Michael John March, Jr.
Jessica Butkera Meaghan McDermott
Lauren Lake
Sisi Liu Amy Petkovsek
Sara Lucas Levi S. Zaslow
The Bar Association of Baltimore City
Officers and Executive Council
2018-2019
Kelly Hughes Iverson, President The Honorable Karen Friedman
The Honorable Dana M. Middleton, President-Elect Alicia J. Gipe
Darren L. Kadish, Vice President Jeffrey J. Hines
Anthony F. Vittoria, Treasurer Lauren Lake
Michelle K. Wilson, Secretary The Honorable Lynn Stewart Mays
Divya Potdar, Chair, YLD David J. McManus
Joseph A. Pulver, Chair-Elect, YLD Myshala E. Middleton
Young Lawyers’ Division Erin C. Miller
Robert D. Anbinder James W. Motsay
Thomas H. Barnard M. Natalie McSherry
Catherine A. Bledsoe The Honorable Christopher L. Panos
Charles M. Blomquist Marshall B. Paul
Joshua L. Caplan Samuel R. Pulver
Scarlett M. Corso Kerri L. Smith
Evelyn L. Cusson The Honorable Michael Studdard
Janet A. Forero Meghan H. Yanacek
The Baltimore Barrister is a quarterly publication of The Bar Association of Baltimore City provided to its members at no cost as part of annual dues. Non-members subscriptions are available for $50 per
year. The Bar Association of Baltimore City (“BABC”) presents the information contained in the Baltimore Barrister, as a service to our members, including members of the general public. While the
information is about legal issues, it is not intended as legal advice or as a substitute for your own legal research and investigation or the particularized advice of your own counsel. Further, any practice
tips or summaries of cases contained herein cannot be relied upon as being controlling authority. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors, and are not those of BABC. Finally, the
articles contained herein are copyrighted, all rights, reserved by the respective authors and/or their law firms, companies or organizations. People seeking specific legal advice or assistance should contact
an attorney, either by contacting the BABC Lawyer Referral Service or another source. BABC does not guarantee the accuracy of any of the information or forms presented herein. Similarly, we provide
links to other sites that we believe may be useful or informative. These links to third party sites or information are not intended as, and should not be interpreted by you as constituting or implying our
endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of the third party information, products or services found there. We do not maintain or control those sites and, accordingly, make no guarantee concerning
the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information found there. Further, the contents of advertisements are the responsibility of advertisers and do not represent any recommendation or endorse-
ment by BABC. BABC may deny publishing any submission or advertisement, in its sole and absolute discretion. For information on submissions or advertising, call or email the editorial offices at
410-539-5936/info@baltimorebar.org. Copyright 2018 by The Bar Association of Baltimore City.
TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
BARRISTER
Table of Contents
December 2018 Barrister
4 MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT 21 CABARET & CABERNET
5 YOUNG LAWYERS’ DIVISION REPORT
23 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF ARMISTICE
6 TIPS FOR RESPONDING TO BAR COUNSEL
23 MENTOR/MENTEE NETWORKING EVENT
SHOULD I POST THIS?: LAW CLERKS ON
8 SOCIAL MEDIA
24 NATIONAL ADOPTION DAY CELEBRATION
9 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS DO’S AND DON’TS
25 24TH ANNUAL PAST PRESIDENT’S LUNCH
RECENT ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE
10 COMMISSION OPINIONS
YOUNG LAWYERS VOLUNTEER
25 AT OUR DAILY BREAD
YLD MEET & MINGLE
18 WITH YLD COMMITTEE CHAIRS
28 WELCOME NEW BABC MEMBERS!
YLD PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECT AT
19 BELIEVE IN TOMORROW CHILDREN’S HOUSE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY
12TH ANNUAL END OF SUMMER
29 ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES
19 MEMBER’S RECEPTION
20 BABC’S ANNUAL CRAB FEAST 31 AROUND THE OFFICES
PRACTICE TIPS ON TAP SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR ANNUAL
21 WITH HON. KEVIN M. WILSON 32 LAW FIRM SPONSORS
3
BARRISTER
Message from the President
By Kelly Hughes Iverson
In the last several years, its nature and design, our system of justice has “winners” and
I have seen many social “losers.” Unchecked, such a system could readily descend into
media friends adopt No- the divisive “us/them” mentality that currently infects our na-
vember as a “thankfulness” tional conversation. We all recognize a duty to zealously rep-
month, extending the hol- resent our clients, and in our current climate, we may face in-
iday of Thanksgiving for a creasing pressure from clients and others to depersonalize the
full month and challeng- opponent, and to win at any cost.
ing themselves and their Fortunately, our legal system is not unchecked. Centuries of
friends each day to identify living with an adversarial system, kept in perspective, have pro-
something for which they duced a set of principles and mores that guide our interactions
are grateful. The practice, with each other, with our courts, and with our clients. Certain
while lighthearted and so- of these have been codified into professional rules of ethics; oth-
cial in nature, invites us to ers are more ingrained as unwritten guides to “doing the right
take stock of our lives and thing.” These unwritten guidelines may be more difficult to dis-
recognize what is truly important. The November/December cern than one might imagine, because as the articles in this issue
issue’s focus on Professionalism and Ethics is well timed, as it illustrate, many situations create shades of gray for which there
too invites us as lawyers and judge to take stock and identify is no easy answer. Many lessons in professionalism and ethics
what makes the practice of law more than a business, or in other can be learned only through experience, which includes watch-
words, what makes us a profession. ing others with more experience navigate the inevitable bumps
There is no time more important to do so, and perhaps no along the road.
time more difficult to do so, than now. We inhabit a world that is This is where the Bar Association plays an important role.
becoming, as it was for Alice in Wonderland, “curiouser and cu- With the number of young lawyers striking out on their own
riouser.” Our 24/7 news cycle bombards us with dizzying speed, soon after law school, the opportunities to learn at the feet of
as newsmakers compete to stay on our screens. We see so many more experienced lawyers can be more limited. The Bar Asso-
outrageous comments and behaviors in our national news every ciation offers that opportunity, both through a formal mentor-
day that we become numb to outrage. Truth is relative; facts are ship program and through informal contacts and discussions.
alternative; and science is an optional belief system. The world And on a broader scale for lawyers with all levels of experience,
self-divides into “us” and “them,” and winning at any cost begins the Bar Association serves an important purpose in develop-
to take priority over our collective best interests. This national ing professionalism. It is more difficult to depersonalize, cast
incivility seeps incipiently into local and individual spheres as as “the other,” and employ scorched earth or “gotcha” tactics
we retreat into our “bubbles” and individuals begin to deper- against someone whom we see often at social events or with
sonalize others in their communities. Taken to the extreme, the whom we serve on professional committees. The Bar Associa-
ongoing depersonalization of “the other” leads to atrocities such tion reminds us that, regardless of the identity of our clients, we
as those seen in the last few weeks, including the cold-blood- have much more in common than we have differences. The rest
ed murder of two kind, loving grandparents because they were of society could learn something about professionalism from us,
black, and the massacre of 11 upstanding community members and from our collective centuries of experience. We have been
because they were Jews. and continue to be first and foremost a profession. And for that,
We as lawyers have long inhabited an adversarial system. By I am thankful.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
BARRISTER
Report from the YLD
By Divya Potdar, Chair, Young Lawyers’ Division
The Young Lawyers’ Division has had an the two schools every week to help the 11-12 year old students pre-
extremely busy fall. Thanks to a very ener- pare both the prosecution and defense cases. Students have been
getic group of council members who plan practicing against their classmates with the help of 3-6 volunteer
weekly and monthly events, the YLD has lawyers and judges in each session. The Big Finale Mock Trial Com-
seen an increase in membership this year. petition was between both schools and will be held at the Circuit
The YLD Council got together for a “sci- Court for Baltimore City. Circuit Court Judge, and President-Elect
ence fair” style Meet & Mingle event to start of BABC, Dana Middleton, presided over the final Mock Trial Com-
the bar year. This kick-off event was not only petition on December 11th. Volunteer classmates from both schools
a happy hour, but also served as a way for who did not sign up for the program were asked to serve as jurors.
members and non-members alike to learn about all our committees. Circuit Court Judge Christopher Panos and former states’ attorney
Many attendees signed up to be on committees as the Chairs of all Letam Duson spoke to the students during lunch.
the YLD Committees showcased their respective committees and The Mentoring Program has successfully matched up over thir-
discussed their upcoming projects. ty-five pairs of mentors and mentees. The YLD Mentoring Program
The YLD Membership Committee has helped organize three matches new attorneys with less than seven years of experience with
monthly happy hours, each of which had over 70 attendees of all ages attorneys who have been barred for more than seven years. Partici-
and practice areas. The YLD CLE Committee organized it’s first-ever pants are encouraged to meet twice in a year and attend at least one
‘Practice Tips on Tap’ educational event. This CLE is similar to the BABC event during the bar year.
ever-popular ‘Breakfast with the Bench,’ but held at the end of the The YLD CLE Committee has coordinated three lecture sessions
work-day in a more casual and relaxed environment. On a healthier featuring local judges thus far. In October the Committee had Dis-
note, The Health & Wellness Committee organized a first-ever, free, trict Court Judge Kevin Wilson provide practice tips for litigators
active, work-out event featuring a local physical therapist, gym, and and U.S Magistrate Judge Copperthite spoke about the importance of
personal trainer. ‘From Circuit Court to Circuit Training’ welcomed mediations and settlement conferences. In November, Circuit Court
lawyers of all ages and fitness levels to de-stress with a 45 minute Judge Lynn Stewart Mays conducted a round-table discussion about
work-out and 15 minute stretching session. The Committee is work- various vital trial practice topics that are not taught in law school.
ing on another fitness event for December with the same therapist The YLD Events Committee called local businesses and drove
and trainer. around town collecting donations for the silent auction featured at
The YLD Public Service Committee has helped three different the BABC Holiday Party, which was held on December 6th. Proceeds
charity organizations in their monthly volunteer sessions so far. The of the silent auction items benefit the YLD Holiday Party for Chil-
Committee cooked for and served dinner at Johns Hopkins Believe dren Living in Shelters, which was held on December 11th. This is an
in Tomorrow Children’s House in September and served dinner at annual event in which the YLD brings children and families living
Our Daily Bread in November. In October, the Committee assisted in Baltimore City homeless shelters to the Maryland Science Center
with the mock trial of People vs. Jack and the Beanstalk which was for an evening of entertainment. The attendees received a hot meal,
organized by The Harambe Center (formerly Kids Safe Zone) and a visit with Santa, and holiday gifts. The children enjoyed entertain-
held at the Wabash District Courthouse. ment provided by the Oriole Bird, a magician, face painters, a stilt
Speaking of mock trials, the YLD Public Education Committee walker and juggler, a therapy dog, and hands-on exhibits at the Sci-
has been hard at work this fall preparing students from Highland- ence Center. The children also enjoyed making arts and crafts and
town Middle School and Francis Scott Key Middle School for the playing with balloon animals. The YLD appreciates all those who
Mock Trial of People v. Clevenger. Volunteers have been going into volunteered their time and money for this wonderful holiday event.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
5
BARRISTER
Tips for Responding to Bar Counsel
By Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel
There are a little over 40,000 attorneys licensed to practice bers of the bar the obligation to respond to inquiries from Bar
law in Maryland. Every year, the Attorney Grievance Commis- Counsel truthfully, completely, and timely. Treat your response
sion receives about 2,000 complaints. The statistics show that, if not only as a fulfillment of your obligation under the MARPC
you represent individuals in family law matters, litigation, crimi- but also as a chance to complete (or correct) the record, to clear
nal defense or immigration matters in Baltimore City or County, up misunderstandings, and, when warranted, to accept responsi-
at some point during your career, you will likely be called upon bility for your acts or omissions that have violated the standards
to respond to an inquiry from Bar Counsel.1 of our profession.
The Court of Appeals has stated: “The practice of law carries With those guiding principles in mind, the following tips are
with it special responsibilities of self-regulation, and attor- provided:
ney cooperation with disciplinary authorities is of the utmost Do not panic. Although almost every complaint received by
importance to the success of the process and the integrity of my office is sent to the subject attorney for a response, we are
the profession.”2 To that end, the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of well aware that a complaint is just one side of the story. Once we
Professional Conduct (MARPC), Rule 8.1 imposes upon mem- receive a response, and possibly additional comments from the
complainant, 80-90% of complaints are closed with a determina-
1 See Annual Report of the Attorney Grievance Commission
tion that an insufficient basis exists to demonstrate misconduct
available at: https://www.courts.state.md.us/attygrievance/annualreport. or that the overall circumstances do not warrant an investiga-
tion.3
2 Attorney Grievance Commission v. Butler, 441 Md. 352, 360
(2015) (citing Attorney Grievance Commission v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234, 255
(2000)). 3 Maryland Rule 19-711.
The McCammon Group’s
Baltimore Area Neutrals
Hon. John M. Glynn (Ret.) John H. Lewin, Jr., Esq. Hon. Gale E. Rasin (Ret.) Kenneth L. Thompson, Esq. Hon. Martin P. Welch (Ret.)
Mediation • Arbitration • Special Master
888-343-0922 • www.McCammonGroup.com • info@mccammongroup.com
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
6
BARRISTER
Open the envelope and read the complaint. The Court First, wait at least one day before doing anything. Resist the
of Appeals has routinely rejected attorneys’ contentions that urge to fire off a response immediately; it is neither required
they failed to respond, or respond timely, to Bar Counsel’s nor advisable. Ordinarily, an attorney is given fifteen days
inquiries because they hoped the complaint would simply to respond to an initial inquiry. If you need additional time,
“go away” or they buried their head in the sand because of extensions for good cause are routinely granted. Second,
an “irrational fear of Bar Counsel.” 4 I can assure you that before you draft your response, review your entire file and
the complaint, if ignored, will not go away. all relevant documentation. Do not rely on your memory.
Misrepresentations or misstatements will, at best, under-
Check your malpractice insurance. A number of mine your credibility, and at worst, provide the basis for a
carriers write policies that provide representation with no violation of Rule 8.1(a) which prohibits an attorney from
deductible, up to a limit, for responding to Bar Counsel. If knowingly making a false statement of material fact in con-
you don’t have malpractice insurance, now may be a good nection with a disciplinary matter. Remember that an at-
time to get some. torney’s response will ordinarily be sent to the complainant
and if inaccuracies or misstatements are contained therein,
Choose your attorney wisely. If you retain counsel, she
Bar Counsel is generally notified in short order.
should be able to give you objective advice. She should
Third, write a draft response and have it fully vetted
understand the nuances of the disciplinary process and the
by another attorney who is not involved and who can give
importance of cooperating with Bar Counsel.
you an objective critique. Make sure that your response is
responsive to the allegations raised in the complaint and
Tips for the self-represented. For those who choose
includes copies of any relevant documents. Next, proofread.
to represent themselves, the following may be instructive.
Then proofread again, and finally, proofread. A response
4 Butler, 441 Md. 361. to a client complaint alleging lack of diligence that is filled
with typos and errors will do nothing to further your con-
tention that you represented the client within the mandates
of the MARPC.
Do Not Blame or Attack Others. Finally, do not attack
the complainant or Bar Counsel and do not blame others for
your acts or omissions. “[A]ttorneys are required to act with
common courtesy and civility at all times in their dealings
with those concerned with the legal process” including Bar
Counsel, complaining clients and others. “[W]holly un-
warranted character assassination violates the very core of
professionalism and is condemned.” 5 Besides the general
admonition from the Court of Appeals that such conduct
reflects adversely on the profession, the strategy, whether
developed by you or your attorney, will do nothing to fur-
ther your cause.
The importance of an attorney’s response to an inquiry
from Bar Counsel cannot be overstated. The initial re-
sponse will often determine whether the complaint should
be closed or docketed for further investigation. For the vast
majority of practitioners, a complete, accurate and pro-
fessional response will enable us to close the file. In cases
involving serious misconduct or where additional investiga-
tion is needed, an attorney’s response is critical in evaluat-
ing not only what Rules of Professional Conduct may have
been violated but the severity of the sanction, ultimately, to
be imposed.
5 Attorney Grievance Commission v. Payer, 425 Md. 78, 98
(2012).
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
7
BARRISTER
Should I Post This?:
Law Clerks on Social Media
By Lauren E. Lake, Esq.
In late September 2017, about one month into my second she feels is right or wrong. As advocates, many attorneys
judicial clerkship, a collection of law clerks for the district feel an obligation to voice their opinions about legal issues,
judges and magistrate judges of the United States District to inform and offer opinions to their non-legal peers on
Court for the District of Maryland gathered in a conference the current issues.
room in the Clerk’s Office for a live-streamed training by a There is a time and place for that. That does not mean
federal district court judge in another district. The topic: that current or future law clerks cannot express their
What Every Law Clerk Needs to Know about Ethics When views. Instead, they just should not do so on social media
Starting a Clerkship. where other people can see and possibly misinterpret their
The presentation covered several ethical topics before viewpoints and attribute them to the court or judge for
winding its way to some points about social media. The which the law clerk works. As difficult as it might be for
presenter informed us that we could not post anything any attorney to refrain from posting, liking, or engaging
disparaging about the court or remarks that would detract with certain content on social media, law clerks, with their
from the court’s dignity. We nodded in agreement. Sure, close working relationship to judges, need to ensure that
that made sense. We were also told not to post anything their use of social media adheres to the judiciar y’s need to
about any pending cases or anything that would suggest remain neutral and impartial.
that we engaged in favoritism or otherwise could influence
a case. More nods from the clerks. Of course, we would
also have access to confidential information in chambers
that we could not broadcast.
But then the presenter commented on how law clerks
Mills Legal Nurse
should refrain from associating with or commenting Consulting Services LLC
on any political or social issues that may be litigated by
the court and she started listing a few current issues,
Save time and money in preparing medical-related
including President Trump’s immigration and transgender
cases when you work with a dependable legal nurse
military personnel bans and the white nationalist march in
Charlottesville, Virginia.
consultant on your side. I offer expert advice to
Concerned expressions flashed across several law clerks’ attorneys working on cases related to medical
faces as they racked their brains about their recent social malpractice and personal injury.
media posts. One law clerk posed a question about her I assist you with unfolding facts that can make or
posts from before she started clerking. In response, she was break your case. I have diversely expanded my
told that if there was anything on her social media feed that knowledge base in various medical fields as I’ve spent
could call her impartiality as an employee of her judge and
more than 40 years of experience in:
the court into question or possibly be challenged before the
Court, she needed to make it private or delete it and refrain • Pediatrics
from commenting in the future until after her clerkship. • Home Health
I would bet that this was not the only law clerk in the • Clinical Research
room to suddenly realize that he or she had posted some
inappropriate content on social media given his or her
Give me a call or send me a message for an initial
employment with the court. Instead, this was just one consultation. I serve clients in the entire state of
law clerk’s moment of realization when she recognized Maryland.
that her use of social media undercut some of the aims
and policies of the court, including the need to maintain Bernadette T Mills
the appearance of neutrality and impartiality within the RN, MSN, CLNC
judiciary. It can be difficult in today’s media age to not anchorage410@comcast.net 410-563-5321
engage when a young attorney hears about something he or
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
8
BARRISTER
Professional Ethics Do’s and Don’ts
By Michael March, Esq.
1. Be mindful when using social media. 6. Attend as many continuing legal education (“CLE”)
Never post client or case specific information on Facebook, In- events, seminars, and networking opportunities as
stagram, Snapchat, or any other social media services. Selfies of possible. Find a mentor.
you and your clients in court are probably not a great idea. More- Your education should not stop when you graduate law school.
over, only post professional, well written articles on Linkedin or Countless free CLE’s are offered by national, state, and local bar
other professional social media services. Keep in mind, profes- organizations. CLEs are a great way to learn about the areas of
sional networking services are a tool, that when used effectively, law in which you practice. They are also a great way to learn
can greatly increase your exposure to the legal community and about other areas of the law. At its best, CLEs can help you ef-
provide a source of referrals and access to new clients. Make it fectively represent your clients, stay up on recent trends in the
easy for people to connect with you. Post articles that you are law, and understand questions the legal community is facing.
passionate about, but keep in mind, if your information is public, At its worst, you have new conversational topics to discuss at
anyone can read your posts, and your opinions may change over happy hour.
time.
7. Never comingle client funds and personal funds.
2. Always be prepared. Keep detailed records of your escrow account(s).
There is no substitute for putting in the time to obtain the facts, We have all heard the horror stories about attorneys getting
research the law, undergo a thorough analysis, and adequately disbarred for misappropriation of client escrow accounts. My
prepare. Alternatively, not being prepared almost always reflects advice is to keep it simple. If the funds are not yours, do not
poorly on your reputation and disadvantages your client. Every- touch them, unless you have an absolute right to them. Keep
one is busy in the legal community. The long hours required to detailed records of your accounts including who has access to
be prepared will be worth it in the end. them. Moreover, when transferring funds, keep a detailed log
of the contracts or documents associated with the cause of the
3. Be professional, kind, and courteous to opposing fund movement. Maintain one business account and one escrow
counsel. account and never transfer funds electronically or comingle cli-
Sometimes the opposing counsel can be stubborn, unresponsive, ent and personal funds. If you ever have questions, or feel that
and unkind. Always take the high road, and remember you get you have made a mistake, reach out to the ethics hotline im-
more bees with honey than vinegar. Plus, it is highly likely you mediately. It happens, and there are people who can help. It is
will encounter the same attorney in the future. It is called “Small- always advantageous to proactively resolve an issue rather than
timore” for a reason. wait to see if it becomes a problem in the future.
4. Ask questions. Leverage your resources. 8. Always be on time, dress professionally, and be mind-
In today’s constantly changing legal environment it is impossi- ful of your behavior.
ble to know everything. Utilize the resources around you. Start Plan to arrive at least 20 minutes before your intended meeting
with an old fashioned google search. Move on to Westlaw, Lexus or your court appearance. This allows time for unforeseen ob-
Nexus, or other professional research platforms. Finally, don’t be stacles that may present themselves. Being on time is often tak-
afraid to ask your old law school classmates or other attorneys. en for granted. However, being late rarely goes unnoticed as it
Most likely, if you have a question, someone else has encountered can frustrate clients, opposing attorneys, and the judge. There is
the same issue and had the same questions. no second chance at a first impression. Further, dressing profes-
sionally is essential to gaining client confidence and the respect
5. Respond to clients within 24 hours, if possible, and of the court, especially for younger attorneys. Finally, always be
in the medium in which they prefer to communicate. mindful of your behavior as you never know who is watching.
Timely communication with your clients is essential. Never leave Your next client, employer, or mentor could be watching to see
your client’s wondering about the status of their case. Even if it how you handle yourself under pressurized situations. Remem-
is just to check in and tell them you are still working towards a ber, pressure creates diamonds, but it also bursts pipes.
resolution. Obtaining your client’s trust starts with good com-
munication. Moreover, your client will communicate with you in 9. Have fun.
the means in which they prefer. Some clients enjoy email, some At a minimum, you spent four years obtaining an undergradu-
want to hear your voice on the phone, others will request face to ate degree, three years in law school, and countless hours pre-
face meetings. It is important to help your client feel as comfort- paring for the bar exam. The amount of time, effort, and hard
able as possible, remember this is most likely a stressful time in work it took to get here should be displayed as a badge of honor,
their life. so have fun with your practice and enjoy it.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
9
BARRISTER
Recent Attorney Grievance Commission
Opinions from the Maryland Court of Appeals
By Sisi Liu and Sara Lucas
The following are summaries of Attorney Grievance of law, pending a request for reconsideration if the Fourth
Commission (“AGC”) opinions from the beginning of this Circuit ruled in his favor on appeal.7 The Fourth Circuit
year handed down by the Maryland Court of Appeals: affirmed thirteen of the fourteen counts, and Blair was
sentenced to ninety-seven months in prison.8 When
“Criminal Activity/Offenses”
Blair was released from custody in late 2017, he filed
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ogilvie, Bar for reinstatement.9 In response, the court permanently
Counsel petitioned for the Court of Appeals to take disbarred Blair.10
disciplinary action against attorney Ogilvie, pursuant to In disbarring Blair, the court concluded that Blair
“MARPC” Rule 19–738.1 In 2014, Ogilvie was indicted in violated MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), and (d) because each of the
the Circuit Court for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia thirteen convictions reflected dishonest and fraudulent
with one count of felony breaking and entering while conduct, prejudicial to the administration of justice.11 In
armed with a deadly weapon, one count of felony malicious considering mitigation, the court found that an evidentiary
wounding, and one count of felony abduction.2 After hearing on mitigating factors was unnecessary because
submitting an Alford plea, the judge sentenced Ogilvie to Blair had already “unequivocally admitted” to all of his
fifty years of incarceration, with forty-six years suspended convictions.12 Furthermore, the court articulated that
and supervised probation for an indefinite period of time, “in light of the dishonest and criminal nature of Blair’s
with additional conditions of probation.3 As a result, misconduct, the number of instances of misconduct,
the court concluded that Ogilvie’s criminal conviction and the egregiousness of the conduct, compelling
demonstrated a violation of MARPC Rule 19–308.4 extenuating circumstances would be necessary to preclude
(Misconduct) (b), (c), and (d).4 The Court determined disbarment.”13 The court also emphasized that standing
that the felonious nature of Ogilvie’s conduct, her criminal alone, “any one of the eleven felonies that Blair committed
conviction and sentence, her failure to report her charges . . . would heavily weigh in favor of disbarment.”14
and conviction to Bar Counsel, and the absence of any Ultimately, the court found no extenuating circumstances
extenuating circumstances, warranted disbarment.5 existed, thus mandating disbarment.15
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Blair, attorney In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Paul, Bar Counsel
Blair was convicted of fourteen criminal charges in federal charged attorney Paul with violating multiple rules of
court.6 Blair was immediately suspended from the practice professional conduct stemming from his convictions
of traffic offenses and his involvement in contentious
1 181 A.3d 218, 221 (Md. 2018). MARPC 19–738(i) states “a
final judgment of any court of record convicting an attorney of a crime,
whether the conviction resulted from acceptance by the court of a plea of Money Laundering, WTOP (July 14, 2018, 4:38 PM) https://wtop.com/
guilty or nolo contendere, or a verdict after trial, is conclusive evidence of maryland/2018/07/lawyer-disbarred-by-maryland-high-court-for-money-
the attorney’s guilt of that crime.” laundering/.
2 Id. at 219.
7 Blair, 188 A.3d at 1012.
3 Id.
8 Id.
4 Id. at 692-93. It is professional misconduct for an attorney to:
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s hones- 9 Id.
ty, trustworthiness or fitness as an attorney in other respects; (c) engage 10 Id. at 1027.
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) 11 Id. at 1026.
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Md.
Rule 19–308.4. 12 Id. at 1020.
5 Id. at 223. 13 Id. at 1023.
6 188 A.3d 1009, 1016 (Md. 2018). The criminal charges 14 Id. at 1026.
included nine counts of money laundering; one count each of witness 15 Id. at 1023–26. Writing separately, Judge Harrell disagreed
tampering, obstruction of justice, and making a false statement; and two with the majority and would have given Blair an opportunity to present an
counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns. Id. See also evidentiary hearing “limited to the accepted factors of sanction mitigation .
The Associated Press, Lawyer Disbarred by Maryland High Court For . . .” Id. at 1027 (Harell, J., dissenting).
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
10BARRISTER
litigation.16 Regarding his traffic offenses, Paul was supporting evidence in appealing a removal order, to file a
arrested and given traffic citations charging negligent timely motion to reconsider that decision, and the untimely
driving, failure to stop after accident involving damages to motion he ended up filing did not state any appropriate
attended vehicle/property, unsafe lane change, and failure rationale.27 In another client’s case, Ndi violated the
to return to/remain at scene of accident involving attended standards of competence and diligence by failing to pay
vehicle/property damage.17 Paul ultimately pled guilty to client’s medical bill, as he had promised.28 Upon ending
two charges of failing to return/remain at the scene of an representation, Ndi failed to communicate with client and
accident involving damage to attended vehicle/property and issue the rest of client’s settlement proceeds.29 In reaching
negligent driving.18 Regarding contentious litigation in the decision to disbar the respondent, the trial court found
which Paul was representing a client, the Circuit Court for several aggravating factors and no mitigating factors.30
Prince George’s County concluded that Paul brought claims In affirming the trial court’s findings of fact, the court
in bad faith and without substantial justification.19 reasoned that the case for disbarment is heightened
The court found that clear and convincing evidence when an attorney, who is not even authorized to practice
supported the conclusion that Paul violated MLRPC in Maryland, violates basic standards of legal practice,
8.4(a), (b), and (d).20 Specifically, Paul violated MLRPC misleads the regulatory authority, refuses to participate
8.4(a) and (b) when he plead guilty to negligent driving.21 in Bar Counsel proceedings and therefore fails to offer
Furthermore, Paul violated 8.4(d) when he engaged mitigating evidence in his favor.31
in road rage, which served as the basis for his guilty In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hecht, the court
plea to negligent driving.22 Thus, the court suspended indefinitely suspended Hecht with the right to petition for
Paul from practicing law for 30 days and imposed costs reinstatement in 12 months.32 Specifically, Hecht violated
notwithstanding Bar Counsel’s failure to prove all MLRPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(a) and (d), 3.2,
charges.23 3.3, 3.4(d), 4.1, 5.5(a) and (b), 8.1 and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and
(d). Respondent failed to communicate to his client that
“Unauthorized Practice of Law”
he was suspended, made misrepresentations to the client
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ndi, a New York about his suspension, continued to render legal assistance
State attorney, Ndi, who was not licensed to practice in on behalf of the client, and made misrepresentations to
Maryland, was disbarred for multiple MLPRC and MARPC Bar Counsel during the investigation.33 Additionally,
violations,24 specifically, Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, Respondent showed a lack of competence and diligence
5.5, 7.1, 7.5, 8.1, and 8.4 as well as Maryland Rule 19–308.1 by repeatedly failing to comply with discovery deadlines
and Maryland Rule 19–308.4 during his representation of and delaying his client’s trial unnecessarily and ultimately
two clients.25 Ndi engaged in the unauthorized practice caused the case to be dismissed.34
of law when he was not licensed in the state of Maryland, Generally, although this type of conduct resulted in
yet he held himself out as an attorney licensed to practice disbarment, the court found there was sufficient mitigating
in the state.26 In addition to lacking prerequisites to evidence.35 Such evidence included Hecht admitting that
practice law in Maryland, the court found that Ndi also he made mistakes in the way he handled client’s case,
failed to meet basic standards of client representation when expressing remorse for such mistakes, not profiting from
he failed to re-file client’s asylum application, to provide the clients’ case, paying the clients $30,000 of his own
money as restitution after his client’s case was dismissed,
16 187 A.3d 625, 628 (Md. 2018). and making numerous unsuccessful efforts to get new
17 Id. at 534.
18 Id. at 535.
27 Id. at 32.
19 Id. at 538.
28 Id.
20 Id. at 634–41.
29 Id. at 33. The court found in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
21 Id. at 634. Logan, 888 A.2d 359 (Md. 2005), that an attorney violates Rule 1.16 (d)
22 Id. at 637–38. when he abandons representation of a client, refuses to return records, and
refuses to engage in further communications.
23 Id. at 641 (applying the holding from Sperling).
30 Id. at 38.
24 184 A.3d 25, 27 (Md. 2018).
31 Id.
25 Id. at 33-37.
32 184 A.3d 429, 432 (Md. 2018).
26 Id. at 35. In holding himself out to be a licensed attorney in
Maryland, NDI also violated Rule 7.1 when he made false and misleading 33 Id. at 431–32.
communications about his services to his client. Rule 7.5 was broken when 34 Id. at 438.
Respondent advertised, by way of a website, that he was able to practice in
Maryland, and not just limited to federal immigration matters. Id. at 36. 35 Id. at 444.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
11BARRISTER
counsel to represent his clients.36 Based on the totality client, and failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries also
of mitigating factors, the court indefinitely suspended contributed to the sanction of disbarment.44
Hecht, with the right to petition for reinstatement after In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sacks, the court
twelve months from the date of opinion.37 In contrast, the disbarred attorney, Sacks, who engaged in numerous forms
dissenting judges found the lack of compelling extenuating of serious misconduct that involved multiple clients and
circumstances, intentionally dishonest conduct, his included misappropriating funds, fabricating documents,
numerous other violations of the MLRPC, aggravating and making misrepresentations to courts, clients, and
factors, history of prior attorney discipline, and recognizing opposing counsel.45 The Court found it significant that
that the misconduct in this case occurred while Hecht was Sacks violated MLRPC 8.4(c) on thirteen occasions, in
already indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in addition to other violations;46 specifically, MLRPC 1.2(a),
Maryland, warranted disbarment.38 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a), (c), (d), and
(e), 1.16(d), 3.1, 3.4(c) and (d), 8.1(b), 8.4(a) and (b).47
“Pattern of Misconduct”
The above rule violations were triggered upon termination
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Jacobs, the of Sack’s representation, and his continued work on former
court disbarred solo practitioner, Jacobs, when he clients’ cases without their permission, and also Sack’s
repeatedly harmed the same client by failing basic failure to refund client’s fees.48 Additionally, Sacks harmed
duties of representation in addition to other violations, his clients when he failed to file and amend his client’s
including MARPC Rules 19–301.1 (Competence), 19–301.3 petitions in a timely manner49 and deprived his clients of
(Diligence), 19–301.4 (Communication), 19–301.16 their funds and files by charging unreasonable fees.50 The
(Declining or Terminating Representation), 19–308.1 hearing judge also found that Sacks committed a crime
(Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4 when he trespassed on client property.51 Sacks also harmed
(Misconduct).39 Jacobs failed to serve notice on the two courts, parties and opposing counsel by initiating eight
motorists who allegedly struck his client’s vehicle on two frivolous actions or appeals, his assertion of frivolous
separate occasions and then failed to tell his client, even issues, and his failure to obey the discovery rules. 52
after both claims had been dismissed.40 The court found Although the hearing judge did not mention any
several aggravating factors in addition to Jacob’s prior aggravating factors, the court found multiple, including a
reprimand for failing to serve a defendant and failing pattern of misconduct, likelihood of repetition, indifference
to communicate with his client. 41 Specifically, Jacobs to restitution and a selfish motive, multiple MLRPC
engaged in a pattern of misconduct including, a bad faith violations, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of
obstruction of disciplinary proceedings, refusing to respond his conduct, the vulnerability of clients to misconduct,
to Bar Counsel’s repeated requests for information regarding Sacks’ substantial experience in the law and Sacks engaging
the client, making false statements to Bar Counsel and was in illegal conduct, such as trespassing and harassing and
likely to repeat misconduct in the future.42 threatening witnesses and lawyers.53 These aggravating
The court considered Jacob’s prior Bar Counsel factors in addition to copious instances of rule violations in
reprimand and a lack of mitigating factors in reaching representing seven clients, all warranted disbarment.54
disbarment as the appropriate sanction.43 Additionally, In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Powell, Bar
Jacob’s incompetence, lack of diligence in handling his Counsel alleged that attorney Powell violated multiple
client’s matters, failure to communicate with his client, ethics rules in connection with his conduct during
failure to properly terminate representation, knowingly
misrepresenting material facts to Bar Counsel and his 44 Id. at 144-45.
45 A.3d 86, 89 (Md. 2018).
36 Id. 46 Id. at 116-18.
37 Id. 47 “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (b) commit a
criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness
38 Id. at 447. (Greene, J., dissenting). or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” MLRPC 8.4(b).
39 185 A.3d 132, 135 (Md. 2018). 48 Id. at 105. Here, the Respondent was found to have violated
40 Id. 134-37. MLRPC 1.2(a) (Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer).
41 Id. at 142. 49 Id. at 118.
42 Id. at 143. 50 Id.
43 Id. at 145-46. The court found in Attorney Grievance Comm’n 51 Id. at 115.
v. Brigerman, 105 A.3d 467, 478 (Md. 2014), that an attorney who also 52 Id.
intentionally misrepresented facts to client and Bar Counsel deserved a
sentence less than disbarment because there were no previous disciplinary 53 Id. at 118-19.
matters, unlike the facts of the present case. 54 Id. at 119.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
12BARRISTER
the administration of an estate and mishandling of his 5.3(d)(3), 8.1(a)–(b), and 8.4(a)–(d).66 The court found
attorney trust accounts.55 While representing the personal that the brothers violated some, but not all, of the rules in
representative of an estate, Powell failed to comply with which Bar Counsel charged.67
orders of the Orphans’ Court, which resulted in his In response to the court’s conclusion that Bar Counsel
client’s removal as personal representative of the estate.56 did not prove all violations, both parties attempted to
Additionally, Powell took possession of financial assets impute costs on the other party.68 Prior to this case, the
of the estate and deposited the funds into his personal court had “yet to define ‘prevailing party’ as it is used in
account.57 Bar Counsel charged Powell with violating Md. Rule 19-709.69 Here, the court seized the opportunity
MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 1.15, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.4, to define “prevailing party,” and found “the determination
8.1, and 8.4 in the course of representing a personal of who is a prevailing party will depend on the Court’s
representative in the administration of an estate.58 ‘determination in terms of an assessment,’ on a case-by-case
Regarding his attorney trust account, Bar Counsel charged basis.”70 Although far from a definitive standard, the court
Powell with violating Md. Rule 16-603, 16-606.1, 16-607, also specified that “Bar Counsel need not prove all, or even
and 16-609.59 a majority, of the allegations levied against an attorney to
Powell’s actions ultimately resulted in disbarment for be considered a ‘prevailing party.’”71 Finally, in assessing
several reasons.60 First, the court emphasized that Powell reduced costs against the brothers, the court asserted it
had numerous previous ethical violations, signaling that will “not just rubberstamp every cost that Bar Counsel
this could not be considered “an isolated incident.”61 claims.”72 Ultimately, Samuel was suspended for 90 days
Previously, Powell had received two reprimands, one for and Jonathan was suspended indefinitely.73
wrongful disbursement of funds from an escrow account In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Clevenger, a
and the second for giving himself a substantial gift from Texas-barred attorney, Clevenger, requested that the
his client who was not represented by independent counsel Maryland AGC investigate the professional misconduct
during the transaction.62 Moreover, Powell did not of three Maryland-barred attorneys in the course of their
cooperate with Bar Counsel’s investigation into his attorney representation of the former Secretary of state Hillary
trust account, and refused to acknowledge the wrongful Clinton, and the Commission declined.74 Following the
nature of his conduct.63 Accordingly, the court agreed with AGC’s refusal to investigate, Clevenger filed a Petition for
Bar Counsel that Powell was likely to engage in misconduct Writ of Mandamus in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel
in the future, rendering any other sanction insufficient.64 County, and sought to compel Bar Counsel to investigate.75
The circuit court indicated that it would order Bar
“Procedural Issues in Attorney Disciplinary
Counsel to investigate.76 The AGC moved to dismiss for
Proceedings” lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Court of Appeals
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sperling, Bar retained original and complete jurisdiction over attorney
Counsel charged brothers and law partners Samuel and disciplinary matters.77
Jonathan Sperling with violating a plethora of rules of The Court of Appeals granted cert, and held that the
professional conduct following an investigation triggered
from notice that their firm’s trust account was overdrawn.65 66 Id.
Specifically, Bar Counsel alleged that Samuel violated
67 Id. at 123. The court found that Samuel violated MLRPC
MLRPC 1.15(a) and (d), 5.3(a)–(d), 5.4(a) and (d), 5.5(a), 1.15(a), 5.3(b) and (d)(2)(F), 5.4(d)(1), and 8.4(a) and Jonathan violated
8.1(a) and (b), and 8.4(a)–(d) and Jonathan violated MLRPC 5.3(d)(3), 8.1(a), 8.4(a), (c), and (d), and Md. Rule 16-609(b). Id.
MLRPC 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a)–(b) 1.5(a)–(b), 1.16(d), at 130.
68 Id. at 128
55 192 A.3d 633, 639 (Md. 2018). 69 Id.
56 Id. at 206–09. 70 Id. at 129 (quoting Minutes, Standing Comm. on Rules of Prac-
tice & Procedure 48 (Nov. 21, 2014))
57 Id. at 212.
71 Id.
58 Id. at 639.
72 Id.
59 Id.
73 Id. at 130.
60 Id. at 228.
74 187 A.3d 81, 82 (Md. 2018).
61 Id. at 227.
75 Id. at 83. Clevenger argued that under Md. Rule 19-711, Bar
62 Id. Counsel was required to “investigate every complaint that was not facially
63 Id. at 228. frivolous or unfounded.” Id.
64 Id. 76 Id.
65 185 A.3d 76, 85 (Md. 2018). 77 Id.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
13BARRISTER
circuit court lacked jurisdiction to grant the mandamus Watts argued that by granting an indefinite suspension,
petition to order Bar Counsel to investigate Clevenger’s the court established “the precedent that an indefinite
allegations.78 The court reasoned that whether or not Bar suspension is the equivalent of disbarment in terms of
Counsel decides to investigate a complaint is within the protecting the public,” of which she disagrees.89
scope of an “attorney disciplinary proceeding,” and only
“Mishandling of Funds and Intentional
the Court of Appeals has original and complete jurisdiction
over attorney disciplinary proceedings.79
Dishonesty”
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ghatt, a solo
“Gross Misconduct Resulting in Indefinite practitioner facilitated a money laundering scheme through
Suspension” inducing investors to advance funds in exchange for the
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lang, Bar Counsel full return of the advanced fees and a future construction
alleged respondent law partners, Lang and Falusi, violated loan under the cloak of an escrow agreement.90 To do
an abundance of professional conduct rules in the course this, Ghatt’s firm served as an escrow agent, transforming
of representing multiple clients and in response to Bar her attorney trust account into a repository for the money
Counsel’s investigation.80 Bar Counsel charged Lang with laundering scheme.91 These actions served as the basis for
violating MLRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) Bar Counsel’s Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action,
and (c), 1.16(d), 3.3, 505(a), 7.1(a), 7.5(a), 8.1(a) and (b), charging Ghatt with violating MLRPC 1.15, 3.3, 8.1, and
and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) as well as Md. Rule 16-303, 16-604, 8.4(a)–(d), Md. Rules 16-607 and 16-609, and 10-306 and
and 16-606.1.81 Bar Counsel charged Falusi with violating 10-606 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article
MLRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and of the Maryland Code.92
(c), 1.16(d), 3.3, 5.5(a) and (b), 7.1(a), 8.1(a) and (b), and Ultimately, Ghatt’s actions resulted in her disbarment.93
8.4(a)–(d).82 Furthermore, Bar Counsel alleged that Falusi In disbarring Ghatt, the court reasoned that Ghatt “engaged
violated 10-601 of the Business Occupations & Professions in intentional dishonest conduct and that she misused trust
article of the Maryland Code in connection with his money.”94 The court explained that prior precedent required
Maryland bar application.83 disbarment as the sanction for violations such as these unless
Of particular import is Judge Watts dissent, in which compelling extenuating circumstances exist.95 The court
she parted company with the majority, which suspended found no compelling extenuating circumstances, and also
Lang and Falusi indefinitely.84 In her dissent, Judge Watts concluded that no mitigating factors existed except for lack
agreed that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.85 of a disciplinary record.96
Judge Watts highlighted that the majority was correct in In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Aita, Bar Counsel
determining that Lang and Falusi engaged in “voluminous alleged that a solo practitioner, Aita, while representing
instances of misconduct, including acts that involved two individuals on immigration matters, failed to represent
dishonesty, the unauthorized practice of law, and . . . these clients competently and diligently, and failed to
criminal activity.”86 Furthermore, she agreed that Lang’s communicate with them regarding the status of their
and Falusi’s misconduct was “aggravated by many factors, cases.97 By failing to update clients of the status of their
including a refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature cases and failing to appear in court on client’s behalf, one
of their misconduct.”87 However, Judge Watts believed of Aita’s clients did not learn of his absentia removal order
that previous precedent has required disbarment in such until he filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance
circumstances as those in this case absent extenuating Commission.98 Additionally, Bar Counsel alleged that
circumstances, of which there were none.88 Finally, Judge Aita failed to safeguard client funds, charged the clients
an unreasonable fee, failed to refund unused immigration
78 Id. at 82.
79 Id. at 88. 89 Id. at 524.
80 191 A.3d 474, 480 (Md. 2018). 90 192 A.3d 656, 659 (Md. 2018).
81 Id. 91 Id.
82 Id. 92 Id.
83 Id. 93 Id. at 684.
84 Id. at 519, 520. 94 Id.
85 Id. at 520 (Watts, J., dissenting). 95 Id. at 685.
86 Id. 96 Id. at 686.
87 Id. 97 181 A.3d 774, 777–78 (Md. 2018).
88 Id. at 522–23. 98 Id. at 780.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
14BARRISTER
filing fees to the client, and misrepresented material Smith arising out of his representation of three clients’
facts to an immigration judge.99 The hearing judge also post-conviction proceedings.108 Bar Counsel alleged that
found nine additional aggravating factors including, a Smith had violated numerous Maryland Attorney’s Rules
dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, of Professional Conduct and recommended disbarment.109
multiple violations of the MLRPC, submission of false The rules violated include Maryland Attorney’s Rules
evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices of Professional Conduct Rules (“MARPC”) 19–301.1
during the attorney discipline proceeding, a refusal to (Competence), 19–301.2 (Scope of Representation and
acknowledge the misconduct’s wrongful nature, the victim’s Allocation of Authority Between Client and Attorney),
vulnerability, substantial experience in the practice of 19–301.3 (Diligence), 19–301.4 (Communication), 19–301.5
law, indifference to making restitution or rectifying the (Fees), 19–301.15 (Safekeeping Property), 19–301.16
misconduct’s consequences, and likelihood of repetition of (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19–305.3
the misconduct.100 (Responsibilities Regarding Non–Attorney Assistants), 19–
The court affirmed the lower court’s findings of fact and 308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 19–308.4
held that Aita had violated several MLRPC rules, including (Misconduct), 19–404 (Trust Account—Required Deposits),
1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.15(a), (c), and (d), 1.16(d), 3.3(a)(1), 19–407 (Attorney Trust Account Record–Keeping),
and 8.4(a), (c), and (d).101 Additionally, the court concluded 19–408 (Commingling of Funds) and 19–410 (Prohibited
that Aita violated former Maryland Rules 16–604 (Trust Transactions).110 Smith failed to communicate with his
Account–Required Deposits) and 16–606.1 (Attorney Trust clients, failed to keep client funds in his trust account
Account Record–Keeping), when she failed to deposit before they were earned, failed to create and maintain
client’s funds in an attorney trust account or keep any records of received and disbursed client funds, failed to
records of the funds received in her client’s matters.102 properly terminate representation, commingled funds,
However, the court found two mitigating factors, which used his trust account in an improper manner, and made
were the absence of prior attorney discipline and positive misrepresentations to Bar Counsel and his clients.111 The
character or reputation, in favor of Aita.103 In reaching its trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Smith’s
decision, the Court took the opportunity to weigh in on actions violated all rules charged.112
Aita’s character witness exception regarding her honesty and Bar Counsel recommended disbarment, however Smith,
credibility.104 Affirming the trial court’s decision to overrule on the other hand suggested a 30-day suspension along
the exception, the court reasoned that the substantiated with a class on handling of client funds.113 Here, the
evidence supporting the seriousness of misconduct court found that Smith’s intentional dishonesty, negligent
outweighed Respondent’s testimony of her character.105 In misappropriation, voluminous rule violations and several
reaching its decision of disbarment, the court referenced a aggravating factors warranted disbarment.114 The
similar case, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland aggravating factors considered in fashioning the appropriate
v. Thomas,106 which the court noted that “[d]isbarment sanction of disbarment included, prior disciplinary action,
is warranted in cases involving flagrant neglect of client respondent operated with a selfish motive in spending
affairs,” and particularly considered the vulnerable nature of his clients’ money before earning it or producing a useful
an immigration client’s status.107 work product, a pattern of mismanaging trust accounts
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Smith, Bar Counsel and comingling of funds, knowingly submitting false
filed two petitions for disciplinary or remedial action against timesheets, making false statements to bar counsel, and
refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing.115 Ultimately, the
99 Id. at 777-78. court recommended disbarment as the appropriate sanction
100 Id. at 787.
based on a combination of MARPC violations and multiple
aggravating factors.
101 Id. at 777.
102 Id. at 786-87.
108 177 A.3d 640, 645 (Md. 2018).
103 Id. at 795.
109 Id. at 677.
104 Id. 788.
110 Id. at 645. Bar Counsel charged these violations in 2016, before
105 Id. at 789.
the recent rule changes. Id.
106 103 A.3d 629, 649 (Md. 2014).
111 Id. at 650-61.
107 Id. at 796. In Thomas, the Court determined disbarment was the
112 Id. at 649.
appropriate remedy when the attorney failed to respond in a client’s matter,
and failed to appear at an immigration hearing, resulting in the client’s 113 Id. at 677.
removal from the United States. Id. at 634. Especially when clients, with
a poor grasp of the English language rely on their lawyer’s expertise and 114 Id. at 680.
assurances that the lawyer is working in their best interest. Id. at 649. 115 Id. at 678.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
15You can also read
