Deception Equals Disbarment In Maryland

The  Maryland Court of Appeals has an intolerant view of dishonest conduct by an attorney and imposed disbarment in a matter involving misconduct in post-conviction matters.

 Under our jurisprudence, there appears to be little to no saving grace for an attorney who has knowingly acted to deceive clients, Bar Counsel, or the Court and where there are no compelling extenuating circumstances to mitigate the attorney’s conduct…

In this case, Respondent’s actions were plagued with both negligent misappropriation and intentional dishonesty. Respondent made several “tithe” payments to his church, made unearned payments to himself, and withdrew money for copy repairs—all drawn from his client trust account. The hearing judge found that his misconduct did “not rise to the level of criminality or direct misappropriation” but instead appeared to have been “borne of sloppiness and delegating responsibility to others. . . .” Judge Bryant found suspect the amount of work, the nature of the work, and timing of the work that Respondent performed, but ultimately, determined that Respondent “did not merely take the clients’ money and run.” In other words, the hearing judge did not find that Respondent’s misappropriation was intentional. We infer from the hearing judge’s findings that Respondent’s hubris combined with his sloppy case management, excessive delegation of responsibilities to others, his poor record keeping, and his improper handling of monetary matters prevented him from recognizing his misappropriation of client funds.

We, however, cannot overlook Respondent’s intentional misrepresentations to his clients and Bar Counsel. Respondent’s misappropriations may not have risen to the level of criminality or “direct misappropriation,” but the misrepresentations he made to hisbehalf of his clients, are actions of intentional dishonest conduct. We are troubled here, as we were in Lane, that Respondent’s conduct was intentional concealment of his nonperformance and evidenced an intention to keep unearned funds. See Lane, 367 Md. at 647, 790 A.2d at 629. Additionally, a lack of mitigation in the present case does little to alleviate our concern that Respondent may repeat his behavior with future clients. See id. Respondent and his legal assistant drafted fabricated billing statements and accounts of time spent on client matters, both of which Respondent submitted to Bar Counsel. Respondent on several occasions told his clients and Bar Counsel that the clients’ funds remained in escrow, when they had not. Respondent told Ms. Simmons and her Public Defender that he had drafted her post-conviction petition months before he ever put pen to paper. His actions mirrored the intentional dishonest conduct in Mitchell and Wallace. See Mitchell, 445 Md. at 250, 126 A.3d at 77 (explaining that the attorney failed to amend a complaint on behalf of his client and, subsequently, deceived Bar Counsel about the status of that complaint); see Wallace, 368 Md. at 283-84, 793 A.2d at 539 (explaining that, among other misconduct, the attorney mispresented to his client that he was working on her case). 

Respondent’s intentional misrepresentations, negligent misappropriation as well as his numerous other rule violations are further exacerbated by several aggravating factors. Without any mitigating factors or compelling extenuating circumstances to consider, there is only one appropriate sanction. See Thomas, 445 Md. at 402, 127 A.3d at 576. To achieve our goal of protecting the public, and to follow our principle established in Vanderlinde, the appropriate sanction in this case is disbarment. 

Oral argument linked here. (Mike Frisch)