Not My Maryland

The Maryland Court of Appeals has disbarred an attorney admitted in New York.

 Disbarment is the appropriate sanction when an out-of-state attorney failed to represent two clients competently and diligently and to communicate with them adequately concerning their cases, failed to inform potential clients of the jurisdictional limitations of his law practice, engaged in the unauthorized practice of personal injury law in Maryland and mishandled the proceeds of that action, failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s investigation in a timely manner, and made various dishonest and false statements to his clients and Bar Counsel.

Sanction

Bar Counsel recommended that Mr. Ndi be disbarred. Although Mr. Ndi violated a baker’s dozen of the rules of professional conduct in his representation of Mr. Tamon and Mr. Shonga and the hearing judge found a total of 11 aggravating factors, we do not simply tote up the number of possible violations and aggravating factors to arrive at an appropriate sanction. There can be a certain amount of “piling on” when the same underlying conduct implicates numerous rules. Ultimately, the sanction must be tailored to the particular conduct. However, the case for disbarment is heightened when violations related to basic standards of practice, the handling of client funds, and trustworthy behavior, are committed by an attorney who is not authorized to practice in Maryland to begin with.

In choosing to conduct his practice within the geographical confines of Maryland, Mr. Ndi subjected that practice to the consumer protection rules that govern legal practice  in Maryland. While this case arose out of the representation of just two clients, it exposed serious issues as to how Mr. Ndi was practicing law in Maryland as an out-of-state attorney and as to how he dealt with Bar Counsel. Mr. Ndi’s failure to participate in these proceedings means that he has not even made the simple assertion that the proven misconduct was an aberration, rather than an exemplar, of his practice.

The attorney in this case was not a novice, yet he practiced personal injury law where he was not licensed to do so, he mishandled client money, he misled the regulatory authority, and he defaulted in the proceeding charged with determining the truth as to his conduct. This was more than negligence or good intentions gone astray. In such a case, disbarment is called for, unless there is very strong mitigation. Here there is none. That is why we issued an order disbarring Mr. Ndi.

(Mike Frisch)