Representation Draws Suspension

The Maryland Court of Appeals has ordered a six-month suspension with reinstatement on condition

This attorney discipline proceeding involves an attorney who mainly, among other things, failed to properly supervise the work of a non-attorney assistant, failed to provide competent and diligent representation to clients in a personal injury and estate matter, failed to adequately communicate with the clients about the matter, and failed to recognize and advise clients of a conflict of interest and to attempt to obtain the clients’ informed consent, confirmed in writing, to continue with the representation.

Russell A. Neverdon, Sr., Respondent, a member of the Bar of Maryland, was retained by relatives of a person who was struck and killed by a motor vehicle to handle a personal injury (survival action) and an estate matter that arose as a result of the individual’s death. One of Neverdon’s clients filed a complaint against him with Bar Counsel.

The conf lict

On January 8, 2017, Rodney C. Chase, who was working as a traffic flagger at a road construction site, was struck and killed by a vehicle driven by Jason Disney. Disney had been travelling at a high rate of speed and there were at least three witnesses to the accident. Chase had no immediate family and died intestate. Prior to his death, Chase had received treatment for drug dependency that had been paid for by the Maryland Department of Health (“MDH”). Chase was survived by four cousins: Marjorie Purvey, Michael
Willingham, Russell Willingham, and Julia Chance (collectively, “the Clients”). Michael arranged for a funeral director to claim Chase’s body and funeral expenses were paid for by Chesapeake Employers’ Insurance Company (“CEICO”), Chase’s employer’s workers’ compensation insurer.

On or about January 26, 2017, Neverdon met with Purvey, Michael, and Russell to discuss possibly representing them. Chance, who lived in New York, participated in the meeting by telephone. Prior to the meeting, Neverdon learned that Michael had retained, or at least spoken to, another attorney. During the meeting, Neverdon told the Clients that they could hire separate attorneys, but Neverdon did not explain, either at that time or any other time, about the possibility of a conflict of interest between the Clients and he never explained what he would need to do should such a conflict of interest arise. During the meeting, Neverdon explained that, if retained, he would “handle the case,” which, according to the hearing judge, included filing the necessary documents to open an estate for Chase (“the Estate”). Neverdon did not tell the Clients during the meeting, however, that he had a full-time job with DPSCS. At the end of the meeting, the Clients agreed to retain Neverdon in connection with Chase’s death.

The clients retained respondent for a $400 hourly fee

Purvey and Michael were selected to serve as personal representatives of the Estate. Neverdon learned through discussions with Purvey that her relationship with Michael was contentious. Neverdon learned that Purvey disapproved of the manner in which Michael handled claiming Chase’s body and the funeral and Purvey believed that Michael and Chase had used drugs together in the past. Neverdon learned that Purvey’s main goal for the representation was to ensure that Disney was held accountable for Chase’s death. Despite what Neverdon had learned from Purvey, the engagement agreements failed to provide any information about the possibility of conflicts of interest between the Clients or what steps would need to be taken if a conflict arose.

The ensuing ethical lapses are detailed in the court’s 90 page opinion.

Sanction

Even in the absence of intentional dishonesty and knowingly made false statements, the circumstances of Neverdon’s misconduct warrant the sanction of a suspension sufficient to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct and to protect the public. The Clients in this case entrusted an estate matter to Neverdon at a time when they had incurred the loss of a loved one and relied upon him to handle the case appropriately. Neverdon allowed the matter to be handled, for the most part, by a non-attorney assistant and did not give the matter competent or diligent attention. Given the presence of the aggravating factors of substantial experience in the practice of law, multiple violations, and prior attorney discipline in the form of a reprimand by the Commission and the lack of mitigating factors, a suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months with the condition of engagement of a monitor upon reinstatement is the appropriate disposition.

(Mike Frisch)