A Horse Named Stupid
The Maryland Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney who took a $40,000 loan in April 2013 from a client in violation of Rule 1.8(a).
As of 2019, Respondent had repaid $24,000 on the loan, but still owed $16,000 in principal and $8,000 in interest.
In addition
In 2012, Respondent initiated litigation on behalf of himself and others who owned property in Solomon’s Island, Maryland, against Calvert County and the State regarding contractual rights to develop commercial piers (“Pier Rights” litigation). In 2014, Respondent discussed the case with Mr. Langley and convinced him to purchase commercial pier rights. Following the purchase, on September 16, 2014, Mr. Langley signed a retainer and contingency fee agreement (“2014 retainer”) with Respondent for representation in the ongoing suit. The 2014 retainer made no reference to the personal loan between Mr. Langley and Respondent. In April of 2015, Respondent added Mr. Langley as a plaintiff to the Pier Rights litigation. Between 2015 and 2019, Respondent regularly communicated with Mr. Langley regarding the Pier Rights litigation, but did not indicate the 2014 retainer modified or affected the 2013 loan, or that Mr. Langley would owe money in the litigation prior to success in the suit. In February of 2019, Respondent contacted Mr. Langley concerning his proportionate costs of the litigation. “Ostensibly referring to Respondent’s outstanding debt to Mr. Langley, Respondent stated[:] ‘Therefore, I am not about to go borrow money to in effect refund [] your costs. I encourage you to get off the horse named stupid and [let’s] work together to solve your immediate needs.’”
The client sued the Respondent and filed a bar complaint.
The court rejected a host of exceptions and sustained a number of rule violations including
Respondent’s purposeful and repeated mischaracterizations in an attempt to avoid repaying Mr. Langley and skirt discipline is not the harmless misconduct contemplated by Collins and Sloane. Respondent’s case is closer to Wemple, as he “never acknowledged the wrongful nature of his misconduct; rather, [r]espondent belatedly attempted to excuse his conduct with assertions of illness without proper documentation or support.” 479 Md. at 204, 277 A.3d at 449
“Candor and truthfulness are two of the most important moral character traits of a lawyer.” Myers, 333 Md. at 449, 635 A.2d at 1319. It is this Court’s obligation to “protect members of the public from attorneys who have demonstrated that they are unfit for the practice of law.” Kalarestaghi, 483 Md. at 243, 291 A.3d at 764 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on Respondent’s MARPC violations, the lack of mitigating factors, and the presence of several aggravating factors, we conclude the appropriate sanction must be disbarment.
(Mike Frisch)