60-Year Blemish Free Career Ends In Disbarment

The Maryland Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney who was admitted in 1962 based on findings of misconduct in two client matters and failure to respond to the ensuing complaints.

Both matters involved estates.

We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Respondent violated Rule 1.4(a)(2) and (3) in the Petree and McNulty matters. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Igleharts’ continued attempts for an update on outstanding tasks, and their requests for information between June 2020 and April 2021, led to the Igleharts seeking assistance from another attorney to restore communication with Respondent. Following a video conference call on April 21, 2021, communication between Respondent and the Igleharts was temporarily restored. However, July 20, 2021 was the last time the Igleharts received any communication from Respondent.

Respondent violated 1.4(a)(2) and (3) in the McNulty matter when he ceased communicating with anyone at Priests of the Sacred Heart following a March 24, 2020 phone call, despite continuing requests from Priests of the Sacred Heart regarding a final distribution that never came. Between December 10, 2020 and January 17, 2022, representatives of Priests of the Sacred Heart made five attempts to contact Respondent, all to no avail.

Respondent’s contention

 Respondent stated that, at the time the complaints against him were filed with Petitioner, a representative of the Office of Bar Counsel told Respondent that, if he were to retire, the matter “would go away.” Respondent further told the hearing judge: “[A]bout a week ago we sent formal papers to the [Supreme Court of Maryland] that I had retired. And I have not been practicing law for the last two years. I have been completely retired.” [His son and law associate] Douglas Yeatman stated that Respondent had not practiced law for three years. When the hearing judge asked about Respondent’s precise date of retirement, Douglas Yeatman stated that Respondent “didn’t know he had to submit something,” but claimed that he was to blame, not Respondent, for the failure to submit the necessary documentation of Respondent’s retirement at the time Respondent stopped practicing law.

When the hearing judge asked why Respondent had not responded to the [bar charges] and, in particular, had not raised Bar Counsel’s purported promise to make the complaint “go away” if Respondent retired, Douglas Yeatman said he had thought the Office of Bar Counsel “would have kept their word.”

Cooperation

We agree with the hearing judge that Respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) in the Petree and McNulty matters by failing to respond to several letters from Bar Counsel and by failing to provide a copy of the client file in both matters.

Sanction

Respondent displayed a pattern of misconduct by committing multiple, similar violations over time in two separate matters. See Sperling, 459 Md. at 276 (aggravating factor of pattern of misconduct “applies when an attorney’s behavior shows a pattern of inappropriate conduct, as evinced by multiple violations over time, or a series of acts with one goal”). Respondent failed to communicate both with the Igleharts in connection with the Petree matter and with Priests of the Sacred Heart in connection with the McNulty matter. In addition, Respondent failed to take basic steps to competently handle both matters. Finally, Respondent repeatedly failed to timely respond to Bar Counsel’s letters and requests for documents in connection with the investigations of both matters. Based on this record, we conclude that Petitioner proved a pattern of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.

In addition, based on our independent review of the record and oral argument in this Court, we conclude by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has failed to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct. Before the hearing judge, Respondent expressed no remorse for, or even acknowledged, his failure to communicate for long stretches of time with the Igleharts and Priests of the Sacred Heart.

Sad note

We have considered that Respondent practiced law for 60 years without receiving any prior discipline. It is unfortunate that Respondent ended his career as he did. However, the aggravating factors significantly outweigh the mitigating factors in this case. From a client’s perspective, professional misconduct is no less problematic at the end of a legal career than it is at the beginning. That is our perspective as well.

(Mike Frisch)