Worrisome Precedent For Junior Attorneys

The Maryland Court of Appeals has ordered a suspension of 60 days of an attorney who has “misrepresented [her] legal experience on a resume and job proposal to gain employment and appear attractive to [a] potential client.”

Having obtained the work, she performed in an incompetent manner and failed to adequately communicate with his client.

The facts established that the sanctioned attorney undertook an immigration matter on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Department (MDP) under the supervsion of an attorney with 16 years experience in the area.

A lengthy concurrence and dissent by Judge Adkins would not find all the charged misconduct. The resume issues were “minor” and the majority approach was worrisome

With the Majority opinion as written, I fear the implications of holding young lawyers accountable, in the disciplinary context, for the negligence or inattention of more experienced lawyers who supervise them. It can be efficient—benefiting both the client and the law firm—for an inexperienced lawyer to act in an apprenticeship role, handling certain details of a matter, including regular client contact. Moreover, in many instances, a client, like MPD here, is fully aware that the inexperienced lawyer will not provide the expertise and judgment expected of the more experienced lawyer. If young attorneys, working in a firm, become reticent to interact freely and openly with clients, the long tradition of apprenticeship as an entryway to our profession will suffer. I worry that the Majority opinion imperils the viability of this time-honored method of beginning a legal career.

 Judge McDonald joined Judge Adkins. They would impose a 15-day suspension. (Mike Frisch)