Benched

The impending baseball season was apparently in mind with the Maryland Court of Appeals in imposing an indefinite suspension with the right to reapply after one year

Earl Weaver, famous for managing the Baltimore Orioles during their glory days, is often quoted about stressing the fundamentals of playing baseball. Much like in baseball, to properly maintain a law practice, a lawyer must execute basic fundamentals, some of which can, on a daily basis, be dull and monotonous. Establishing and maintaining an attorney trust account requires devoting time and attention to minute details but is fundamental to complying with the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
Maintaining strong communications with clients can be monotonous; supervising non-attorney staff can be difficult; and executing other client matters can be dull, but failure to do so can result in violations and misconduct under the rules. Weaver also said, “The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers.”  However, for the Maryland attorney, it is all about the fundamentals.

Throughout the course of numerous personal injury representations, Respondent, Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson, repeatedly failed to recognize the fundamentals of operating a Maryland law practice. Mr. Johnson operates a solo law practice in Prince George’s County, Maryland, known as the Law Offices of Chauncey B. Johnson. Mr. Johnson transitioned from working as a schoolteacher to practicing law part-time in 2013, prior to becoming a full-time attorney shortly thereafter. During this transition, Mr. Johnson first transgressed by failing to maintain his client’s settlement funds in an attorney trust account. Shortly after Mr. Johnson opened an attorney trust account, he alleges that his nephew and non-attorney employee—Romeo Clarke—began misappropriating client funds from that account with the intent to commit theft. The misappropriation of funds from Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account set off a wide-ranging pattern of misconduct spanning twenty-one personal injury clients. For the reasons discussed below, we shall indefinitely suspend Mr. Johnson from the practice of law, with the right to reapply after one year, providing that he completes a course emphasizing the responsible maintenance of an attorney trust account.

Judge Watts dissented and would disbar

Respectfully, I dissent as to the sanction imposed in this case. I would follow Bar Counsel’s recommendation and disbar Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson, Respondent. From my perspective, the sanction of an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement after one year provided that Johnson complete a course emphasizing the responsible maintenance of an attorney trust account is not appropriate, given the numerous instances of intentional dishonest conduct and the lack of compelling extenuating circumstances justifying a sanction less than disbarment.

The dissent notes that a prior precedent has been applied with uneven results

From my perspective, the sanction imposed in this case, and similar ones where there has been intentional dishonest conduct and disbarment was not deemed to be the appropriate sanction, demonstrates that there is a need for the Court to determine whether our holding in Vanderlinde concerning disbarment generally being the appropriate sanction for intentional dishonest conduct remains valid or whether the presence of mitigating factors that do not constitute compelling extenuating circumstances will be sufficient to conclude that disbarment is unwarranted. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Riely, 471 Md. 458, 242 A.3d 206 (2020); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lang, 461 Md. 1, 191 A.3d 474 (2018).

If we wish to move away from the Vanderlinde standard and no longer require compelling extenuating circumstances to justify a sanction less than disbarment in cases involving intentional dishonest conduct, then, from my perspective, we should say so. For the sake of clarity in our attorney grievance jurisprudence and providing guidance to Bar Counsel and the Bar at large, we should make known whether we intend to adhere to the principles set forth in Vanderlinde where there is intentional dishonest conduct or not, i.e., whether Vanderlinde remains good law.

(Mike Frisch)