Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Moody
175 A.3d 811
| Md. | 2017Background
- Maurice Marnea Moody, admitted 1996, faced a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action alleging serious trust-account and honesty violations; the Commission sought disbarment.
- Procedural posture: case transferred to Baltimore County Circuit Court for factfinding; Moody defaulted by failing to answer or appear; the hearing court admitted Bar Counsel’s requests for admission and evidence under Md. Rule 2-424.
- Bar Counsel’s investigation revealed repeated overdrafts, commingling, and numerous discrepancies between Moody’s trust account check registers, client ledgers, and actual bank checks/records for multiple clients.
- Moody produced multiple, inconsistent check registers and revised client ledgers that contradicted bank records; some checks recorded as payments to medical providers were actually payable to Moody or his landlord.
- Hearing judge found clear-and-convincing evidence Moody violated MLRPC 1.15, 8.1, 8.4 and Maryland Rules 16-606.1, 16-607, 16-609, and identified multiple aggravating factors including prior discipline, pattern of misconduct, submission of false records, and likelihood of repetition.
- On de novo review the Court of Appeals agreed and issued a per curiam order disbarring Moody and assessing costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moody violated safekeeping and trust-account rules (MLRPC 1.15; Md. Rules 16-606.1, 16-607, 16-609) | Moody mismanaged funds: commingling, overdrafts, unauthorized disbursements, inaccurate records across multiple client matters | Moody largely failed to respond or defend; produced inconsistent records but offered no credible explanation | Court held Moody violated the trust-account and record-keeping rules (clear and convincing evidence) |
| Whether Moody made false statements / engaged in dishonesty to Bar Counsel (MLRPC 8.1, 8.4(c)) | Moody submitted false and contradictory check registers and client ledgers and altered entries to conceal improper withdrawals | Moody did not rebut; defaults treated admissions under Md. Rule 2-424 | Court held Moody knowingly made false statements and engaged in dishonest conduct in the disciplinary investigation |
| Whether Moody’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice (MLRPC 8.4(d)) | The deceitful accounting and misrepresentations undermined public confidence and the profession’s integrity | No effective defense presented | Court held the conduct was prejudicial and warranted serious sanction |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment requested) | Petitioner argued pattern of intentional dishonesty, prior discipline, and risk of repetition warrant disbarment | Moody did not present mitigating evidence; prior suspension/reprimand but no convincing remediation | Court agreed disbarment appropriate and imposed it, citing aggravating factors and public protection concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163, 118 A.3d 958 (2015) (discusses obligation to keep client funds separate and consequences for trust-account violations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zuckerman, 386 Md. 341, 872 A.2d 693 (2005) (even unintended failures to maintain separate client funds violate safekeeping rules)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mahone, 451 Md. 25, 150 A.3d 870 (2016) (distinguishes negligent from intentional deceit in trust-account mishandling and upholds discipline for dishonest accounting)