Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Smith, 177 A.3d 640

Background

Edward Smith Jr., a Maryland lawyer admitted in 1975 with extensive criminal/post-conviction experience, was the subject of two petitions by the Attorney Grievance Commission alleging multiple MARPC violations arising from representation of three clients (Marshall, Simmons, McEachern).
Facts found by the hearing judge: Smith delegated substantial work to a non-lawyer assistant (Calvin Robinson-Bey), communicated poorly with clients, failed to supervise the assistant, and often did not read or verify work before sending it to clients.
Financial misconduct: Smith received multiple flat-fee retainers but failed to deposit many into his trust account, kept or spent funds before they were earned, created inadequate records, commingled funds, made personal withdrawals and non-client disbursements, and allowed trust-account negative balances.
Smith made false or misleading statements to clients and to Bar Counsel (e.g., misrepresenting funds held in escrow, fabricating billing/time records, and lying about work performed).
The hearing judge found clear-and-convincing evidence of numerous MARPC violations (competence, diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping, termination, supervision, trust-account rules, and misconduct) and referred sanctions; the Court of Appeals reviewed and affirmed the violations and ordered disbarment effective 30 days after the opinion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (AGC/Bar Counsel)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Competence (Rule 19-301.1) — adequacy of legal work	Smith failed to read/verify petitions, delegated work to non-lawyer, and provided inadequate preparation for Marshall	Smith contends he reviewed transcripts, drafted petitions, and supervised work	Court: Violated as to Marshall (incompetent preparation/supervision); not shown re: Simmons and McEachern except trust-account handling
Diligence & Communication (Rules 19-301.3, .4) — client contact and timely action	Smith failed to meaningfully communicate or advise on filing deadlines (Marshall), leaving client unable to make informed decisions	Smith argued he communicated by letters and acted to preserve filing	Court: Violations as to Marshall for lack of meaningful communication and diligence; some communication failings as to McEachern (appeal date)
Fees & Trust Account (Rules 19-301.5, 19-301.15, 19-404, 19-407, 19-408, 19-410) — advance fees, deposits, records, commingling	Smith retained flat fees but did not deposit/segregate funds, failed to keep required records, commingled and used funds for personal/non-client expenses	Smith claimed mistakes and promised corrective measures; asserted some services were performed	Court: Clear violations — unearned fees retained, failure to deposit or account, commingling, negative balances, inadequate records
Supervision of non-attorney (Rule 19-305.3)	Smith failed to supervise Robinson-Bey, delegated core legal tasks without oversight	Smith asserted Robinson-Bey was a supervised law clerk and he billed for oversight	Court: Violated as to Marshall for inadequate supervision; no clear violation as to McEachern
Misconduct / False Statements (Rules 19-308.1, 19-308.4)	Smith knowingly made false statements to Bar Counsel and clients, fabricated billing/time records, and engaged in deceitful conduct	Smith disputed some factual findings and denied intentional falsehoods	Court: Violations proven — intentional misrepresentations to clients and Bar Counsel; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice
Appropriate Sanction	AGC sought disbarment given pattern of dishonest conduct and lack of mitigation	Smith proposed a 30-day suspension with remedial measures (training, management system)	Court: Disbarment imposed due to intentional dishonesty, negligent misappropriation, multiple rule violations, experience, lack of mitigation, and risk of repetition

Key Cases Cited

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bell, 432 Md. 542 (Md. 2013) (competence and trust-account obligations inform discipline)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Monfried, 386 Md. 373 (Md. 2002) (unreasonable fee when attorney fails to perform meaningful work)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zuckerman, 386 Md. 341 (Md. 2005) (advance fees must be placed in trust until earned)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Obi, 393 Md. 643 (Md. 2006) (record-keeping obligations for trust accounts)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448 (Md. 1996) (circumstantial proof can establish knowledge of misappropriation)
Vanderlinde v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (intentional dishonesty ordinarily warrants disbarment)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 445 Md. 379 (Md. 2015) (disbarment where intentional dishonesty and lack of mitigation present)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nwadike, 416 Md. 180 (Md. 2010) (unmitigated misappropriation plus dishonesty leads to disbarment)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662 (Md. 2002) (indefinite suspension for negligent misuse of trust account without evidence of intentional theft)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 415 Md. 269 (Md. 2010) (indefinite suspension where trust-account misuse combined with false statements but some mitigating facts)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633 (Md. 2002) (disbarment for pattern of deceitful misrepresentations and failure to perform)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mitchell, 445 Md. 241 (Md. 2015) (disbarment for persistent misrepresentations and failures to perform)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Wallace, 368 Md. 277 (Md. 2002) (disbarment for systemic failures and misrepresentations despite no prior sanctions)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Allenbaugh, 450 Md. 250 (Md. 2016) (factors for aggravation/mitigation in discipline)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shuler, 454 Md. 200 (Md. 2017) (diligence and meaningful client contact required)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Chapman, 430 Md. 238 (Md. 2013) (fee unreasonable if attorney provides no meaningful work)
Mininsohn v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 380 Md. 536 (Md. 2004) (substantial experience is an aggravating factor)