Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Aita
181 A.3d 774
| Md. | 2018Background
- Anna G. Aita, admitted 2002, practiced solo immigration law; Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action alleging misconduct in two immigration representations (Escalante and Ardon).
- Escalante (non-English speaker) paid $2,500; Aita failed to file or return originals of documents, did not ensure he received hearing notice, substituted an attorney who knew nothing of the case, falsely told the immigration court a missed hearing was due to car trouble, and failed to reopen/otherwise pursue relief; Escalante was ordered removed in absentia and later detained.
- Ardon (non-English speaker) paid $2,500 of a $3,000 flat fee plus $185 filing/biometric fee; Aita never filed applications or supporting documents, failed to appear at court (sent same substitute attorney), terminated representation without refunding the $185, and failed to file an entry of appearance.
- Aita did not deposit client advance fees or filing/biometric fees in a trust account, produced no trust-account records, and did not obtain written informed consent to handle funds outside a trust account.
- The circuit court hearing judge found multiple violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping, termination duties, candor, misconduct) and related former Maryland trust-account rules; the Court of Appeals independently reviewed and sustained most findings, adding that Aita’s conduct violated Rule 8.4(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence (MLRPC 1.1) | Aita failed to pursue relief, file evidence, appear, or properly supervise a substitute attorney — incompetent representation. | Aita contends she advised clients and that substitution/use of a substitute was not per se incompetent. | Court: Violations of Rule 1.1 for both clients; substitution without meaningful information was incompetent. |
| Diligence (MLRPC 1.3) | Aita did nothing to advance clients’ matters, missed hearings, and failed to follow up after reopening. | Aita claimed she worked on matters and attempted contact. | Court: Violations of Rule 1.3 for failures to act and follow up. |
| Communication (MLRPC 1.4) | Aita failed to keep clients informed, ignored texts, sent untranslated English letters, and did not explain status or limitations. | Aita argued she communicated via letters, texts, and meetings. | Court: Violations of Rule 1.4(a) and (b); clients were not reasonably informed or enabled to make decisions. |
| Fees & Safekeeping (MLRPC 1.5, 1.15; former Rules 16-604, 16-606.1) | Aita charged and retained unreasonable/unsegregated fees, failed to deposit advance fees and filing fees in trust, and did not refund unearned filing fees. | Aita asserted fees were earned promptly and sometimes bank deposit delays occurred. | Court: Violations of Rules 1.5, 1.15(a),(c),(d) and former trust-account rules; no written informed consent or records. |
| Termination duties (MLRPC 1.16(d)) | Aita failed to protect client interests on termination — did not forward files or refund entrusted funds. | Aita disputed timing/earnings but conceded some procedural lapses were technical. | Court: Violation of Rule 1.16(d) for failure to surrender files and refund client property. |
| Candor to tribunal (MLRPC 3.3) | Aita knowingly misrepresented a material fact (reason for nonappearance) to immigration court in a Motion to Reopen. | Aita claimed the car-breakdown explanation was plausible given transportation history. | Court: Violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1); the statement was false in light of client texts showing lack of notice. |
| Misconduct / Public confidence (MLRPC 8.4(a),(c),(d)) | Aita’s multiple rule violations, misrepresentations, and failures to appear demonstrate dishonesty and are prejudicial to administration of justice. | Aita argued conduct affected only two clients and did not warrant finding 8.4(d). | Court: Violations of 8.4(a) and (c) sustained; 8.4(d) also violated under objective standard — conduct undermined public confidence. |
| Sanction | Petitioner sought disbarment given flagrant neglect, dishonesty, and vulnerable clients. | Aita requested remedial measures and training rather than disbarment, citing no prior discipline and positive reputation. | Court: Disbarment ordered; aggravating factors outweighed limited mitigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494 (discusses aggravating factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. McDonald, 437 Md. 1 (ABA standards guidance for sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. White, 448 Md. 33 (standard of review in discipline cases)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136 (original jurisdiction over attorney discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Edib, 415 Md. 696 (burden of proof: clear and convincing)
- Attorney Griev’n Comm’n of Maryland v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (deference to hearing judge’s factual findings)
- Attorney Griev’n Comm’n of Maryland v. Bocchino, 435 Md. 505 (focus on attorney conduct over client blame)
- Attorney Griev’n Comm’n of Maryland v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (diligence standard)
- Attorney Griev’n Comm’n of Maryland v. Lewis, 437 Md. 308 (reasonableness of fees when no meaningful work performed)
- Attorney Griev’n Comm’n of Maryland v. Walker-Turner, 428 Md. 214 (attorney’s role in judicial process; consequences of nonappearance)
- Attorney Griev’n Comm’n of Maryland v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (disbarment for flagrant neglect in immigration matters)
- Attorney Griev’n Comm’n of Maryland v. Basinger, 441 Md. 703 (objective standard for Rule 8.4(d) prejudice to administration of justice)