183 A.3d 86
Md.2018Background
- Respondent Stephen H. Sacks, admitted 1972, represented seven clients (and represented himself) in matters from 2008–2016; Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action alleging numerous violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC).
- Repeated common misconduct: collecting and retaining unearned client funds (failing to deposit into trust accounts), failing to provide accountings or client files, fabricating documents, making misrepresentations to courts and opposing counsel, and initiating frivolous litigation while self‑represented.
- Procedural history: hearing judge granted Bar Counsel’s sanctions after Sacks failed to appear for his deposition (deeming petition averments admitted and striking his answer), limited Sacks’s ability to present evidence except mitigation, and held a shortened disciplinary hearing; hearing judge issued findings and conclusions; Sacks failed to timely file exceptions; Court of Appeals affirmed findings and, after oral argument, disbarred Sacks and awarded costs.
- Key harms/findings: misappropriation of client funds (Whyte, Chen, Anderson, the Ranges, Smith), fabrication of five retainer agreements in Harris matter, false statements to Immigration Court and others, knowingly flouting discovery orders and making frivolous filings in litigation with Tindeco Wharf.
- Aggravating factors noted by the Court: pattern of misconduct, dishonest/selfish motive (refusal to refund unearned fees), multiple rule violations, substantial experience, likelihood of repetition, illegal conduct (trespass/other charged behavior); only mitigating factor was absence of prior discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sacks violated safekeeping and fee rules by keeping unearned client funds and failing to use trust account procedures | Bar Counsel: Sacks received fees, did not deposit them into trust, refused refunds, failed to account — constituting violations of MLRPC 1.15, 1.16(d), 1.5 | Sacks largely contested allegations and raised health/scheduling issues and procedural objections; did not provide timely rebuttal evidence | Held: Clear and convincing evidence Sacks violated MLRPC 1.15(a),(c),(d),(e), 1.16(d), and 1.5(a) for multiple clients (misappropriation of funds, failure to refund/ account) |
| Whether Sacks committed dishonesty/deceit (fabrication and misrepresentations) | Bar Counsel: Sacks fabricated retainer agreements, misled courts (e.g., Immigration Court), altered documents and misrepresented facts to keep fees or delay/circumvent terminations | Sacks denied wrongdoing and attempted to challenge certain procedural rulings; offered limited evidence but many averments deemed admitted after sanctions | Held: Clear and convincing evidence Sacks violated MLRPC 8.4(c) through fabrications, misrepresentations, and deceit in multiple matters |
| Whether Sacks engaged in frivolous litigation and discovery abuses in Tindeco litigation violating duties of candor and fairness (MLRPC 3.1, 3.4) | Bar Counsel: Sacks filed repeated prolix, meritless filings, disobeyed discovery obligations, and persisted after adverse rulings; circuit court imposed sanctions and a screening order | Sacks contended his suits were meritorious and disputed characterization of certain orders and statements of opponents; procedural objections and collateral attacks to rulings | Held: Court sustained violations of MLRPC 3.1 and MLRPC 3.4(c),(d) for conduct after initiation of suits (filings, discovery failures); initiation of one suit was not ruled frivolous where lower court found basis to file |
| Whether Sacks obstructed the disciplinary process and failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel (MLRPC 8.1(b)) | Bar Counsel: Sacks provided late, incomplete, or nonresponsive answers to complaints and did not produce requested bank/ trust records and accountings | Sacks sought extensions and raised health/ scheduling issues; did not timely furnish the requested information | Held: Clear and convincing evidence Sacks violated MLRPC 8.1(b) by failing to timely and fully respond to lawful demands from disciplinary authority |
| Appropriate sanction for the validated misconduct | Bar Counsel: Disbarment given misappropriation, dishonesty, pattern, multiple rule violations, and lack of meaningful mitigation | Sacks asked for dismissal or non‑disciplinary alternatives and contested findings | Held: Disbarment was appropriate and necessary to protect the public and profession; Court disbarred Sacks and awarded costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Johnson, 150 A.3d 338 (Md. 2016) (hearing judge may refrain from full evidentiary hearing after entry of default-type order)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 103 A.3d 629 (Md. 2014) (intentional dishonest conduct typically warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Allenbaugh, 148 A.3d 300 (Md. 2016) (framework for sanctions: rules violated, mental state, injury, aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 156 A.3d 134 (Md. 2017) (intentional misappropriation of client funds violates professional conduct rules)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kobin, 69 A.3d 1053 (Md. 2013) (unmitigated misappropriation of funds typically results in disbarment)