Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Ndi
184 A.3d 25
| Md. | 2018Background
- Benjamin N. Ndi, admitted in New York (delinquent status in 2016–2017), maintained an office in Maryland and provided legal services there though not admitted in Maryland.
- Two clients: Martin N. Tamon (asylum client) and Joseph Shonga (personal-injury client). Ndi failed to re-file Tamon’s asylum application, leading to its dismissal and failed motions to reopen; he did not promptly notify Tamon.
- Ndi represented Shonga in a Maryland PI matter, negotiated a $17,000 settlement, paid Shonga $8,000, withheld attorney fees and certain medical reimbursements, did not deposit funds into an attorney trust account, and failed to pay or fully account for medical providers (including Maryland Healthcare Clinics).
- Bar Counsel’s investigation revealed misleading letterheads and a website representing practices beyond immigration law; Ndi made false statements to Bar Counsel and responded late or not at all to requests for information and documents.
- Ndi’s counsel withdrew; Ndi did not participate in the hearing or oral argument; his answer was struck for discovery violations. The hearing judge found numerous rule violations and aggravating factors; the Court of Appeals disbarred Ndi.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Attorney Grievance) | Defendant's Argument (Ndi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court’s authority to discipline an out‑of‑state lawyer practicing in Maryland | Rule 8.5(a)(2) subjects out‑of‑state attorneys who provide or hold out legal services in Maryland to Maryland discipline | Ndi contended limited practice in immigration and other explanations; responses were often late or misleading | Court: Ndi was subject to Maryland disciplinary authority (he provided/held out services in Maryland) |
| Competence, diligence, communication, termination (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16) | Ndi failed to timely re‑file asylum application, failed to notify client, neglected motions, failed to timely pay or communicate re: medical bills | Ndi blamed being a solo practitioner and being overwhelmed; otherwise offered little rebuttal | Court: Violations proven—lack of competence, diligence, communication, and improper termination/abandonment |
| Handling client funds and unauthorized practice (MLRPC 1.5, 1.15, 5.5; former Rule 16‑604) | Ndi accepted/retained settlement funds not held in a trust account, withheld/disbursed funds improperly, practiced PI in Maryland while unlicensed | Ndi asserted settlement procedures and furnished late documentation; did not disclose jurisdictional limits on letterhead/website | Court: Violations proven—misappropriation/mishandling of funds, failure to use trust account, unauthorized practice in Maryland |
| Dishonesty to Bar Counsel and overall sanction | Bar Counsel urged disbarment given false statements, obstruction, pattern of misconduct, harm to vulnerable clients | Ndi made false or incomplete responses, blamed clients, and largely failed to cooperate or mitigate | Court: Violations of Rules 8.1, 8.4 established; aggravating factors predominate and disbarment is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (competence standard: untimely action causing client harm)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388 (competence: lack of thoroughness supports Rule 1.1 violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (fee reasonableness can be vitiated by neglect)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Park, 427 Md. 180 (diligence: failing to keep client informed violates Rule 1.3)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Van Nelson, 425 Md. 344 (communication obligations under Rule 1.4)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Logan, 390 Md. 313 (abandonment and failure to surrender client property violates Rule 1.16)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708 (fee becomes unreasonable when lawyer lacks competence/diligence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163 (trust account and safekeeping rules)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Johnson, 363 Md. 598 (letterhead must disclose jurisdictional limitations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359 (multiple rule violations support 8.4(a))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garland, 345 Md. 383 (misconduct reflecting criminality may violate Rule 8.4(b))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209 (violations of 8.4(b) and (c) generally also violate 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Woolery, 456 Md. 483 (factors for sanctioning attorney misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Trye, 444 Md. 201 (primary objective of sanctions: protect public and bar integrity)