Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Hecht
184 A.3d 429
| Md. | 2018Background
- Ross D. Hecht, admitted 1994, was indefinitely suspended from practicing law in Maryland effective June 15, 2013 (for an unrelated matter) but remained involved in litigation for clients Irving and Diana (Lynn) Crummitt in a 2009 motor-vehicle case.
- After suspension Hecht shut down his office but continued to assist the Crummitts: drafting discovery and other pleadings, signing clients’ names on documents, and filing/submitting them without formally withdrawing appearance or clearly informing the clients he was barred from practicing.
- Opposing counsel notified the court and the Crummitts of Hecht’s suspension on October 29, 2013; the Crummitts only then learned of the suspension and confronted Hecht, who downplayed it and misrepresented aspects of the situation.
- Hecht made repeated (unsuccessful) attempts to secure substitute counsel for the Crummitts, but his ongoing involvement and failures to timely comply with discovery led to motions to compel and ultimately dismissal of the case with prejudice on May 14, 2014; Hecht later paid $30,000 restitution to the clients.
- Bar Counsel charged Hecht with numerous MLRPC violations and after a hearing the hearing judge found multiple violations; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the legal conclusions, sustained additional exceptions by Bar Counsel, and imposed an indefinite suspension with leave to petition for reinstatement after 12 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hecht violate duties of competence, diligence, and discovery rules (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.2, 3.4)? | Hecht repeatedly failed to timely/properly respond to discovery, causing dismissal; violated competence and diligence rules. | Hecht contends he attempted to secure new counsel and acted to protect clients; errors were not deliberate. | Held: Violations proven; conduct lacked competence/diligence and delayed litigation, violating 1.1, 1.3, 3.2, 3.4. |
| Did Hecht fail to communicate and properly terminate representation (MLRPC 1.4, 1.16)? | Hecht did not specifically notify the Crummitts he was suspended and continued to render legal services instead of withdrawing. | Hecht says he attempted to notify clients and acted as informal advisor while helping find replacement counsel. | Held: Violations proven; Hecht did not adequately inform clients or properly terminate/transition, violating 1.4 and 1.16. |
| Did Hecht engage in unauthorized practice and make false statements (MLRPC 3.3, 4.1, 5.5, 8.1, 8.4)? | Hecht drafted, signed, and filed client pleadings while suspended; misled clients and Bar Counsel about the extent of his involvement and authorization to sign; testified falsely. | Hecht frames his role as informal, well-intentioned assistance and claims some client authorization. | Held: Violations proven; unauthorized practice, false statements to tribunal and Bar Counsel, and dishonest conduct—violations of 3.3, 4.1, 5.5, 8.1, and 8.4 (a–d). |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment vs. suspension)? | Bar Counsel: Disbarment appropriate because the misconduct involved dishonesty and unauthorized practice. | Hecht: Continue existing indefinite suspension; mitigation—remorse, restitution ($30,000), reputation, and efforts to find counsel. | Held: Court imposed an indefinite suspension with right to petition for reinstatement after 12 months, finding mitigating factors sufficient to avoid disbarment though aggravating factors (prior discipline, pattern, multiple offenses) were present. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Maignan, 423 Md. 191 (2011) (disbarment for practicing while suspended and failing to promptly notify client)
- Vanderlinde v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 364 Md. 376 (2001) (intentional dishonesty by lawyer ordinarily warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 457 Md. 159 (2018) (reaffirming that intentional dishonest conduct normally leads to disbarment absent compelling mitigation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (2006) (intentional dishonesty undermines lawyer-client trust and supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565 (2005) (sanctions must protect public and be commensurate with gravity and intent)