185 A.3d 132
Md.2018Background
- William M. Jacobs, a solo practitioner admitted in 1983, represented Luen Mei Yu in two separate personal-injury matters arising from 2001 and 2004 automobile accidents.
- Jacobs failed to effect proper service on defendants in both cases, leading to repeated dismissals under Md. Rule 3-507 and eventual loss of both claims when the statutes of limitations expired.
- Jacobs did not inform Yu of the dismissals or difficulties serving defendants, did not pursue alternative service methods, and failed to return or preserve her files after she requested them in 2014.
- Yu repeatedly called and sent written requests; Jacobs largely did not respond and later gave false explanations to Bar Counsel about Yu’s English ability, her travel, and his file-retention practices.
- Bar Counsel charged Jacobs with multiple MARPC violations; the hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of violations (competence, diligence, communication, termination, disciplinary responses, and misconduct). The Court of Appeals sustained those findings, added a 19-308.4(d) violation, and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence (Rule 19-301.1) — adequacy of efforts to locate/serve defendants | Jacobs failed to exercise basic skills and reasonable efforts to locate and serve defendants, causing loss of claims | Claimed attempted service by certified mail and other efforts; blamed difficulties on facts like temporary tags | Held: Jacobs violated Rule 19-301.1 for failing to use reasonable methods to locate and serve defendants |
| Diligence (Rule 19-301.3) — timely pursuit of litigation | Repeated failures to follow up after unsuccessful service and delays led to dismissals and statute-barred claims | Argued he made efforts and relied on motions to defer dismissals | Held: Violated Rule 19-301.3 for lack of diligence |
| Communication & termination (Rules 19-301.4, 19-301.16) — informing client and protecting interests on termination | Jacobs failed to keep Yu informed, did not notify her of dismissals, and did not surrender files or allow time to find new counsel | Claimed oral-only communications were agreed due to language issues and that he advised Yu in 2010 | Held: Violated Rules 19-301.4 and 19-301.16; the court credited Yu and found no timely notice or file protection |
| Disciplinary cooperation & misconduct (Rules 19-308.1; 19-308.4(c),(d)) — responses and honesty to Bar Counsel | Jacobs knowingly misrepresented facts to Bar Counsel and ignored repeated requests for information, obstructing the investigation and prejudicing administration of justice | Claimed delays and misunderstandings (mail, zip code, time to respond); said intimidation led him to delay | Held: Violated Rule 19-308.1(b) (failed to respond), 19-308.4(c) (dishonesty/misrepresentation), and 19-308.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (2012) (concluding concealment of material information from a client can constitute a Rule 19-308.4(c) violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Dunietz, 368 Md. 419 (2002) (disbarment warranted for abandonment of client matters, failure to communicate, and failure to respond to Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (2010) (disbarment where attorney concealed dismissals/statutes-of-limitations and failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23 (2014) (suspension—not disbarment—where misconduct partly stemmed from personal issues and mitigating factors existed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (2014) (disbarment appropriate for flagrant neglect and concealment from client and Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Davy, 435 Md. 674 (2013) (discussing sanctions goals and comparing similar misconduct for proportionality)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Williams, 446 Md. 355 (2016) (disbarment where attorney concealed incompetence and lacked diligence and communication)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Smith, 457 Md. 159 (2018) (enumerating aggravating and mitigating factors considered in attorney discipline)