Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Sperling
185 A.3d 76
| Md. | 2018Background
- The Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC) opened an investigation after The Sperling Law Office, P.C.’s attorney trust account was overdrawn; firm founder Leonard Sperling (father) was later disbarred for misappropriation.
- Samuel Sperling (licensed attorney) was the only active Maryland-bar signatory on the trust account; he deposited client funds but did not perform reconciliations or restrict access after his father’s and brother’s suspensions.
- Jonathan Sperling (suspended attorney working as a paralegal) wrote numerous checks on the trust account post-suspension and sought readmission while submitting affidavits stating compliance with suspension rules.
- The hearing judge found Samuel failed to safeguard client funds and inadequately supervise Jonathan; found Jonathan made material misstatements to Bar Counsel and violated rules limiting post-suspension activity.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed violations: Samuel (MLRPC 1.15(a), 5.3(b), 5.3(d)(2)(F), 5.3(d)(3), 5.4(d)(1), 8.4(a)) and imposed a 90-day suspension; Jonathan (MLRPC 5.3(d)(3), 8.1(a), 8.4(a),(c),(d), and Md. Rule 16-609(b))—continued indefinite suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Respondents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Samuel violate duties to safeguard client funds (MLRPC 1.15) by failing to monitor the trust account and permitting suspended attorneys access? | Samuel had duty as the only licensed signatory and must have known or discovered check-writing by others through routine reconciliations. | Samuel was an employee without managerial authority; absent actual knowledge he had no duty to assume control. | Held: Samuel violated 1.15(a) by failing to safeguard client funds; he lacked evidence of intent to misappropriate. |
| Did Samuel fail reasonably to supervise a suspended former-attorney (MLRPC 5.3) and thereby breach supervisory obligations as to Jonathan? | Samuel agreed to supervise Jonathan and failed to prevent Jonathan’s prohibited check-writing and to timely file required 5.3 employment notice/agreement. | Samuel took some supervisory steps (advised Jonathan to consult counsel) and lacked managerial control over the firm/Leonard. | Held: Samuel violated 5.3(b), 5.3(d)(2)(F) and 5.3(d)(3) as to Jonathan (failure to reasonably supervise and late filing). |
| Did Samuel and Jonathan make knowing misrepresentations to Bar Counsel (MLRPC 8.1) or obstruct the investigation? | AGC alleged multiple false statements and obstruction (backdating agreement, metadata issues, false testimony). | Respondents said errors were inadvertent, attributable to chaotic circumstances, or counsel advocacy; no intentional falsity. | Held: For Samuel, AGC failed to prove knowing false statements—no 8.1 violation. For Jonathan, AGC proved material misrepresentations in his reinstatement affidavits (violation of 8.1(a)). |
| Did Jonathan engage in unauthorized practice or impermissible law-related activity during suspension (MLRPC 5.3(d))? | Jonathan performed law-related tasks (client communications, drafting or preparing documents, handling funds) and thus violated the prohibition. | Jonathan’s post-suspension work was clerical/administrative; the single client email was ministerial and not the practice of law. | Held: AGC failed to prove Jonathan engaged in the practice of law generally, but he did violate 5.3(d)(3) (late employment notice) and Md. Rule 16-609(b) (writing checks payable to cash). |
| Appropriate sanctions for each respondent? | AGC sought severe sanctions (potential indefinite suspension or disbarment) given client harm, misstatements, and multiple violations. | Respondents emphasized lack of intentional theft, cooperation, mitigation, and chaotic firm management; argued lesser sanctions. | Held: Samuel suspended 90 days (mitigation, no intent to steal). Jonathan’s indefinite suspension continued (misrepresentations and rule violations); Court majority declined disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448 (1996) (attorney’s affirmative fiduciary duty to safeguard client trust funds)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 443 Md. 351 (2015) (failure to supervise and trust-account neglect can warrant severe discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zuckerman, 386 Md. 341 (2005) (significant trust-account mishandling supports suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565 (2005) (advice-of-counsel does not excuse Rule violations and is not a complete defense)
- In re Woiccak’s Case, 561 A.2d 1049 (N.H. 1989) (licensed attorney bears responsibility for firm trust-account integrity even if not managing partner)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 385 (2006) (misrepresentations to Bar Counsel can warrant indefinite suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Framm, 449 Md. 620 (2016) (pattern of repeated material misrepresentations commonly leads to disbarment)