Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Lang
191 A.3d 474
| Md. | 2018Background
- Steven A. Lang and Olayemi I. Falusi formed Lang & Falusi, LLP (Nov. 2012–Feb. 2014); firm letterhead and website failed to clearly disclose Falusi’s lack of Maryland admission.
- Falusi was admitted in Massachusetts (2009); applied in Maryland (2011) and was admitted in 2016; he practiced immigration work and, on several occasions, handled Maryland matters before admission.
- The firm never maintained an IOLTA/attorney trust account; instead it used a PNC operating account into which client and third‑party checks were deposited and from which various disbursements (including personal charges) were made.
- Key client matters: representation of Dennis Bean in foreclosure/declaratory‑judgment actions (flat fee $3,500), immigration and other matters for clients (Ikpim, Daramola), and settlement funds for third parties; respondents failed to perform, communicate, or account properly.
- Bar Counsel investigated; Lang made false/minimizing statements to Bar Counsel and failed to produce records; Falusi failed to disclose his Maryland practice and pending Bar‑Counsel contact on his Bar application and made misstatements to investigators.
- The Circuit Court hearing judge found numerous violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct and related Maryland Rules; the Court of Appeals reviewed, adopted most findings, and ordered indefinite suspensions for both attorneys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Attorney Grievance Comm’n) | Defendant's Argument (Lang / Falusi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized practice / 5.5 and BOP §10‑601 | Falusi practiced Maryland law while unadmitted (represented clients, filed documents, negotiated settlements); Lang assisted/allowed it. | Falusi: limited, temporary immigration practice; any Maryland work was supervised/associated with Lang; not willful. Lang: did not knowingly assist. | Court: Falusi engaged in unauthorized practice in several matters and violated 5.5(b); but Falusi’s limited assistance in two matters qualified under MLRPC 5.5(c)(1) (temporary association with admitted counsel) — nonetheless Falusi violated 5.5(b)(2) by failing to disclose his lack of admission; Lang violated 5.5(a) by permitting/assisting Falusi’s practice. |
| Safekeeping funds / IOLTA and trust records (MLRPC 1.15; Md. Rules Title 16) | Firm deposited client/third‑party funds into operating account, commingled funds, failed to keep trust records. | Falusi: not a Maryland‑admitted attorney at the time and thus not subject to Title 16 obligations; some client deposits were immigration matters handled by him alone. Lang: asserted that bookkeeping was handled by staff. | Court: Lang violated 1.15 and Title 16 rules for failing to maintain an attorney trust account and required records; Falusi, not being a Maryland‑admitted attorney at the time, was not held to Rule 16 obligations for that period (limited exception). |
| Competence, diligence, communication, fees, termination (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16) | Respondents failed to competently and diligently represent client Bean (missed hearing, no opposition to dismissal, minimal work), charged unreasonable flat fee, failed to return files/unearned fees, and failed to inform client of material developments. | Respondents argued limited involvement, intent to associate, or misunderstandings about scope; Falusi contested characterizations of his role. | Court: Both violated 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.16 for their joint handling of Bean’s matters: missed hearing, insufficient litigation work, inadequate communication, unreasonable flat fee given services, delayed file delivery and no accounting/refund. |
| Misrepresentations to admissions/Bar Counsel; ethical violations (MLRPC 8.1, 8.4, 7.1, 7.5) | Falusi knowingly omitted/disguised his Maryland practice and pending complaint on his Bar application and made false statements to Bar Counsel; Lang made false statements to Bar Counsel about firm staffing and client funds; firm communications (letterhead/website) were materially misleading. | Falusi claimed ambiguity and lack of intent to deceive; both disputed some factual inferences. | Court: Lang violated 8.1(a) and (b) (false/minimizing statements and failure to comply promptly) and 8.4(a),(c),(d) (dishonesty, deceit, prejudice to administration of justice); Falusi violated 8.1(a) and (b) (false/omitted disclosures to Board and Bar Counsel) and 8.4(b),(c),(d) (unauthorized practice/criminality and deceit). |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hecht, 459 Md. 133 (2018) (indefinite suspension for unauthorized practice plus misrepresentations; mitigation can reduce disbarment to suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barton, 442 Md. 91 (2015) (indefinite suspension where multiple ethics violations, no significant mitigation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 546 (2006) (indefinite suspension for failures to communicate, return fees, and to cooperate with Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Landeo, 446 Md. 294 (2016) (indefinite suspension for gross incompetence, lack of diligence and communication)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 451 Md. 55 (2017) (indefinite suspension for complete failure of representation and related violations)