200 A.3d 811
Md.2019Background
- Jerome P. Johnson, admitted 1998, was previously suspended for one year in 2016; the present charges arise from conduct before that suspension and from his non‑responsiveness while that earlier matter was pending.
- PNC Bank reported an overdraft in Respondent’s attorney trust account (Feb. 22, 2016 item); Bar Counsel requested an explanation and specified trust‑account records on April 28, 2016.
- Johnson repeatedly failed to produce required trust‑account records and explanations despite multiple written requests, an investigator’s phone call, and an agreed deadline; partial bank statements were faxed later but were not fully responsive.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action; Johnson did not answer, an order of default was entered, and he did not appear at the disciplinary hearing or in this Court.
- The hearing judge found violations of MARPC 19‑301.15(a) (safekeeping), 19‑407 (trust‑account recordkeeping), 19‑308.1(b) (failure to respond in disciplinary matters), and 19‑308.4(a),(d) (misconduct). No mitigating factors were established.
- Given prior discipline and a pattern of unresponsiveness and recordkeeping failures, the Court disbarred Johnson and taxed costs against him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to create/maintain required trust‑account records violates MARPC 19‑301.15 & 19‑407 | Bar Counsel: Johnson lacked and failed to produce chronological deposit/disbursement records, client matter records, month‑end statements, canceled checks, and deposit slips, violating recordkeeping rules | Johnson: No responsive pleadings or defenses (default) | Court: Violation proved; recordkeeping rules breached |
| Whether knowingly failing to respond to Bar Counsel violates MARPC 19‑308.1(b) | Bar Counsel: Johnson knowingly ignored lawful demands and agreed deadlines for information and documents | Johnson: No response or asserted defenses (default) | Court: Violation proved; failure to respond was knowing and unlawful |
| Whether recordkeeping failures and non‑responsiveness constitute misconduct under MARPC 19‑308.4(a),(d) | Bar Counsel: Such failures are prejudicial to administration of justice and violate misconduct rules | Johnson: No defense presented | Court: Violations of 19‑308.4(a) and (d) established |
| Appropriate sanction for cumulative violations and aggravating factors | Bar Counsel: Prior suspension, pattern of misconduct, multiple rule violations, bad‑faith obstruction, and substantial experience justify severe sanction | Johnson: Did not participate to argue mitigation | Held: Disbarment warranted to protect public confidence and commensurate with misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Johnson, 150 A.3d 338 (Md. 2016) (prior discipline and findings informing aggravation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moeller, 46 A.3d 407 (Md. 2012) (failure to maintain trust account records is prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rose, 859 A.2d 659 (Md. 2004) (failure to promptly and sufficiently respond to Bar Counsel can be misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Walker‑Turner, Sr., 51 A.3d 553 (Md. 2012) (sanctioning principles: protect public and public confidence; sanctions commensurate with gravity of misconduct)