200 A.3d 820
Md.2019Background
- Scott A. Conwell, admitted 1999, was charged by the Attorney Grievance Commission with multiple ethics violations based on three client matters (Brewington, the DeSerios, Olsen).
- Brewington (EEOC/Maryland Commission): Conwell was retained for employment claims, exchanged many emails, but communications and diligence became sporadic; Brewington terminated representation and sought a refund; Conwell failed to provide file or respond to Bar Counsel requests.
- DeSerios (child custody): Conwell filed numerous pleadings the court found unsupported and unhelpful; he billed and submitted an invoice that the hearing judge found inflated to manufacture jurisdiction and leverage; clients later received a refund and secured relief under new counsel.
- Olsen (fee/lien/bankruptcy): Conwell filed attorney’s liens and pursued state collection actions after Olsen’s bankruptcy; he ignored a Bankruptcy Court show-cause order, was found in contempt, was ordered to cease collection and pay sanctions, yet filed and tried to extend an appeal in Maryland.
- Hearing judge found multiple Rule violations (competence, diligence, communication, unreasonable fees, meritorious-claims, candor, fairness, bar-admission/discipline duties, and misconduct/dishonesty); this Court accepted factual findings and reviewed legal conclusions de novo and imposed disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conwell’s poor communication/diligence with Brewington violated Rule 8.4(d) (prejudicial to administration of justice) | Bar Counsel: repeated failures to keep client informed, answer requests, and diligently pursue claim show conduct prejudicial to administration of justice | Conwell: lapses did not prejudice client (no missed deadlines or lost rights), so 8.4(d) not implicated | Court: Violation of Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4(d) sustained; repeated failures to communicate and diligence support 8.4(d) violation |
| Whether Conwell’s filings and practice for DeSerios violated competence and fee rules (Rules 1.1, 1.5) | Bar Counsel: pleadings were improper, lacking legal purpose; fees became unreasonable where work did not advance client’s case | Conwell: filings were not wholly absent of value; fee initially reasonable; no sanctions or court finding of frivolity | Court: Violations of Rules 1.1 and 1.5 sustained – pleadings showed lack of preparation and fees were unearned/unreasonable |
| Whether presenting an inflated invoice in DeSerios collection action violated candor to tribunal (Rule 3.3) | Bar Counsel: invoice was false/ inflated to obtain jury jurisdiction and leverage; constituted dishonesty to court | Conwell: disputes accuracy; claims invoice reflected time worked | Court: Violation of Rule 3.3(a) sustained – invoice was knowingly misleading and offered in bad faith |
| Whether pursuing fee collection against Olsen after bankruptcy orders and failing to obey/show-cause violated Rules 3.1, 3.4(c), 8.4 | Bar Counsel: Conwell willfully violated Bankruptcy Court’s discharge and contempt orders, persisted in appeals and filings | Conwell: no affirmative duty to dismiss appeal; believed no obligation to appear; procedural misunderstanding | Court: Violations of Rules 3.1, 3.4(c), and 8.4(a),(c),(d) sustained – conduct was knowing, dishonest, and prejudicial to administration of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mixter, 441 Md. 416 (Md. 2015) (appellate deference to hearing judge’s factual findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barnett, 440 Md. 254 (Md. 2014) (failure to communicate and diligence can support Rule 8.4(d) violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (Md. 2012) (fees become unreasonable where lawyer fails to earn them)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708 (Md. 2011) (competence/diligence failures can render otherwise reasonable fees unreasonable)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Byrd, 408 Md. 449 (Md. 2009) (willful disobedience of bankruptcy orders supports discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sacks, 458 Md. 461 (Md. 2018) (intentional dishonest conduct generally warrants disbarment)