203 A.3d 841
Md.2019Background
- Respondent Melinda Maldonado, admitted in D.C. (not Maryland), represented Maryland resident Gladys Duren in toxic-mold litigation and continued to handle appellate filings without a Maryland pro hac vice sponsor.
- Maldonado drafted and filed pleadings in Maryland courts while listings those filings as signed by the client as "pro se," and she electronically filed appellate documents using the client’s email and signature.
- Maldonado repeatedly called her client’s treating pulmonologist’s office, identified herself as "Dr. Maldonado," urged changes to the patient record, persisted over two days, and made disparaging remarks about the doctor.
- Maldonado failed to obtain or file required trial transcripts for the Court of Special Appeals, causing dismissal of her client’s appeal and forfeiture of appellate rights.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission charged violations of multiple Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules 1.1, 4.1, 5.5, 8.4, etc.); the hearing judge found violations by clear and convincing evidence and recommended disbarment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings, rejected many respondent exceptions, and ordered disbarment to protect the public and the administration of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Maldonado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized practice of law (Rule 5.5) | Maldonado practiced in Maryland without admission or a pro hac vice sponsor by drafting and filing pleadings and managing the appeal. | Maldonado argued she sought Maryland counsel/pro hac vice sponsor and sometimes had sponsorship; filings were with client consent and were "assisting" a pro se client. | Held: Maldonado violated Rule 5.5; her "pro se" filings were a deceptive cloak for practicing law and she was subject to Maryland discipline (Rule 8.5). |
| Misrepresentation to third parties (Rules 4.1 / 8.4(c)) | Maldonado intentionally misled Dr. Wiley’s office by holding herself out as a medical doctor to gain access and influence medical records. | Maldonado claimed she identified herself as an attorney and merely used "Doctor" as shorthand from earning a J.D.; her intent was to help the client, not deceive. | Held: Clear and convincing evidence she intentionally misrepresented herself as a medical doctor to mislead staff; Rule 4.1 and 8.4(c) violations affirmed. |
| Harassment / improper means toward third persons (Rule 4.4) | AGC argued repeated calls and requests to alter records burdened and harassed medical staff. | Maldonado contended the calls were a zealous, good-faith attempt to obtain necessary medical evidence for litigation. | Held: Court declined to find a Rule 4.4 violation—calls were ill-advised and burdensome but not shown by clear and convincing evidence to be intended solely to embarrass, delay, or burden. |
| Competence / failure to preserve appeal (Rule 1.1) | AGC argued Maldonado failed to order required transcripts, causing dismissal of the appeal—demonstrating lack of competence/diligence. | Maldonado contended she was not the client’s appellate counsel and therefore not responsible for transcripts. | Held: Maldonado effectively acted as appellate counsel without authority; failure to secure transcripts violated Rule 1.1. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ndi, 459 Md. 42 (disciplinary jurisdiction over out-of-state lawyers providing services in Maryland)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barneys, 370 Md. 566 (disbarment for unauthorized practice plus deceitful conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shephard, 444 Md. 299 (disbarment for deliberate assumption of Maryland responsibilities while unlicensed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keiner, 421 Md. 492 (intentional dishonest conduct supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Alsafty, 379 Md. 1 (disbarment for repeated unauthorized practice and failure to disclose limitations)