301 A.3d 176
Md.2023Background
- Natasha V. Rossbach, admitted 2002, represented two clients (James Kukin and Josephine Desogugua) in Chapter 7 matters and charged flat fees.
- In both matters Rossbach failed to perform meaningful work, missed scheduled meetings, and did not communicate with clients for months; clients eventually retained new counsel or terminated representation.
- Rossbach retained flat fees (Kukin $1,600; Desogugua $1,000) and did not timely refund unearned portions; Desogugua received a refund only after complaining to Bar Counsel and after a long delay.
- Bar Counsel investigated; Rossbach made false statements in responses to Bar Counsel and failed to produce requested records; she did not timely answer the PDRA, prompting an Order of Default.
- The hearing judge found multiple MARPC violations, several aggravating factors (dishonesty, pattern, multiple offenses, obstruction, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, experience, indifference to restitution), and limited mitigation (no prior discipline).
- The Supreme Court of Maryland (Biran, J.) affirmed many rule violations and imposed an indefinite suspension without a minimum sit-out period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Attorney Grievance Comm'n) | Defendant's Argument (Rossbach) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rossbach violated competence, diligence, communication, fee, termination, and misconduct rules | Rossbach abandoned and failed to advance clients' matters, did not communicate, withheld refunds, and made false statements to Bar Counsel | Rossbach cited medical issues, divorce, and financial hardship; did not rebut factual averments or present corroborating evidence | Court found clear and convincing evidence of violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(a),(b), and 8.4(a),(c),(d) |
| Whether failure to deposit advance fees into trust violated Rule 1.15 (safekeeping) | Bar Counsel alleged fees were not deposited in trust until earned, constituting Rule 1.15 violations | Rossbach offered no effective rebuttal at hearing; record lacked evidence that clients did or did not give informed written consent | Court declined to find Rule 1.15(a)/(c) violations because Petitioner failed to prove absence of informed consent by clear and convincing evidence |
| Effect of Respondent's default on admissibility and sufficiency of facts | Petitioner sought to treat PDRA averments and requests for admissions as admitted and rely on them to prove violations | Rossbach belatedly moved to vacate default and offered mitigating testimony but provided no corroborating documents | Court treated factual findings as established for many claims but conducted de novo legal review; where essential elements were missing (informed consent), Petitioner failed to meet burden |
| Appropriate sanction | Bar Counsel sought indefinite suspension without minimum period, citing comparable cases | Rossbach requested leniency based on personal circumstances (medical, divorce), but offered no corroboration | Court imposed an indefinite suspension (no minimum sit-out), emphasizing protection of the public and lack of mitigating proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jones, 484 Md. 155 (explains scrutiny required to find informed consent for depositing advance fees in operating account)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kirwan, 450 Md. 447 (upheld indefinite suspension for comparable failures to communicate and to respond to Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hoerauf, 469 Md. 179 (describes standard of review in attorney-discipline cases and that Rule 8.4(a) follows other rule violations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McLaughlin, 456 Md. 172 (addresses default adjudications and sufficiency of admitted facts in disciplinary proceedings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Green, 441 Md. 80 (declines to set minimum sit-out period when record lacks proof about likelihood of recurrence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zdravkovich, 375 Md. 110 (holds that Court reviews disciplinary conclusions de novo even where hearing judge entered default)