301 A.3d 176
Md.2023Background
- Natasha Veytsman Rossbach, admitted 2002, was charged by the Attorney Grievance Commission (Bar Counsel) with multiple MARPC violations based on two Chapter 7 client matters (James Kukin and Josephine Desogugua).
- Rossbach failed to advance either client’s case, failed to appear for scheduled meetings, and ignored repeated client communications; both clients paid flat fees that Rossbach did not treat as earned and did not timely refund.
- Bar Counsel opened investigations; Rossbach repeatedly failed to timely respond to investigative requests and made affirmative misrepresentations to Bar Counsel about work performed and refunds issued.
- Rossbach did not file an answer to the PDRA; the hearing judge entered an Order of Default, allowed Bar Counsel to deem averments admitted, and held an evidentiary hearing limited to mitigation.
- The hearing judge found multiple MARPC violations and several aggravating factors (dishonest motive, pattern of misconduct, bad-faith obstruction, indifference to restitution); Rossbach offered uncorroborated mitigation (medical issues, divorce).
- The Supreme Court of Maryland independently reviewed the record, affirmed most rule violations but declined to find violations of Rule 1.15 (safekeeping) where Bar Counsel failed to prove lack of informed consent, and imposed an indefinite suspension without a minimum sit-out period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rossbach violated competence, diligence, communication, fee, termination, admission/discipline, and misconduct rules (1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(a),(b), 8.4(a),(c),(d)) | Bar Counsel: Rossbach failed to perform work, communicate, appear, refund unearned fees, and made false statements to Bar Counsel — supporting violations. | Rossbach: asserted health/divorce/financial hardship as mitigation and contested some factual claims (but largely defaulted). | Court: clear and convincing evidence supported violations listed above (except certain 1.15/1.4(b) alleged bases); findings of professional misconduct upheld. |
| Whether failure to deposit advance fees into trust violated Rule 1.15(a)/(c) | Bar Counsel: unearned flat fees were not deposited in trust and thus violated safekeeping rules. | Rossbach: (implicit) clients may have consented to operating-account treatment; Bar Counsel failed to prove absence of informed consent. | Court: declined to find 1.15 violations — Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that informed consent was lacking. |
| Whether Rossbach’s responses and omissions violated Rule 8.1 (false statements and failure to respond) | Bar Counsel: Rossbach knowingly made false statements to Bar Counsel about work performed and refunds, and repeatedly failed to respond to investigative requests. | Rossbach: pointed to personal problems and sought to excuse noncompliance; offered no corroborating proof. | Court: found multiple knowing false statements and failures to respond — violations of Rules 8.1(a) and 8.1(b). |
| Appropriate sanction | Bar Counsel: indefinite suspension (no minimum waiting period proposed) citing comparable precedent (Kirwan). | Rossbach: urged mitigation (health, divorce) and clean disciplinary record. | Court: imposed an indefinite suspension (no minimum sit-out) to protect public confidence; costs taxed to respondent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoerauf, 469 Md. 179 (Md. 2020) (disciplinary standard: Court’s independent review; defer only to factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
- Zdravkovich, 375 Md. 110 (Md. 2003) (default orders in disciplinary proceedings do not eliminate this Court’s independent review)
- McLaughlin, 456 Md. 172 (Md. 2017) (defaulted respondent; Court evaluates whether admitted facts meet clear-and-convincing standard for violations)
- Kirwan, 450 Md. 447 (Md. 2016) (indefinite suspension precedent where attorney was unresponsive and failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel)
- Ambe, 466 Md. 270 (Md. 2019) (Rule 1.1 incompetence exists when attorney fails to take fundamental steps in a client’s case)
- Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (Md. 2014) (deemed admissions after default are accepted; Court examines sufficiency of admitted facts)