Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Framm
144 A.3d 827
| Md. | 2016Background
- Rhonda I. Framm represented Robert L. Wilson (client with documented cognitive impairment) in post-divorce litigation seeking to vacate a settlement; she also filed guardianship petitions and later sued Wilson for unpaid fees.
- Psychological evaluations (Dr. Lasson, Court Psychiatrist Dr. Siebert) showed Wilson had significant neurocognitive deficits and a court eventually found him incompetent to enter into settlement agreements.
- Framm filed defective guardianship pleadings, represented (and billed) Mr. Griggs in the guardianship matter while still representing Wilson in the divorce matter, and failed to disclose the conflict.
- Framm engaged in aggressive discovery tactics that led to Dr. Lasson’s deposition being excluded; she then made misleading statements about those events to Wilson and the courts.
- After obtaining a District Court judgment for roughly $30,000 (plus interest) on her fee claim, Framm collected on Wilson’s accounts; the hearing judge found she made intentional misrepresentations in the fee litigation.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission prosecuted; the Court of Appeals reviewed the hearing judge’s findings, sustained additional violations (including competence, scope, fee reasonableness), and ordered disbarment and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Pet’r (Attorney Grievance) Argument | Resp’t (Framm) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violation of MLRPC 1.1 (competence) | Framm’s defective filings, failure to advise on cost/benefit, and discovery abuses show lack of competence | Her overall litigation was ultimately successful (vacatur) and not incompetent | Violated 1.1 — failures in preparation, defective pleadings, conflict unrecognized showed lack of competence |
| Violation of MLRPC 1.2(a) (scope/objectives) | Framm opposed Wilson in guardianship and pursued objectives contrary to client’s wishes | She was attempting to protect a diminished-capacity client via guardianship | Violated 1.2(a) — took a position directly adverse to her client |
| Violation of MLRPC 1.4 (communication) | Framm failed to put material advice in writing for a vulnerable client and did not disclose conflicts | Oral communications were adequate; no duty to memorialize | Violated 1.4(a) and (b) — failed to communicate honestly and in a form Wilson could understand/recall |
| Violation of MLRPC 1.3 (diligence) | Delay in advancing claims and deficient guardianship filings show lack of diligence | Delays attributable to ongoing divorce proceedings; narrow rule timeframes | Did not violate 1.3 — court declined to sustain this charge |
| Violation of MLRPC 1.5(a) (unreasonable fees) | Fees were excessive and largely arose from Framm’s own misconduct and billing for adverse-representation work | District Court judgment proves fee reasonableness | Violated 1.5(a) — fees were unreasonable because much work was caused by her own misconduct and she billed client for adverse/defective work |
| Violation of MLRPC 1.7 (conflict of interest) | Representing Griggs in guardianship while representing Wilson created a direct conflict | Griggs was an incidental beneficiary; interests aligned initially | Violated 1.7 — direct adverse representation; conflict not waivable here |
| Violation of MLRPC 1.15 & Md. Rule 16-606.1 (trust/account records) | Failed to maintain required fee/escrow records | Conceded failure to maintain records | Violated 1.15 and Md. Rule 16-606.1(a) — inadequate recordkeeping admitted |
| Violation of MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4(c),(d),(a) (candor/misconduct/prejudicial) | Framm made intentional, material misrepresentations to courts and client to obtain fees and conceal misconduct | Any false statements were inadvertent or immaterial; no duty to assert opponent’s defenses | Violated 3.3, 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(a) — intentional misrepresentations and deceit prejudiced administration of justice; Rule violations compel 8.4(a) finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Good v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 445 Md. 490 (appellate review and deference to hearing judge credibility)
- Tanko v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 427 Md. 15 (standard of review and credibility deference)
- Blair v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 440 Md. 387 (competence requires thoroughness and preparation)
- Adams v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 441 Md. 590 (MLRPC 1.1 violation despite requisite skill)
- Sutton v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 394 Md. 311 (taking weak claims can violate competence rule)
- Davy v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 435 Md. 674 (defective filings and inadequate research violate 1.1 and 1.5)
- Olszewski v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 441 Md. 248 (joint representation and conflict issues under 1.7 and 1.4)
- Kobin v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 432 Md. 565 (recordkeeping and 1.15 violations)
- Smith v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 442 Md. 14 (candor to tribunal under 3.3)
- Pak v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 400 Md. 567 (failure to disclose can equal affirmative misrepresentation)
- Dore v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 433 Md. 685 (8.4(c) misrepresentation standard)
- Barton v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 442 Md. 91 (overt misrepresentation/ concealment under 8.4(c))
- Lane v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 367 Md. 633 (pattern of deceitful conduct warrants disbarment)
- Steinberg v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 395 Md. 337 (pattern of deceit and concealment supports disbarment)
- Williams v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 446 Md. 355 (misrepresentations and failure to comply with orders prejudicial to administration of justice)