Attorney Grievance Commission v. Agbaje
438 Md. 695
| Md. | 2014Background
- Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission petitioned against Taiwo A. Agbaje for alleged violations of MLRPC 1.8(a) and 8.4(a)-(d).
- Facts show Agbaje formed a Real Estate Investment Partnership with current client Dolapo Popoola, who had little investment experience and no prior legal representation at the time.
- The partnership agreement contemplated a guaranteed profit, with Popoola investing $40,000; Agbaje stood to benefit as manager, broker, and potential seller/auctioneer.
- The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of conflicts, deception, and dishonesty, including misrepresentations about profits, lack of disclosures, and failure to allocate funds for repairs.
- The Circuit Court affirmed, sustaining the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and concluded disbarment was the appropriate sanction.
- The court rejected most of Agbaje’s procedural and credibility challenges but sustained two factual-credibility related exceptions, while affirming the overall legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an attorney-client relationship with Popoola at the partnership formation? | Agbaje contends no ongoing attorney-client relationship existed. | Agbaje argues there was no continuing legal representation when the partnership formed. | Yes; an attorney-client relationship existed at formation. |
| Did Agbaje violate MLRPC 1.8(a) and 8.4(a)-(d) through conflicts and dishonesty? | Agbaje failed to disclose conflicts and engaged in deceitful conduct. | Agbaje argues there was no violation of the specified rules. | Agbaje violated 1.8(a) and 8.4(a)-(d). |
| Is disbarment the appropriate sanction given the conduct? | Disbarment is warranted due to repeated dishonesty and fiduciary breach. | Disbarment is excessive; a lesser sanction could suffice. | Disbarment is the appropriate sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brooke, 374 Md. 155 (2003) (establishes that attorney-client relationships may be formed by implication)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Davy, 435 Md. 674 (2013) (discussion of timing and communications in extensions of deadlines)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359 (2009) (reiterates standards for 8.4 misconduct conclusions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (2006) (deference to hearing judge’s credibility assessments)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. James, 355 Md. 465 (1999) (supports implied attorney-client relationship doctrine)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (2001) (illustrates severity rationale for disbarment in repeated dishonest conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1 (2006) (mitigation considerations in sanction decisions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (2009) (context for purpose of sanctions and protecting public confidence)