Attorney Grievance Commission v. Allenbaugh
148 A.3d 300
| Md. | 2016

Background

  • Mark H. Allenbaugh, admitted to the Maryland Bar in 2000, faced two consolidated attorney-discipline matters: a reciprocal-discipline proceeding based on a Fourth Circuit two-year suspension and a separate client complaint by Alexander Raphael (immigration matter).
  • Fourth Circuit suspended Allenbaugh for two years and fined him for abandoning a CJA-appointed client (United States v. Riley) after repeatedly failing to file a brief and joint appendix and ignoring show-cause orders.
  • Raphael hired Allenbaugh for $5,000 to obtain visas/immigration benefits for himself, his wife, and daughters; Allenbaugh advised an inapplicable L-1 visa, performed no meaningful immigration work, did not place the fee in a trust account, and failed to refund or account for the fee.
  • Allenbaugh repeatedly failed to communicate with Raphael, failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries, missed investigator appointments, and defaulted or failed to appear at disciplinary proceedings and hearings.
  • The hearing judge found numerous violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping property, expediting litigation, fairness to tribunal, disciplinary cooperation, and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).
  • The Court of Appeals, treating the Fourth Circuit findings as conclusive for the reciprocal matter and reviewing de novo the conclusions of law, disbarred Allenbaugh, citing multiple aggravating factors and no established mitigation.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether reciprocal discipline from the Fourth Circuit should result in comparable Maryland discipline Bar Counsel: Fourth Circuit suspension reflects knowing neglect and failure to comply with court orders; impose corresponding or greater discipline Allenbaugh: Fourth Circuit not a "jurisdiction" under rule; due-process defects; alleged depression mitigates conduct Court: Reciprocal discipline appropriate; Fourth Circuit findings treated as conclusive absent clear and convincing basis to reject; disbarred when combined with separate misconduct
Whether Allenbaugh violated duties in Riley appeal (competence, diligence, expediting, fairness) Bar Counsel: Repeated failure to file brief/appendix and to respond to show-cause orders constituted violations Allenbaugh: Argued belief appeal lacked meritorious issues and should have filed an Anders brief; cited mental-health issues Court: Clear and convincing evidence of violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.4(d); misconduct warranted severe sanction
Whether Allenbaugh breached duties to Raphael (competence, communication, fees, safekeeping, disciplinary cooperation) Bar Counsel: Failed to identify proper visa, did no meaningful work, retained unearned fee, failed to escrow funds, and ignored Bar Counsel Allenbaugh: Asserted limited mitigation (anxiety/depression) but presented no substantiating evidence at hearing Court: Clear and convincing evidence of violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.4(a)(2), 1.5(a), 1.15(a),(c), 8.1(b), 8.4(d); conduct endangered client and public confidence
Appropriate sanction given aggregate misconduct Bar Counsel: Disbarment based on pattern, multiple violations, obstruction, and lack of remediation Allenbaugh: Requested dismissal or lesser sanction; offered no substantive mitigation at hearing Court: Disbarment justified—multiple serious violations, aggravating factors (pattern, multiple offenses, bad-faith obstruction, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, client vulnerability, experience, indifference to restitution), no proven mitigation

Key Cases Cited

  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Burghardt, 442 Md. 151 110 A.3d 703 (Md. 2015) (reciprocal-discipline principles and treating sister-jurisdiction findings as ordinarily conclusive)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 103 A.3d 629 (Md. 2014) (disbarment appropriate for flagrant neglect, failure to perform paid work, and nonparticipation in disciplinary proceedings)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 16 A.3d 181 (Md. 2011) (disbarment for neglect, failure to communicate, failure to respond to Bar Counsel)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 14 A.3d 650 (Md. 2011) (disbarment for accepting fees, doing no meaningful work, not placing funds in trust, and failing to cooperate)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494 117 A.3d 38 (Md. 2015) (sanctions aim to protect public confidence and consider rule violations, mental state, injury, and aggravating/mitigating factors)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 46 A.3d 1169 (Md. 2012) (MLRPC 3.2 violation for delaying fundamental litigation steps)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325 68 A.3d 862 (Md. 2013) (failure to respond to Bar Counsel violates MLRPC 8.1(b))
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Chapman, 430 Md. 238 60 A.3d 25 (Md. 2013) (fees unreasonable where attorney performs no meaningful work)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Landeo, 446 Md. 294 132 A.3d 196 (Md. 2016) (requirement to maintain client funds in separate trust account)
Read the full case