Attorney Grievance Commission v. Barnett, 102 A.3d 310

Background

Barnett, admitted to Maryland Bar in 2006, was retained by Sheila Wooden on October 22, 2010 to file exceptions to a Master’s adverse custody recommendation; Wooden paid $2,500.
On October 27, 2010 Barnett filed Exceptions, a Motion to Accept Electronic Recordings, and an Affidavit of Indigency — he forged Wooden’s signature on the affidavit without her knowledge or consent.
The circuit court set a hearing (March 3, 2011) later continued to April 22, 2011; Barnett did not notify Wooden of either date and Wooden did not appear; Barnett withdrew the Exceptions without her knowledge.
Barnett and his firm principal (Shakur) ended their association in early 2011; Barnett retained the Wooden file but gave inconsistent statements about possession of the file during the subsequent investigation.
Wooden complained to the Attorney Grievance Commission on October 12, 2011; during the Bar investigation Barnett made material misrepresentations about his communications with Wooden and possession of her file.
The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of multiple MLRPC violations; the Court of Appeals disbarred Barnett after oral argument and explained its reasons in this opinion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barnett’s conduct violated competence, diligence, communication, and allocation-of-authority rules (MLRPC 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4)	Barnett failed to pursue Exceptions, did not notify Wooden of hearings, withdrew Exceptions without consent, and had prolonged noncommunication.	Barnett claimed ambiguity from firm association and disputed extent of representation/communication.	Held: Violations proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether forging client’s signature on affidavit and filing it violated candor to tribunal and criminal/ethical rules (MLRPC 3.3(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c))	Barnett forged Wooden’s signature on an Affidavit of Indigency and knowingly submitted it to the court, constituting dishonesty and criminal acts.	Barnett did not present credible evidence authorizing signature; he offered inconsistent explanations.	Held: Forgery and filing of false affidavit violated 3.3(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
Whether Barnett’s conduct was prejudicial to administration of justice (MLRPC 8.4(d))	His dishonesty, withdrawal of Exceptions, and failure to communicate undermined public confidence in the profession.	Barnett argued mitigation based on firm ambiguity and responsibility shared with firm.	Held: Violated 8.4(d); conduct negatively impacted public perception and client trust.
Appropriate sanction for violations	Commission sought disbarment.	Barnett offered no sanction recommendation and did not establish mitigating factors.	Held: Disbarment warranted due to intentional dishonesty, multiple rule violations, lack of mitigation, and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing.

Key Cases Cited

Coppola v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 419 Md. 370 (2011) (attorney’s notarizing and filing of forged estate documents warranted disbarment)
Gisriel v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 409 Md. 331 (2009) (deliberate forgery of clients’ signatures is dishonest misconduct supporting disbarment)
Dominguez v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 427 Md. 308 (2012) (making false statements to Bar Counsel violates 8.4(c))
Guida v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 391 Md. 33 (2006) (intentional dishonest conduct by attorney typically warrants disbarment)
Coppock v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 432 Md. 629 (2013) (urgent public protection may justify immediate disbarment)
McDowell v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 439 Md. 26 (2014) (sanctioning framework: duty violated, mental state, injury, aggravating/mitigating factors)
Costanzo v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 432 Md. 233 (2013) (failure to submit required filings supports competence violation)
Gray v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 436 Md. 513 (2014) (doing nothing after filing a pleading constitutes lack of diligence)
Dore v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 433 Md. 685 (2013) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice undermines public confidence)