Attorney Grievance Commission v. Barton
110 A.3d 668
| Md. | 2015Background
- Sheron A. Barton was sole Maryland‑barred supervising attorney of the Cardinal Law Firm (Camp Springs) and maintained a separate D.C. office; office manager Richard Tolbert, a nonlawyer, handled client intake, quoted fees, met clients, and deposited fees.
- Multiple clients (nine identified) paid flat advance fees for bankruptcy representation; many received little or no legal work, missed hearings, dismissals, deficiency notices, or wrong advice.
- Tolbert deposited client retainers into a business/operating account (A. Barton Law Firm) rather than an IOLTA; Barton knew of and permitted Tolbert’s access and provided checks and control over accounts.
- Bankruptcy court ordered Barton to refund fees in several cases; Barton did not refund those unearned fees and failed to disclose an extra $526 receipt in one bankruptcy filing.
- Bar Counsel sued on three consolidated petitions alleging violations of numerous Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct; Barton’s late discovery responses resulted in deemed admissions that the hearing judge relied on.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barton violated rules (competence, diligence, communication, fee reasonableness, safekeeping, termination, supervision, unauthorized practice, misconduct) | Bar Counsel: Barton abdicated supervision, accepted fees but did little/no work, commingled funds, failed to refund, allowed unauthorized practice, and concealed compensation | Barton: Tolbert, not she, was at fault; she closed the office and did not accept/receive some payments; health issues limited work | Court: Clear and convincing evidence Barton violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a),(b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a),(b), 1.16(d), 5.3(a)-(c), 5.4(b), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a),(c),(d) (with 5.4(a) not proved) |
| Proper use of deemed admissions and discovery sanctions | Bar Counsel: sanction appropriate; admissions established key facts | Barton: late answers cured prejudice; admissions shouldn’t be relied on | Held: Trial judge acted within discretion to deem admissions and deny withdrawal; court accepted those admissions as part of clear and convincing record |
| Whether Barton assisted unauthorized practice and shared fees with nonlawyer | Bar Counsel: Tolbert practiced law; Barton enabled and benefitted (payments to Tolbert indicate fee sharing) | Barton: Denied fee‑sharing and denied authorizing Tolbert to practice; claimed Tolbert acted independently | Held: Barton violated Rule 5.5(a) (assisting unauthorized practice) and 5.4(b) (treating nonlawyer as principal); insufficient evidence to support fee‑sharing violation under 5.4(a) so that subrule was not sustained |
| Appropriate sanction | Bar Counsel: Disbarment | Barton: Reprimand or short suspension | Held: Indefinite suspension (no disbarment) based on pattern of client neglect, failure to supervise, nondisclosure, refusal to make restitution, and prior case law supporting indefinite suspension for similar misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56 (indefinite suspension for client neglect and supervision failures)
- Attorney Grievance v. Harrington, 367 Md. 36 (indefinite suspension where client neglect plus misrepresentation to client occurred)
- Attorney Grievance v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (flat fee became unreasonable where attorney did no work; supports Rule 1.5 violation)
- Attorney Grievance v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388 (competence and diligence standards; failure to act supports 1.1/1.3 violations)
- Kimmel v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 405 Md. 647 (supervisory failures warrant discipline when firm practices lack safeguards)
- Attorney Grievance v. Zuckerman, 386 Md. 341 (failure to supervise nonlawyer leading to embezzlement violates Rule 5.3)
- Attorney Grievance v. Robaton, 411 Md. 415 (failure to disclose compensation in bankruptcy proceedings violates Rule 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance v. Dominguez, 427 Md. 308 (Rule 8.4(d) violations for failure to appear/neglecting client matters)
- Attorney Grievance v. Shakir, 427 Md. 197 (attorney’s failure to perform contracted services and appear supports 1.5 and 8.4(d) violations)
- Attorney Grievance v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (discussing sanctions where misappropriation is absent; supports indefinite suspension in serious neglect cases)