Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bell
432 Md. 542
| Md. | 2013Background
- Bar Counsel filed petition for disciplinary action against Bell on May 23, 2012 under Md. Rule 16-751(a).
- Hearing was held November 1, 2012 before Judge DaNeeka L. Cotton; findings concluded MRPC 1.1, 1.15(a), 8.4(a)/(d) and Md. Rules 16-606.1(a)(1)-(3), 16-607(a), 16-609(a)-(c) were violated.
- Bell engaged in improper trust account handling, including overdraft in Feb 2011 and misappropriations in several client matters (Carter, Green, Hunter, Smith).
- Record-keeping failures: lack of contemporaneous client ledgers, reliance on memory, and post hoc ledger creation; numerous cash disbursements to Bell and vendor payments from trust funds.
- Bell had a prior reprimand in 2005 for attempting to obtain an unreasonable fee; Bell undertook remedial training in 2012.
- Court ultimately imposed an indefinite suspension with right to reapply after 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bell violate trust-account and accounting rules? | Bell mismanaged funds and failed to maintain proper ledgers. | Bell contends no intentional misappropriation and corrective actions were taken. | Yes; violations established (1.1, 1.15(a)); record-keeping failures proven. |
| Did Bell engage in professional misconduct under 8.4? | Misconduct by commingling and improper trust-account use constitutes 8.4(a)/(d). | No intent to defraud; corrective steps taken. | Yes; 8.4(a) and (d) violations proven. |
| Did the Board prove Md. Rule 16-606.1 and related subrules? | Bell failed to maintain compliant trust-account records and ledgers. | Some ledger issues were periodic and corrected. | Violation proven for 16-606.1(a)(1); (a)(2)/(a)(3) not sustained due to charging issue. |
| What sanction is appropriate? | Indefinite suspension with right to reapply after 90 days. | Reprimand favored; no extended sanction. | Indefinite suspension with right to reapply after 30 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662 (Md. 2002) (indefinite suspension with right to reapply after 90 days when no intent to defraud)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mba-Jonas, 397 Md. 690 (Md. 2007) (indefinite suspension with right to reapply after 90 days for trust-account mishandling)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Goff, 399 Md. 1 (Md. 2007) (indefinite suspension with right to reapply after 60 days for trust-account misuse)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409 (Md. 2003) (indefinite suspension with right to reapply after 30 days where no intent to misappropriate)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Khandpur, 421 Md. 1 (Md. 2011) (indefinite suspension with right to reapply after 60 days for trust-account issues and false statements)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Obi, 393 Md. 643 (Md. 2006) (mitigating factors; sanction influenced by lack of intent and remedial steps)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. 124 (Md. 2005) (multiple rule violations; misconduct supports 8.4(a) finding)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409 (Md. 2003) (reiterated sanction framework for non-intentional misappropriation)