Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bellamy
162 A.3d 848
| Md. | 2017Background
- Denise Leona Bellamy, admitted 2005, faced consolidated disciplinary proceedings based on seven client complaints and related misconduct; she did not respond to charges and defaulted at the circuit‑court hearing.
- Bar Counsel submitted proposed findings; the hearing judge adopted them after Bellamy failed to appear or present evidence.
- Proven misconduct: conversion of client retainers, failure to deposit and account for client funds, neglect and abandonment of cases, failure to communicate, failure to surrender files/refund unearned fees, falsifying statements to a tribunal, and obstructing the disciplinary investigation.
- Specific client matters included unpaid/converted retainers (Kamara, Dixon, Bradley‑Topping, Lamar), failure to remit a satisfied judgment (Curtis), withholding a police report (Onwubuche), and a false statement of no prior convictions in her own DUI proceeding (Alsobrooks/State).
- Hearing judge concluded violations of MLRPC rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 3.3, 3.4, 8.1, and 8.4; the Court of Appeals largely affirmed and imposed disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Attorney Grievance) | Defendant's Argument (Bellamy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence and diligence (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3) | Bellamy repeatedly neglected client matters, failed to appear, and did not prosecute cases. | No response; default. | Violation proven; incompetence/neglect established. |
| Communication and client control (MLRPC 1.2, 1.4, 1.16) | Bellamy failed to keep clients informed, ignored instructions, refused to surrender files/refund upon discharge. | No response. | Violations established for multiple clients. |
| Misappropriation/trust accounting (MLRPC 1.15, 1.5) | Bellamy converted retainers, failed to use trust account or maintain records; fees were unreasonable relative to services. | No response; contested only as to reasonableness in one matter. | Violations proven for conversion and recordkeeping; Court declined to find an unreasonable contingent fee in Curtis due to sparse record. |
| Dishonesty/obstruction & false statements (MLRPC 3.3, 3.4, 8.1, 8.4) | Bellamy lied to a judge about prior convictions, misrepresented filing of satisfaction, withheld evidence and refused to cooperate with Bar Counsel. | No response. | Violations proven for 3.3, 8.1, 8.4(c)/(d); limited disagreement on applying 3.4(a) and 3.4(c) in two instances. |
| Appropriate sanction | Public protection and deterrence require severe sanction given repeated, dishonest misconduct and obstruction. | No mitigation presented. | Disbarment affirmed as the only appropriate sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Good, 445 Md. 490 (standard of review; independent review of disciplinary record)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kwarteng, 411 Md. 652 (treatment of uncontested facts when no exceptions filed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 355 Md. 61 (assessment of reasonableness of contingent fees)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440 (Rule 3.3 applies to attorneys representing themselves)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel and client communication obligations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rose, 391 Md. 101 (obligation to return client property and refund unearned fees on termination)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lewis, 437 Md. 308 (disciplinary sanction principles: public protection and deterrence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Peters‑Hamlin, 447 Md. 520 (disbarment for intentional dishonesty)