Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brady
30 A.3d 902
| Md. | 2011Background
- Bar Counsel filed a disciplinary action against attorney Andre L. Brady for alleged MRPC violations related to Robinson-Green matter.
- Brady allegedly failed to respond to Bar Counsel, abandoned the client during litigation, and charged about $10,000 in fees for little to no service.
- Brady was decertified for Pro Bono Reporting noncompliance and suspended in DC for non-payment of dues, with a practice address in Maryland.
- Robinson-Green provided initial information and paid fees; Brady did not communicate or file responsive pleadings or attend court dates.
- Judge Martin found clear and convincing evidence of violations and recommended disbarment, which the Court of Appeals granted.
- Brady’s signature shows an overseas address, complicating service and notice requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRPC 1.1 – competence | Brady failed to pursue the case, showing neglect. | Brady contends adequate preparation existed at engagement. | Brady violated 1.1. |
| MRPC 1.3 – diligence | Brady neglected and failed to respond or appear. | No admissible defense shown. | Brady violated 1.3. |
| MRPC 1.4 & 1.16 – communication and termination | Brady failed to inform client of motions/hearing; abandoned representation. | No timely explanation provided. | Brady violated both 1.4 and 1.16. |
| MRPC 1.5 – fees | Fees were unreasonable given lack of services and abandonment. | Initial rate reasonable; issue is quantum after services rendered. | Brady violated 1.5(a). |
| MRPC 8.4(d) – prejudicial conduct | Abandonment and fee collection harmed administration of justice. | Not contested. | Brady violated 8.4(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (Md. 2006) (violation may occur from lack of thoroughness, not necessarily lack of knowledge)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harris, 366 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (failure to appear violates 1.1/1.3 when lack of explanation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708 (Md. 2011) (excessive fees may result from abandonment of representation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Goff, 399 Md. 1 (Md. 2007) (conduct prejudicial to justice under 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56 (Md. 2000) (abandonment of client as prejudicial to justice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thaxon, 415 Md. 341 (Md. 2010) (abandonment and failure to appear violates 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (Md. 2011) (conduct reflecting on profession; prejudice to justice)