Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brown
426 Md. 298
| Md. | 2012Background
- Attorney Grievance Commission filed disciplinary action against Barry S. Brown for deficient representation of four clients across separate matters.
- Judge Patrick Cavanaugh held the respondent violated multiple Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC) based on evidence from the four complaints and related conduct.
- Petitioner sought disbarment; Brown did not file timely exceptions or sanctions recommendations; his motions were deemed untimely or improper.
- Findings showed failure to pursue cases, respond to discovery, communicate with clients, and surrender client files, leading to sanctions and, ultimately, disbarment.
- The court clarified standard of review in attorney discipline matters: independent review of conclusions of law de novo; findings of fact established if no exceptions are filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Brown violate competence and diligence duties? | Brown's failures to prosecute and respond breached 1.1 and 1.3. | Brown argued mitigating circumstances and non-wilful conduct; contested severity of sanctions. | Yes; violations of 1.1 and 1.3 established. |
| Did Brown breach scope of representation and client communication duties? | Brown ignored client updates and failed to inform about status of matters, violating 1.2(a) and 1.4. | Arguments centered on attempts to explain delays; disputes over extent of representation. | Yes; violations of 1.2(a) and 1.4 proven. |
| Did Brown fail to surrender client files and respond to disciplinary inquiries? | Clients requested copies of files; Brown failed to provide, violating 1.16(d) and 8.1(b). | Respondent disputed requests and timing; argued lack of cooperation by Bar Counsel was minimal. | Yes; violations of 1.16(d) and 8.1(b) established. |
| Was Brown's misrepresentation and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice sanctionable under 8.4? | Misconduct and deceitful conduct toward clients and failure to respond to Bar Counsel warranted discipline. | Argued mitigating context and isolated incidents; not sufficient to avoid sanctions. | Yes; violations of 8.4(c) and (d) established; disbarment warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (Md. 2010) (1.1/8.4 misrepresentation and late filing, disbarment precedent)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kwarteng, 411 Md. 652 (Md. 2009) (disbarment for failure to respond, lack of communication and file turnover)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388 (Md. 2008) (failure to prosecute and communicate supported 1.3 and sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209 (Md. 2008) (failure to update client and prosecute violated 1.2(a))
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. James, 385 Md. 637 (Md. 2005) (remand/new hearing authority in discipline proceedings)