Attorney Grievance Commission v. Butler, 107 A.3d 1220

Lance Butler III, admitted to Maryland (2007) and DC bars, was the subject of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action alleging violations of MLRPC 8.1 (failure to respond to Bar Counsel) and 8.4(d). The Attorney Grievance Commission filed the Petition on July 22, 2013.
The matter was referred to a circuit court judge for findings. At a January 15, 2014 hearing, Judge Woodard found by clear and convincing evidence that Butler violated MLRPC 8.1(b) but did not violate MLRPC 8.4(d).
Facts found: Bar Counsel mailed numerous letters from March 2012–Feb 2013 to Butler’s home and work addresses; Butler admitted receiving two certified letters dated December 5 and December 26, 2012 but did not respond in writing until February 12, 2013. Investigators repeatedly attempted telephone and in-person contact; Butler eventually met with an investigator on January 28, 2013.
Butler testified his nonresponse was caused by an extreme fear of Bar Counsel stemming from law school and claimed mailbox vandalism might explain missed mail. The hearing judge found mitigation (pro bono work, security clearance, good job evaluation, subsequent regular cooperation after contact).
The Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo as to law and accepted the hearing judge’s uncontested findings of fact, concluding Butler violated Rule 8.1(b) and imposing a public reprimand and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Butler violated MLRPC 8.1(b) by failing to timely respond to Bar Counsel’s lawful requests for information	Bar Counsel: Butler failed to timely respond to repeated letters and calls and admitted delayed written response until Feb 12, 2013	Butler: He received only two December 2012 letters and responded substantively on Feb 12, 2013; nonresponse stemmed from fear and mailbox issues	Court: Violation of Rule 8.1(b) — failure to respond promptly is sanctionable; facts support two-month delay and earlier unresponsiveness
Whether Butler’s conduct violated MLRPC 8.4(d) (prejudicial to administration of justice)	Bar Counsel alleged misconduct interfering with disciplinary process	Butler disputed scope and timing of nonresponse; argued delay was not so untimely as to prejudice administration of justice	Court: No violation of Rule 8.4(d); investigator’s efforts were impeded but administration of justice was not prejudiced
Appropriate sanction for Rule 8.1(b) violation	Bar Counsel recommended a reprimand	Butler noted limited delay, prompt substantive response once contact made, and mitigation	Court: Public reprimand and payment of costs (relying on precedent where similar noncooperation produced reprimand)

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jarosinski, 411 Md. 432 (2009) (standards for appellate review of hearing judge findings in attorney discipline)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (2014) (Rule 8.1(b) requires timely responses to Commission requests)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Oswinkle, 364 Md. 182 (2001) (reprimand appropriate where lawyer failed to cooperate but did not intend to frustrate investigation)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Queen, 407 Md. 556 (2009) (attorney may request extension to comply with Bar Counsel to avoid Rule 8.1(b) violation)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stein, 373 Md. 531 (2003) (sanctioning principles: protect public and maintain confidence in legal system)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nichols, 405 Md. 207 (2008) (public confidence—not punishment—is aim of discipline)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234 (2000) (attorney cooperation with disciplinary authorities is critical)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gray, 436 Md. 513 (2014) (timeliness requirement under Rule 8.1(b))
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (2008) (deference to hearing judge credibility findings)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bell, 432 Md. 542 (2013) (treatment of unexceptioned findings by appellate court)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325 (2013) (same)