42 A.3d 1
Md.2012Background
- The Attorney Grievance Commission charged Constance A. Camus with numerous violations of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct based on two domestic-relations representations.
- A two-day hearing before Judge Pamela L. North found Camus violated multiple rules (competence, diligence, communication, safekeeping funds, post-termination duties, tribunal obligations, and ethics) in both matters.
- Camus did not dispute the facts but filed exceptions to the legal conclusions, which the Court reviewed de novo.
- In Martin, Camus failed to enter an appearance, neglected discovery, and failed to communicate, causing disruption and misdirection in the case.
- In Eyles, Camus oversaw an unreasonable, delayed, and poorly documented defense, misused a client trust fund, delayed file transfer, and invoiced an exorbitant, contested bill.
- The hearing also addressed duty to respond to Bar Counsel and post-termination conduct, culminating in a sanction of disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Camus violate rules in Martin representation? | Camus ignored client decisions and failed to enter appearance. | Commission contends violation of 1.2(a), 1.3, 3.4(c), 1.4(a), and 1.4(b) supported. | Yes; multiple violations established. |
| Did Camus violate rules in Eyles representation? | Camus failed to inform and properly manage fees and funds, harming client. | Commission contends violations of 1.1, 1.5, 1.15, 8.1, 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) proven. | Yes; violations proven. |
| Does misappropriation of trust funds warrant disbarment? | Misuse of $11,900 demonstrates deceit and serious misconduct. | Commission argues misappropriation supports harsh sanction. | Yes; constitutes disbarment-worthy misconduct. |
| Did Camus' conduct after termination violate professional rules? | She failed to protect client interests and to surrender files timely. | Commission asserts ongoing violation of 1.16(d) and related duties. | Yes; post-termination duties violated. |
| Is disbarment the appropriate sanction? | Pattern of indifference and misappropriation justify severe discipline. | Mitigating factors acknowledged but not sufficient to avoid disbarment. | Yes; disbarment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Vlahos, 369 Md. 183 (Md. 2002) (misappropriation by attorney ordinarily results in disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gallagher, 371 Md. 673 (Md. 2002) (disbarment for serious ethical misconduct prevailing in discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532 (Md. 2006) (considerations in public protection and severity of misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185 (Md. 2010) (disbarment permissible where conduct reflects dishonesty or fraud)