133 A.3d 1034
Md.2016Background
- Respondent Alexander Chanthunya, a Maryland lawyer admitted in 1999, represented two immigrant clients: Traore (green card and waiver) and Vanguere (asylum).
- Chanthunya filed incomplete/incorrect immigration forms, failed to attach essential documents, missed an immigration interview for Traore, failed to prepare either client for hearings, and did not communicate USCIS requests or appeal steps to Traore.
- Traore alleged that Chanthunya touched her breast without consent; the hearing judge found her testimony not credible, relying in part on expectations about how an assault victim would act. The Commission challenged that credibility finding.
- The hearing judge found violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(d) and (in supplemental opinion) 8.4(a); he declined to find a criminal act (8.4(b)). The Commission withdrew some original charges.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record, sustained most factual findings and legal conclusions (including incompetence, lack of diligence, poor communication, and prejudicial conduct), criticized the hearing judge’s reasoning about sexual-assault-reporting norms but declined to overturn his credibility finding, and imposed an indefinite suspension with right to seek reinstatement after 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chanthunya provided competent representation (MLRPC 1.1) | Commission: filed defective applications, omitted documents, failed to prepare or appear for interviews | Chanthunya: challenged evidence and expert basis; contested factual findings | Held: Violated 1.1 (clear and convincing evidence) |
| Whether Chanthunya acted with diligence (MLRPC 1.3) | Commission: failed to pursue appeals, missed deadlines, didn’t follow up on USCIS requests | Chanthunya: disputed evidentiary rulings and burden explanations | Held: Violated 1.3 (clear and convincing evidence) |
| Whether Chanthunya failed to communicate (MLRPC 1.4) | Commission: failed to inform Traore of USCIS requests, failed timely callbacks, poor client contact | Chanthunya: asserted hearing judge erred in weighing testimony and exhibits | Held: Violated 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(b) (clear and convincing evidence) |
| Whether alleged sexual touching constituted a criminal act (MLRPC 8.4(b)) | Commission: Traore’s uncontested testimony supported a criminal-act violation | Chanthunya: contested credibility and evidence | Held: Hearing judge found Traore not credible; Court declined to overturn credibility finding and therefore did not find an 8.4(b) violation |
| Whether misconduct amounted to conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (MLRPC 8.4(d)) | Commission: incompetence, neglect, poor communication harm public perception | Chanthunya: argued different standards (e.g., Strickland) and evidentiary issues | Held: Violated 8.4(d) (based on violations of 1.1, 1.3, 1.4) |
| Appropriate sanction | Commission: recommended indefinite suspension (60 days if no 8.4(b) ) | Chanthunya: urged dismissal | Held: Indefinite suspension with right to apply for reinstatement after 60 days; suspension to begin 30 days after opinion filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Shuler v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 443 Md. 494 (discusses sanctioning purposes and review standards)
- Thomas v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 440 Md. 523 (recognizes vulnerability of immigrant clients as aggravating factor)
- Mooney v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 359 Md. 56 (indefinite suspension for similar patterns of neglect and misrepresentation)
- Brugh v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 353 Md. 475 (indefinite suspension with 60-day reinstatement interval for neglect and communication failures)
- Vanderlinde v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 364 Md. 376 (presumption that hearing judge considered all properly submitted evidence)
- Mahone v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 435 Md. 84 (deference to hearing judge on credibility assessments)
- Park v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 427 Md. 180 (MLRPC 8.4(d) may follow violations of competence and communication rules)
- Basinger v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 441 Md. 703 (private statements can still violate 8.4(d))
- Cerrato- Molina v. State, 223 Md. App. 329 (discusses expert testimony and permissible inference/speculation)
- In re 2012 Legislative Districting, 436 Md. 121 (expert opinions must be grounded in sufficient facts)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard; Court explains inapplicability to attorney-discipline proceedings)