Attorney Grievance Commission v. Costanzo, 432 Md. 233

Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission, filed a disciplinary petition against Frank M. Costanzo based on representations to seven clients.
Costanzo was constructively served and failed to answer; default was entered; a September 2009 evidentiary hearing addressed two surviving complaints (Hoffman and Haug).
The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of violations in Hoffman (failure to pursue a contract-based claim, misdirected draft pleadings, and lack of communication) and in Haug (misappropriation of funds, failure to account, and deficient communications).
Bar Counsel recommended disbarment; Costanzo did not attend oral argument before the Court.
The Court affirmed disbarment as the appropriate sanction, noting significant misconduct and no mitigating circumstances.
The Court vacated certain uncharged violations identified by the hearing judge for due process reasons, and upheld disbarment based on the charged and proven violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Costanzo violated key rules in Hoffman matter	Hoffman: violated 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 by failing to prosecute and communicate	Costanzo contends insufficient proof of violations as charged	Yes; violations of 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 established
Whether Costanzo violated 1.4(a)(2) and funds safekeeping in Hoffman	Failed to communicate and keep Hoffman informed	No adequate evidence of persistent failure	Yes; 1.4(a)(2) and 1.15(a)/16-609 established
Whether Costanzo misused client funds and breached trust requirements in Hoffman	Retainer misappropriation inferred from lack of refund	Argues non-refund due to fee agreement terms	Yes; violations of 1.15(a), 16-609, and 10-306 established
Whether Costanzo violated 1.4(a)(2) and 1.16(d) and 8.4(c) in Haug	Failed to communicate and misappropriated funds; breaches of trust and fiduciary duties	Disputes all per-charge applicability	Yes for 1.4(a)(2), 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 8.4(c) as charged
Whether procedural due process requires vacating uncharged findings	Hearing judge made conclusions about uncharged rules	Bar Counsel did not charge those rules	Some uncharged conclusions vacated; final sanction based on charged violations

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388 (Md. 2008) (failure to pursue client’s case violated multiple rules)
Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Park, 427 Md. 180 (Md. 2012) (disbarment supported by abandonment and misappropriation findings)
Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Nwadike, 416 Md. 180 (Md. 2010) (Court reviews findings of fact de novo for legal conclusions)
Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (Md. 2008) (complete jurisdiction; independent review of record)
Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409 (Md. 2003) (due process requires notice of charges at outset)
In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1968) (due process requires fair notice of charges in disciplinary context)