Attorney Grievance Commission v. Davy
435 Md. 674
| Md. | 2013Background
- Davy is a Maryland lawyer admitted in 1996 who was indefinitely suspended in 2003 and reinstated in 2004; this case concerns her handling of three clients in two matters (Smalls, McAdams/Watch Tune Up).
- Smalls hired Davy in 2009 for an employment discrimination claim with a November 6, 2009 EEOC right-to-sue deadline; Davy took sizeable upfront payments but failed to deposit funds into a client trust account and delayed or misled regarding filing and status.
- McAdams/Watch Tune Up’s bankruptcy matter began in 2009 with two retainer agreements, payments totaling about $7,500, and ensuing deficiencies in filings; Davy did not deposit funds into a trust account and did not complete bankruptcy/dissolution tasks.
- The Commission filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in 2011 alleging multiple violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.15(c), 1.16(d), and 8.4(c)/(d); a circuit court hearing in 2012 led to a recommendation of disbarment, which this Court granted in 2013.
- The Court found numerous intentional misrepresentations and failures to safeguard client funds (including refunds and notices), culminating in disbarment with costs awarded; no mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Davy violate 1.1 (Competence)? | Commission alleges Davy’s handling of Smalls and McAdams/Watch Tune Up showed incompetence | Davy argues no systemic incompetence or that any deficiencies were technical | Yes, Davy violated 1.1. |
| Did Davy violate 1.2(a) (Allocation of Authority)? | Davy acted beyond Smalls’s implied authority after Smalls ended representation | Davy contends continued actions were within implied authority | Yes, Davy violated 1.2(a). |
| Did Davy violate 1.3 (Diligence) and 1.4 (Communication)? | Davy delayed filing, failed to inform about rejections, and misled about status | Davy contends any delays were modest or due to circumstances | Yes, both 1.3 and 1.4 were violated. |
| Did Davy violate 1.5(a)/(b) (Fees) and 1.15(c) (Client Trust Accounts)? | Davy charged unreasonable or undisclosed fees and failed to deposit funds into trust | Davy argues fees were reasonable or customary and trust issues were inadvertent | Yes, violations of 1.5(a)/(b) and 1.15(c). |
| Did Davy violate 8.4(c)/(d) (Dishonesty; Conduct prejudicial to justice)? | Davy engaged in intentional deceit and misrepresentation | Davy disputes the extent and intent of deceit | Yes, violations established; disbarment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 377 Md. 54 (Md. 2003) (previous suspension and reinstatement context used for sanctioning later conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (mitigating factors and duty to discuss mitigating evidence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Coppock, 432 Md. 629 (Md. 2013) (multiplicity and nature of mitigating factors in sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 432 Md. 471 (Md. 2013) (aggravating/mitigating factors framework for sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359 (Md. 2009) (emphasizes dishonesty as a serious misconduct near disbarment)
- Kemp v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 303 Md. 664 (Md. 1985) (reprimand for excessive fees; distinguishes intentional dishonesty)