Attorney Grievance Commission v. De La Paz
16 A.3d 181
| Md. | 2011Background
- AGC filed two Petitions for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against De La Paz for acts in Callaham and Simons matters; default admissions due to failure to respond.
- Hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence violations of MRPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), and 8.4(d) in AG 50 (Callaham).
- Hearing judge found violations of MRPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) in AG 65 (Simons).
- Callaham paid $1,000 prepaid fee; De La Paz never appeared or informed client, causing a Consent Judgment and unearned fee issues.
- Simons’ case was dismissed for failure to prosecute after estate issues; De La Paz failed to open the estate, inform client, or respond to communications.
- Court accepted findings as established and ordered disbarment, with costs awarded to AGC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did De La Paz violate Rule 1.1 (Competence)? | AGC: yes, due to complete failure to pursue claims for Callaham and Simons. | De La Paz: not specifically argued beyond conduct; implied nonviability of claims. | Yes; violations established (1.1) in both cases. |
| Did De La Paz violate Rule 1.3 (Diligence) by neglecting client matters? | AGC: conduct showed lack of diligence in both cases. | De La Paz: contest no separate argument; conduct spoke for itself. | Yes; violations established (1.3) in both cases. |
| Did De La Paz violate Rule 1.4 (Communication) by failing to keep clients informed? | AGC: repeated requests ignored; clients not informed of status or remedies. | De La Paz: none proffered beyond facts. | Yes; violations established (1.4) in both cases. |
| Did De La Paz violate Rule 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation)? | AGC: abandonment and failure to return unearned fees. | De La Paz: nothing compelling in defense stated. | Yes; violations established (1.16(d)) in both cases. |
| Did De La Paz violate Rule 8.4(d) (Misconduct) and, in AG65, Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admissions) for nonresponse? | AGC: conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; failure to respond to Bar Counsel. | De La Paz: no responsive arguments presented. | Yes; violations established (8.4(d)) in both, and (8.1(b)) in AG65. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (2006) (misconduct for failure to apply thoroughness despite knowledge;)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (2008) (standard of independent review with de novo fact-finding on conclusions of law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ficker, 319 Md. 305 (1990) (absence from client proceedings as misconduct prejudicial to justice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Tinsky, 377 Md. 646 (2003) (disbarment for neglect and abandonment of representation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thaxton, 415 Md. 341 (2010) (8.4(d) violation for failure to prosecute and prejudicial conduct)