Attorney Grievance Commission v. Dominguez
427 Md. 308
Md.2012Background
- Respondent Denese Dominguez was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 2008 and faced a consolidated Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in 2011.
- Bar Counsel alleged misconduct in two domains: expungement work for Homeless Persons Representation Project (HPRP) and representation of Wanda Suter in an employment matter.
- For HPRP, alleged violations included failure to file expungement petitions, failure to terminate representation, poor communication, record handling, and misrepresentation to Bar Counsel.
- For Ms. Suter, alleged violations included failing to respond to discovery, failing to follow court orders, advising non-attendance at a hearing, and failing to appear in court.
- Judicial hearing was conducted; after default and arguments, Judge Hackner found multiple violations and recommended disbarment; the Court of Appeals later imposed disbarment effective immediately.
- Disbarment was affirmed based on numerous Rule violations and aggravating factors; costs were assessed against Dominguez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Dominguez violate multiple RPC rules in HPRP work? | Bar Counsel | Dominguez | Yes; multiple rule violations found |
| Did Dominguez violate RPC rules in Suter representation? | Bar Counsel | Dominguez | Yes; violations established |
| Is disbarment the appropriate sanction given the misconduct? | Bar Counsel | Dominguez | Disbarment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance v. Seltzer, 424 Md. 94 (Md. 2011) (patterned misconduct supports discipline; aggravating factors)
- Attorney Grievance v. Fox, 417 Md. 504 (Md. 2010) (disbarment warranted for abandonment, misrepresentation, and failure to cooperate)
- Attorney Grievance v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56 (Md. 2000) (willful failure to attend hearings violates 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance v. Nelson, 425 Md. 344 (Md. 2012) (repeated failures to respond to Bar Counsel can violate 8.1)
- Attorney Grievance v. Tinsky, 377 Md. 646 (Md. 2003) (violation of 1.3 for failure to act as ordered by court)
- Attorney Grievance v. Brady, 422 Md. 441 (Md. 2011) (failure to attend conferences and respond to filings violates 1.1)