Attorney Grievance Commission v. Felder
102 A.3d 321
| Md. | 2014Background
- Respondent Thomas W. Felder, II was charged by the Attorney Grievance Commission after complaints by Martrell and Timothy Matthews and Bernadine Ekeh that he accepted retainers then provided little or no legal services.
- Matthews retained Felder for litigation against Mid-Atlantic Home Builders (paid $2,500 of a $5,000 retainer); Ekeh paid $2,800 for loan-modification work. Felder did not deposit fees in trust or keep required records.
- Felder informed clients he was closing his practice but did not notify them when he vacated his office; clients’ repeated calls, emails, and a certified termination letter went unanswered.
- Felder introduced Monique Pressley, a D.C. attorney not licensed in Maryland, who communicated with clients and prepared pleadings—conduct the hearing judge found facilitated unauthorized practice of law.
- Bar Counsel found Felder unresponsive during disciplinary investigations; he refunded Ekeh only after the grievance, and refunded Matthews $1,000 but otherwise failed to return unearned fees timely.
- The hearing judge found multiple violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct and Maryland Rules governing trust accounts; the Court of Appeals accepted those findings and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence & diligence (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3) | Felder accepted retainers but did no substantive work and abandoned matters. | (No meaningful defense presented; Felder did not attend hearing.) | Court: Violations proven; Felder failed to provide competent, diligent representation. |
| Communication & termination duties (MLRPC 1.4, 1.16) | Felder ignored client requests, failed to notify clients when practice closed, and did not protect clients on termination. | Felder claimed he was transitioning out of practice but did not notify clients. | Court: Violations proven; abandonment and failure to protect clients’ interests. |
| Safekeeping client funds and recordkeeping (MLRPC 1.15; Md. Rules 16-604, 16-606.1) | Fees were not deposited into trust accounts, records were incomplete, and no written consent obtained. | No evidence of written client consent to different arrangements. | Court: Violations proven; failure to maintain trust accounts and records. |
| Unauthorized practice / supervision (MLRPC 5.5) | Felder allowed a non‑Maryland‑licensed attorney to handle Maryland matters and represent to clients she was licensed. | Felder asserted Pressley assisted, but did not rebut that she practiced in Maryland without license. | Court: Violations proven; Felder aided unauthorized practice. |
| Failure to cooperate with disciplinary authority (MLRPC 8.1) | Felder knowingly failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s multiple requests for information. | Felder provided limited responses but then ceased communication. | Court: Violation proven; failure to respond to disciplinary demands. |
| Appropriate sanction | Bar Counsel: Disbarment based on abandonment, pattern of neglect, multiple offenses, and lack of restitution. | (No mitigating evidence relied on; Felder did not successfully present mitigating factors.) | Court: Disbarment affirmed as appropriate sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (standards for appellate review of hearing judge findings)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41 (clear-and-convincing proof standard in discipline proceedings)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15 (precedent on disciplinary standards)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Park, 427 Md. 180 (disbarment appropriate for client abandonment and failure to return unearned fees)