Attorney Grievance Commission v. Fox
11 A.3d 762
| Md. | 2010Background
- Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission, filed a disciplinary petition against Respondent David E. Fox over two auto-accident representations (Miller/Pearson and Barrie).
- Judge Marielsa Bernard held a hearing (Sept. 16, 2009) and issued findings (Nov. 2, 2009) finding Rule violations including 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 5 8.1(b), and 8.4(a), (c), (d).
- On remand (Feb. 8, 2010), supplemental mitigation findings were issued (May 16, 2010) finding no mitigation by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The Commission recommended disbarment; Respondent filed timely exceptions challenging several findings, but the Court overruled and deemed disbarment appropriate.
- Miller/Pearson: Respondent failed to diligently pursue and monitor the case after filing; misaddressed Reed, delayed service, and failed to inform clients; violations included 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16, and 8.4.
- Barrie: Respondent abandoned Barrie’s PIP/settlement claims for over six years, failed to inform or consult with Barrie, failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel, and settled without Barrie’s consent; violations included 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1, and 8.4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Fox violate 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 in Miller/Pearson? | Bernard found failures; Miller/Pearson suffered neglect and miscommunication. | Argues conduct was negligent but not a rule violation. | Yes; violations established. |
| Did Fox’s conduct in Miller/Pearson amount to 1.16 and 8.4 misconduct? | Abandonment and misrepresentation harmed clients; 8.4 conduct violated. | Disputes the severity or intent. | Yes; violations established. |
| Did Fox violate 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1, and 8.4 in Barrie? | Barrie case shows prolonged neglect, poor communication, and noncooperation. | Claims mitigation or limited culpability. | Yes; violations established. |
| Was any mitigation proven by a preponderance of the evidence? | Mitigation insufficient; patterns of conduct persisted. | Health issues, new systems, remorse argued as mitigation. | No; mitigation not proven. |
| Is disbarment the appropriate sanction given the violations? | Disbarment warranted by abandonment, misrepresentation, and noncooperation. | Reprimand or short suspension suggested. | Disbarment appropriate to protect the public. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (Md. 2010) (reiterates purpose of sanctions to protect the public)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kwarteng, 411 Md. 652 (Md. 2009) (disbarment for abandonment and failure to cooperate)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kreamer, 887 Md. 503 (Md. 2005) (disciplinary rule 8.1; failure to respond to Bar Counsel requests)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harrington, 367 Md. 36 (Md. 2001) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; cooperation with disciplinary inquiry)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554 (Md. 2000) (client dissatisfaction as basis for Rule 1.2 violation distinguished)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586 (Md. 2006) (mitigating factors and burden of proof in discipline proceedings)