Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gage-Cohen
101 A.3d 1043
| Md. | 2014Background
- In March 2012 Christine Boco Gage-Cohen accepted a $2,500 retainer from Mary L. Turner to pursue a divorce and received Turner’s case documents.
- Gage-Cohen did not deposit the fee into a client trust account, did not maintain a trust account or required records in 2012, and performed no work on the matter.
- Turner repeatedly tried to contact Gage-Cohen, requested a refund and return of documents; Gage-Cohen largely did not respond and only returned documents shortly before charges were filed.
- Turner filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission; Bar Counsel repeatedly requested information and records; Gage-Cohen failed to cooperate with the investigation.
- After service in Tennessee, Gage-Cohen did not respond to disciplinary proceedings; a hearing judge entered default findings, and the Court of Appeals accepted those findings and disbarred her.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent abandoned client / failed to competently represent client | Commission: accepted retainer, took no action, failed to communicate, abandoned representation | (No responsive defense; respondent did not participate) | Court: violation of MLRPC 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4 — abandonment established |
| Whether the $2,500 constituted misappropriated/unearned fees and trust-account violations | Commission: fee was unearned and not deposited into trust; no written consent to alternate arrangement | (No response) | Court: violation of MLRPC 1.5(a), 1.15(a) & (c), and Maryland Rules 16-604, 16-606.1, 16-609 and BOP §10-306 |
| Whether respondent failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel | Commission: respondent ignored multiple lawful demands for information and records | (No response) | Court: violation of MLRPC 8.1(b) |
| Appropriate sanction for combined misconduct (abandonment, misappropriation, noncooperation) | Commission: disbarment warranted given flagrant neglect, misappropriation, and failure to cooperate | (No mitigation offered) | Court: disbarment; respondent ordered to pay costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (disbarment for accepting fees, depositing into personal account, performing no work, abandoning practice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (failure to prepare after accepting fee violates competence rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Van Nelson, 425 Md. 344 (requirement to hold client funds in trust until earned)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Costanzo, 432 Md. 233 (failure to deposit unearned fees into trust violates rules and statute)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388 (competence and trust-account principles)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brady, 422 Md. 441 (competence rule interpretation)