Attorney Grievance Commission v. Garrett
427 Md. 209
Md.2012Background
- Petitioner, Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against Respondent Ranji M. Garrett for multiple violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MLRPC) arising from nine client matters.
- Judge Algeo conducted fact-finding after defaults and admissions due to Respondent’s nonresponse; 83 violations were found across nine matters plus failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel.
- Respondent’s conduct included failure to pursue client objectives, poor trust accounting, failure to communicate, abandonment of representation, and misappropriation of unearned fees.
- The hearing judge found violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.15(a)&(d), 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.4(a)/(c)/(d), and 8.1(b) across the nine matters.
- Following the hearing, the Court conducted an independent review and agreed with the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.
- The Court disbarred Garrett and ordered him to pay all costs under Maryland Rule 16-761.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garrett violated multiple MLRPC rules in nine matters. | Bar Counsel asserts numerous violations across 9 matters. | Garrett did not participate; no responsive pleadings. | Yes, violations established across nine matters. |
| Whether disbarment is the appropriate sanction given the misconduct. | Disbarment is warranted due to abandonment and fee misappropriation. | Garrett did not litigate or respond; no mitigation evidence. | Disbarment is the appropriate sanction. |
| Whether the Maryland Court should conduct an independent review and uphold the hearing judge’s conclusions. | Court should review de novo and accept petitioner's conclusions. | Respondent did not file exceptions or appear. | Court adopts hearing judge’s conclusions of law; sanctions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (Md. 2012) (independent review; de novo review of conclusions of law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (Md. 2006) (violation of 1.1 when failure to act harms client)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (Md. 2011) (failure to appear or take steps violates 1.1; neglect sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209 (Md. 2006) (failure to prosecute; de novo evaluation of law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brady, 422 Md. 441 (Md. 2011) (disbarment for abandonment and misappropriation; sanctions guide)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kwarteng, 411 Md. 652 (Md. 2009) (disbarment for abandonment in multiple matters)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tinsky, 377 Md. 646 (Md. 2003) (disbarment for abandonment and 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Queen, 407 Md. 556 (Md. 2009) (consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions)