Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gerace
72 A.3d 567
Md.2013Background
- Michael F. Gerace, admitted 1980, was decertified by the Court of Appeals on April 7, 2010 for failing to pay Client Protection Fund assessments but continued practicing in Maryland.
- In April 2010 the Schafer family retained Gerace for a landlord–tenant matter for a $500 fixed fee; disagreements led to termination in November 2010.
- After termination Gerace failed to withdraw, failed to return original client papers, and did not refund $475 of unearned fees despite an agreement to do so.
- Gerace repeatedly failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s requests and cancelled investigator interviews; Bar Counsel could not locate him until an investigator found him at a law firm where he was practicing while decertified.
- The hearing judge (default entered for Gerace’s failure to answer) found violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.5(b), 1.16(d), 5.5(a)–(b), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a)–(d).
- The Court of Appeals accepted the findings, reviewed conclusions de novo, and disbarred Gerace for intentional dishonesty, unauthorized practice, abandonment of clients, failure to cooperate with disciplinary process, and related misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized practice of law after decertification (MLRPC 5.5) | Gerace knowingly practiced in Maryland after decertification, held himself out as admitted, maintained a presence at a law firm, and appeared in court. | No responsive pleading or defense (default). | Court held Gerace violated 5.5(a)–(b); conduct was intentional. |
| Dishonesty, deceit, and criminality (MLRPC 8.4(b) & (c)) | Misrepresentations and concealment about authorization to practice constitute fraud and a criminal act reflecting adversely on fitness. | No defense asserted. | Court held violations of 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) based on unauthorized practice and concealment. |
| Failure to protect client interests on termination (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.16(d), 1.5(b)) | Gerace abandoned representation, failed to withdraw, failed to communicate, attempted to unilaterally change agreed fee, and refused to return papers/refund unearned fees. | No defense asserted. | Court held violations of 1.1, 1.3, 1.16(d), and 1.5(b). |
| Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation (MLRPC 8.1(b)) | Gerace failed to respond to multiple requests, cancelled interviews, and concealed his status. | No defense asserted. | Court held violation of 8.1(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Awuah, 374 Md. 505 (court disbarred for deliberate unauthorized practice and related misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15 (discusses when unauthorized practice supports 8.4(b)–(c) findings and distinguishes lack of intent to deceive)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tinsky, 377 Md. 646 (default does not preclude de novo legal review by the Court)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (concealment can constitute deceit under 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602 (Court’s original jurisdiction in attorney discipline and independent record review)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ross, 428 Md. 50 (intentional dishonesty ordinarily warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Logan, 390 Md. 313 (disbarment where attorney practiced while unauthorized, abandoned client, and failed to respond to Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McClain, 406 Md. 1 (intentional misrepresentations to courts can warrant disbarment)