Attorney Grievance Commission v. Good
128 A.3d 54
| Md. | 2015Background
- Good abandoned representation of six clients after accepting retainers, failed to communicate, and ignored Bar Counsel during investigation.
- She failed to file or pursue amended pleadings or bankruptcy plans, resulting in dismissals or potential dismissals for multiple clients.
- Fees were unearned or excessive in several matters, with missing or misused funds and failure to provide refunds or proper records.
- She did not provide timely status updates or respond to clients’ requests for information.
- The Board filed two disciplinary petitions alleging violations of MLRPC Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, and 8.1 and 8.4, plus §10-306.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Good violated MLRPC rules governing competence and communication | Good failed to competently represent clients across six matters | Good may have acted within discretion due to personal issues but failed to respond | Yes; multiple Rule 1.1 and 1.4 violations found |
| Whether Good violated scope, diligence, and client control rules | Good ignored client decisions and failed to pursue objectives | Some decisions rested with client consent or reasonable strategy | Yes; violations of 1.2(a) and 1.3 established |
| Whether Good engaged in improper safekeeping and fee practices | Unreturned funds and unearned fees violated 1.15 and 10-306 | Billing practices disputed; some fees earned; transfers were mishandled | Yes; 1.15(a)(c)(d) and 10-306 violated |
| Whether disbarment is the appropriate sanction | Disbarment warranted given pattern and aggravating factors | Discipline less severe could be appropriate given mitigating factors | Yes; disbarment deemed appropriate under Park standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Park, 427 Md. 180 (Md. 2012) (disbarment appropriate for abandonment and flagrant misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696 (Md. 2010) (independent review and deference to hearing judge on facts; de novo on law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (Md. 2006) (scope of review and credibility standards for findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (Md. 2010) (clear and convincing standard; appellate deference to fact findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15 (Md. 2012) (application of ABA standards to sanctions maintaining proportionality)