Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gray
436 Md. 513
Md.2014Background
- Gray, admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1998, maintained an office in Towson.
- Ms. Bustamante retained Gray in November 2010 for a divorce case.
- Gray filed a Complaint for Limited Divorce on January 20, 2011.
- Discovery in the case was due by July 25, 2011; Gray failed to respond to interrogatories and document requests.
- Gray did not timely respond to discovery and a Motion to Compel; she later sent discovery requests after the deadline.
- The circuit court ordered a proposed Judgment of Absolute Divorce within ten days; Gray failed to submit timely, resulting in a delayed judgment entered May 4, 2012; the Commission notified Gray of the complaint on April 4 and April 30, 2012, but she did not respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Gray violate MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3? | Grievance Commission argues Gray failed to competently and diligently represent Bustamante. | Gray contends no violation shown beyond admitted factuals. | Yes, violations established. |
| Did Gray violate MLRPC 3.2? | Grievance Commission asserts Gray delayed litigation and failed to expedite. | Gray argues delays were not willful misconduct. | Yes, violation established. |
| Did Gray violate MLRPC 8.1(b)? | Grievance Commission shows Gray ignored requests for information. | Gray denies knowingly ignoring requests. | Yes, violation established. |
| Is indefinite suspension warranted given aggravating factors? | Grievance Commission relies on prior offenses and pattern of misconduct. | Gray emphasizes mitigating factors were absent or insufficient. | Indefinite suspension warranted. |
| Should sanctions reflect prior disciplinary history? | Grievance Commission argues prior reprimand and 60-day suspensions justify severity. | Gray argues for lesser sanction given circumstances. | Yes, supports indefinite suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388, 946 A.2d 1009 (Md. 2008) (repeated failure to apply knowledge supports 1.1 violation; relevance to diligence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 46 A.3d 1169 (Md. 2012) (1.3 and 3.2 violations; delayed litigation context)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Shakir, 427 Md. 197, 46 A.3d 1162 (Md. 2012) (illustrates diligence standard and failure to pursue claims)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Davy, 435 Md. 674, 80 A.3d 322 (Md. 2013) (aggravating factors in sanctions analysis)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234, 760 A.2d 1108 (Md. 2000) (prior discipline affects severity of sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Nichols, 405 Md. 207, 950 A.2d 778 (Md. 2008) (indefinite suspension for serious diligence and other violations)
- Gray v. State Bar, Gray I, 421 Md. 92, 25 A.3d 219 (Md. 2011) (reprimand for prior misconduct in similar violations)
- Gray v. State Bar, Gray II, 433 Md. 516, 72 A.3d 174 (Md. 2013) (sixty-day suspension preceding indefinite sanction in this case)