History
  • No items yet
midpage
118 A.3d 816
Md.
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Kenneth Haley, admitted to Maryland Bar in 2007, operated as a solo practitioner (family, criminal, labor law). Six clients (2011–2013) filed grievances alleging similar misconduct.
  • For each matter Haley charged flat advance fees but, without clients’ informed written consent, deposited unearned fees into his operating account rather than an attorney trust account.
  • Haley failed to perform or adequately pursue work in multiple matters: missed filings and deadlines, poor pleading preparation, failure to attend court conferences/mediation, and inadequate communication with clients.
  • Several clients terminated representation; Haley retained unearned fees and did not refund amounts owed or turn over files/notify properly upon withdrawal.
  • The Attorney Grievance Commission charged violations of multiple MLRPC provisions and BOP § 10-306. A hearing judge found numerous violations; the Court of Appeals affirmed most conclusions and disbarred Haley.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Haley violated competence (MLRPC 1.1) by mishandling fees and failing to prepare/perform work Haley deposited unearned fees into operating account and failed to prepare/perform work in several matters Haley disputed scope/costs but offered invoices and claimed some work/expenses Held: Violations proven by clear and convincing evidence for multiple clients; 1.1 violated
Whether Haley violated safekeeping and fee rules (MLRPC 1.15(c), 1.5(a)) by retaining unearned advance fees Commission: advance fees are trust funds; without written consent must be in trust and withdrawn only as earned; Haley retained unearned fees making fees unreasonable Haley asserted agreements permitted his handling and pointed to incurred costs (filing fees etc.) Held: Violations proven; unearned fees deposited into operating account without consent and not refunded; fees became unreasonable
Whether Haley’s personal conduct with client Glaudé created a conflict (MLRPC 1.7(a)) Commission argued personal/sexual conduct created personal interest materially limiting representation Haley contended relationship was not sufficiently intimate to create a material limitation Held: No clear and convincing evidence of a 1.7(a) violation for Glaudé; social/contact did not establish impermissible conflict
Appropriate sanction for repeated misappropriation, incompetence, neglect, poor communication Commission sought disbarment given intentional retention, pattern, prior discipline, and harm to clients Haley urged continuation of his existing indefinite suspension by consent Held: Disbarment affirmed — misappropriation and pattern of misconduct, prior discipline, lack of mitigation warranted disbarment

Key Cases Cited

  • Maignan v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 390 Md. 287 (holding that failure to maintain client funds in trust account can constitute incompetence under MLRPC 1.1)
  • McLaughlin v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 372 Md. 467 (retention of unearned fees without intent to earn them constitutes dishonesty under MLRPC 8.4(c))
  • Goodman v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 426 Md. 115 (depositing client funds into operating account and inability to account for them violates BOP § 10-306)
  • Garrett v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 427 Md. 209 (an otherwise reasonable fee can become unreasonable if lawyer fails to earn it)
  • O’Leary v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 433 Md. 2 (sexual relationship with client can create impermissible conflict under MLRPC 1.7(a))
  • Wills v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 441 Md. 45 (misappropriation is deceitful and ordinarily warrants disbarment)
  • Camus v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 425 Md. 417 (disbarment where trust-fund mishandling, client neglect, and other serious violations occurred)
  • Shakir v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 427 Md. 197 (disbarment where lawyer neglected clients and misused unearned fees)
  • Roberts v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 394 Md. 137 (discussing the gravity of misappropriating client funds and necessity of severe sanctions)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Attorney Grievance Commission v. Haley
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Date Published: Jul 24, 2015
Citations: 118 A.3d 816; 443 Md. 657; 2015 Md. LEXIS 487; 9ag/14
Docket Number: 9ag/14
Court Abbreviation: Md.
Log In
    Attorney Grievance Commission v. Haley, 118 A.3d 816