Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hamilton
118 A.3d 958
| Md. | 2015Background
- John T. Hamilton Jr., admitted 2001, was the respondent in consolidated disciplinary PDRAs based on complaints by three former clients (Manning, DeVincent, Grauer).
- Allegations included failure to file discovery and appear in court, poor communication, failure to maintain/deposit client funds in a trust account, charging/retaining unreasonable or unearned fees, misrepresenting filings, misappropriation of client funds, and failure to respond to Bar Counsel.
- Hearing judge (Judge Harris) adopted Petitioner’s proposed factual findings: multiple instances where Hamilton had clients’ documents or fees but failed to act, resulting in court sanctions, lost litigation positions, and financial harm to clients.
- Respondent did not appear at the hearing and failed to file exceptions or contest the recommended sanction before the Court of Appeals.
- The Court concluded by clear and convincing evidence that Hamilton violated numerous MLRPC provisions and Maryland trust-account rules; it rejected the showing of criminal willfulness necessary for MLRPC 8.4(b) but found violations of 8.4(c) (dishonesty/misrepresentation) and others.
- Given the pattern of neglect, misappropriation/inferred misappropriation, unresponsiveness, and lack of mitigation, the Court imposed disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence / diligence (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3) | Hamilton repeatedly failed to file discovery, subpoena witnesses, prepare for hearings, and appeared to abandon representation, producing sanctions and harm to clients. | (No meaningful contest; respondent did not file exceptions or refute findings.) | Violations proven; lack of filings, missed appearances, and failure to prepare = breaches of 1.1 and 1.3. |
| Communication & scope (MLRPC 1.2, 1.4) | Hamilton failed to keep clients informed, ignored requests for files, misrepresented filings, and did not follow client instructions, preventing informed decisions. | (No meaningful contest.) | Violations proven; failures to communicate and follow client objectives breached 1.2 and 1.4. |
| Trust-account / fee handling (MLRPC 1.15; Md. Rule 16-604; BOP §10-306) | Fees were paid in advance and not deposited into an attorney trust account; records were not maintained; funds were not returned when representation ended. | No evidence of willful criminal misuse sufficient to support a statutory misdemeanor charge. | Violations of MLRPC 1.15 and Rule 16-604 proven; misappropriation inferred for disciplinary purposes (8.4(c)); willfulness for criminal liability under BOP §10-606(b) not proven, so no 8.4(b). |
| Candor to disciplinary authorities (MLRPC 8.1) | Hamilton failed to respond to multiple Bar Counsel inquiries and letters concerning complaints. | (No meaningful contest.) | Violation proven; failure to cooperate violated 8.1(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Faber, 373 Md. 173 (disbarment for repeated client neglect)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Wallace, 368 Md. 277 (pattern of neglect warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. 124 (intentional misappropriation is dishonest and generally merits disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harris, 366 Md. 376 (failure to appear at trial is ultimate incompetency under Rule 1.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (lack of thoroughness/preparation supports Rule 1.1 violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stillwell, 434 Md. 248 (trust-account requirements and consequences for failing to maintain them)