Attorney Grievance Commission v. Harmon
433 Md. 612
| Md. | 2013Background
- AGC filed a Petition alleging Anthony M. Harmon commingled client and personal funds, failed to maintain required attorney trust account records, made a cash withdrawal from the trust account, and failed to timely respond to Bar Counsel — violating MLRPC 1.15 and 8.1(b) and Maryland Rules 16-606.1, 16-607, and 16-609.
- Harmon was served but did not timely answer; the Circuit Court entered an order of default, and Harmon's later attempt to vacate the default was denied. Admissions and factual averments were therefore deemed admitted.
- Bank records showed an overdraft caused by a $500 transfer from the trust account when insufficient funds existed; records also showed a $200 chargeback, a $300 deposit from a person Harmon misidentified, transfers from personal accounts into the trust account, rental receipts deposited into the trust account, and a cash withdrawal.
- Harmon failed to maintain contemporaneous client matter ledgers and other required records and repeatedly failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s requests and subpoenas; some correspondence by first-class mail was not returned, supporting a presumption of receipt.
- The hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, violations of MLRPC 1.15 and 8.1(b) and Maryland Rules 16-606.1, 16-607, and 16-609; Harmon filed untimely mitigation materials before this Court that were not considered.
- The Court of Appeals accepted the hearing judge’s factual findings and affirmed legal conclusions; it imposed an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement no sooner than six months and awarded costs to AGC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Harmon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Harmon violate trust-account record‑keeping rules (MD Rule 16‑606.1; MLRPC 1.15)? | Harmon failed to create/maintain required ledgers and records; misidentified source of deposits. | Harmon's recordkeeping lapses were inadvertent and tied to personal difficulties. | Yes. Judge’s findings accepted; records were inadequate and violations proven. |
| Did Harmon commingle funds / deposit personal funds in trust account (MD Rule 16‑607; MLRPC 1.15)? | Bank records show transfers from personal accounts and rental receipts into the attorney trust account. | Argued errors were not deliberate and resulting harm was limited. | Yes. Commingling found; Rule 16‑607 and MLRPC 1.15 violated. |
| Did Harmon make improper cash disbursements from the trust account (MD Rule 16‑609(b))? | Bank records show a cash withdrawal from the trust account. | No substantive defense to the cash‑withdrawal evidence. | Yes. Cash withdrawal violated 16‑609(b). |
| Did Harmon knowingly fail to respond to Bar Counsel (MLRPC 8.1(b))? | Harmon repeatedly failed to respond timely to letters and subpoenas; some mailed letters were not returned, supporting receipt; warned of 8.1 consequences. | Harmon asserted partial and belated cooperation and personal problems (depression, family issues). | Yes. Repeated, untimely, and incomplete responses violated MLRPC 8.1(b); mitigation evidence untimely and not considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Penn, 431 Md. 320 (Court of Appeals) (Court’s jurisdiction and standard of review in attorney discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 408 Md. 404 (clarifies deference to hearing judge’s findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Van Nelson, 425 Md. 344 (repeated failures to respond to Bar Counsel violate Rule 8.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rose, 383 Md. 385 (indefinite suspension with right to reapply in six months for similar combination of trust‑account violations and 8.1 failure)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Obi, 393 Md. 643 (contrast: shorter suspension where cooperation and mitigation were present)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 390 Md. 517 (procedural rule: averments are admitted if not denied)