Attorney Grievance Commission v. Heung Sik Park
427 Md. 180
| Md. | 2012Background
- Petitioner, Attorney Grievance Commission, filed a disciplinary action alleging violations of the MLRPC arising from Respondent Park's immigration services for Chae Hong Min and Kyung Min.
- The petition charged Park with violating MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1, and 8.4 based on incomplete applications, poor communication, and abandonment of representation.
- After repeated attempts to effect personal service, service was made via an agent; Park failed to answer, and default was entered on October 22, 2009 with notice to Park on November 6, 2009.
- At December 11, 2009 hearing, Park did not appear; under Rule 2-323(e) all averments were deemed admitted, and evidence including testimony and documents was admitted.
- Judge Hennegan found, by clear and convincing evidence, violations of 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1, and 8.4; Park’s conduct included failure to obtain or provide information, miscommunication, abandonment, and failure to respond to Bar Counsel.
- The Court ordered disbarment and costs payable by Park, with a transcript of the disposition including Rule 16-761 costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competen ce and diligence violations | Petitioner: Park failed to demonstrate thoroughness and preparation. | Park: Respondent's personal troubles mitigated conduct; no deliberate neglect argued. | Violations of 1.1 and 1.3 established |
| Communication with client | Petitioner: Park failed to keep Mins informed and respond to information requests. | Park: Respondent’s difficulties explained lack of timely communication. | Violation of 1.4 established |
| Termination of representation | Petitioner: Park abandoned the representation and did not refund unearned fees or return documents. | Park: None stated; defense minimal due to absence. | Violation of 1.16(d) established |
| Bar admission/disciplinary communications | Petitioner: Park failed to respond to lawful demands from Bar Counsel. | Park: No responsive defense presented due to absence. | Violation of 8.1(b) established |
| Misconduct prejudicial to administration of justice | Petitioner: Park’s overall conduct harms public confidence in the profession. | Park: Not addressed beyond general defense; focus on overall conduct. | Violation of 8.4(d) established |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brady, 422 Md. 441 (Md. 2011) (disbarment warranted for abandonment and failure to communicate)
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kwarteng, 411 Md. 652 (Md. 2009) (disbarment for abandonment and multiple rule violations)
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (Md. 2011) (refused or failed to inform clients; 1.4 violation evidence)
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234 (Md. 2000) (letters from Bar Counsel constitute 8.1(b) demands)
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. Goff, 399 Md. 1 (Md. 2007) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice under 8.4(d))