Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kirwan
149 A.3d 561
| Md. | 2016Background
- Respondent Susan M. G. Kirwan was retained in October 2013 to represent a minor (T.N.) in a negligence claim against Baltimore City Public Schools for a playground wrist fracture.
- After two months of initial contact and receipt of medical records, Kirwan became unresponsive from December 2013 onward; the client repeatedly left messages and sent emails requesting case updates and whether Kirwan would continue representation.
- The statute of limitations/notice period for filing the claim lapsed while Kirwan took no substantive action; the client later retained new counsel and pursued a malpractice claim against Kirwan.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission sent multiple letters requesting a response; Kirwan failed to respond to three written demands and to a follow-up call from an investigator, despite prior warning for a separate failure to respond.
- The hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(2)-(3) and (b), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a) and (d); neither party excepted to the findings.
- The Court of Appeals adopted the findings and imposed an indefinite suspension (no minimum duration) with costs taxed to Kirwan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence (MLRPC 1.1) | Kirwan failed to pursue the claim or perform substantive work; statute of limitations lapsed, harming client. | Kirwan claimed she began drafting a notice letter but produced no evidence of substantive work. | Violation — attorney failed to provide competent representation. |
| Diligence (MLRPC 1.3) | Failure to take fundamental steps or further the matter amounted to neglect and lack of promptness. | No substantive rebuttal; lack of action acknowledged. | Violation — lacked reasonable diligence and promptness. |
| Communication & termination duties (MLRPC 1.4; 1.16(d)) | Repeated failure to respond to client and new counsel; did not give notice, return file, or facilitate transfer. | Kirwan claimed authorization issues for producing file; otherwise offered little evidence of communication. | Violations — failed to keep client informed, enable informed decisions, and protect client's interests on termination. |
| Cooperation with disciplinary process (MLRPC 8.1(b); misconduct 8.4) | Failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s lawful demands and investigator; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice. | Kirwan received letters and spoke with investigator but did not respond substantively. | Violations — knowingly failed to respond; misconduct under 8.4(a),(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (competence/diligence standards; failure to act can violate 1.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (failure to respond to Bar Counsel and client communication as prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 447 Md. 253 (diligence and aggravating/mitigating framework)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Park, 427 Md. 180 (abandonment of client and violation of 1.16/8.1(b))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163 (return of files and restitution obligations under 1.16)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Green, 441 Md. 80 (indefinite suspension precedent where misconduct lacks dishonesty)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tolar, 357 Md. 569 (contrast on sanctions where reprimand appropriate due to remorse/mitigation)