Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kremer
432 Md. 325
| Md. | 2013Background
- Kremer was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1989 and practiced in Columbia, MD until 2011.
- In 2012, the AGC filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action based on four former-client complaints.
- Kremer was served on May 18, 2012 and failed to respond, resulting in a default on June 28, 2012.
- An evidentiary hearing on September 4, 2012 was held; Kremer did not attend or respond.
- Judge Becker found, by clear and convincing evidence, violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d).
- The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed disbarment as the sanction, and ordered Kremer to pay costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Kremer’s conduct violate MLRPC 1.1? | AGC argues Kremer failed to provide competent representation. | Kremer did not present a substantive defense on material facts. | Yes; violations of 1.1 established. |
| Did Kremer’s handling violate MLRPC 1.3 and 1.4? | AGC contends neglect and failure to keep clients informed. | Kremer did not present a contrary position on communications. | Yes; violations of 1.3 and 1.4 established. |
| Did Kremer violate MLRPC 1.16(d) upon termination of representation? | AGC argues abandonment harmed clients and failed to protect interests. | Kremer did not offer mitigating justification. | Yes; 1.16(d) violated. |
| Did Kremer violate MLRPC 8.1(b) by failing to respond to Bar Counsel and 8.4(d)? | AGC asserts failure to respond and pursue matters prejudiced administration of justice. | No substantive disagreement due to nonparticipation. | Yes; 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) violated. |
| What sanction is appropriate for Kremer’s misconduct? | AGC seeks disbarment based on flagrant neglect and failure to respond. | No alternative argued given record. | Disbarment warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (Md. 2011) (flagrant neglect and failure to respond justified disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dunietz, 368 Md. 419 (Md. 2002) (disbarment for continuing disregard of process and duties)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Whitehead, 405 Md. 240 (Md. 2008) (sanctions to protect the public and integrity of the bar)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kovacic, 389 Md. 233 (Md. 2005) (mitigation limited when no participation or evidence of factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Park, 427 Md. 180 (Md. 2012) (aggravation factors include pattern of misconduct and obstruction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (Md. 2011) (1.1 violation for failure to file; diligence and communication issues)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (Md. 2012) (failure to respond to Bar Counsel violates 8.1(b))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586 (Md. 2006) (consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors in sanctioning)
- Barrett v. Nnaka, 428 Md. 87 (Md. 2012) (standard of proof in attorney discipline cases)