Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kum
102 A.3d 777
Md.2014Background
- Joseph M. Kum, admitted 1996, practiced at Amity, Kum & Suleman (AKS) and maintained a personal IOLTA at BB&T; Commission initiated disciplinary proceedings after discovering an IOLTA overdraft.
- Kum transferred $1,750 and $700 from his personal account into the IOLTA to cover returned/deposited items, then failed to promptly remove those funds and issued a $1,625 check from the IOLTA to “ACC Telecom.”
- Kum represented David Miller in a contingent-fee employment settlement; Miller’s net recovery was $33,350, but Kum disbursed only $9,333 to Miller and $12,500 to a third party (Ms. Williams), leaving $11,517 unaccounted for.
- Kum left the U.S. for Ghana, failed to communicate with Miller or Bar Counsel, and did not respond to multiple requests from the Attorney Grievance Commission.
- The hearing judge entered default after Kum failed to respond or appear; findings concluded Kum misappropriated client funds, commingled funds, abandoned representation, and failed to respond to disciplinary demands.
- The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record, agreed with the hearing judge’s conclusions, and ordered disbarment and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Kum violate safekeeping rules by commingling/misusing IOLTA funds? | Commission: Kum deposited personal funds into IOLTA, failed to remove them, and used IOLTA to cover personal check, violating Rule 16-607 and MLRPC 1.15(a). | Kum: (no response/defense; defaulted). | Held: Violation of MLRPC 1.15(a) and Maryland Rule 16-607. |
| Did Kum misappropriate Miller’s settlement proceeds? | Commission: Kum failed to deliver $11,517, did not account for funds, and used or withheld them for personal use, breaching fiduciary duty. | Kum: (no response/defense; defaulted). | Held: Kum knowingly and willfully misappropriated $11,517; violated MLRPC 8.4(c) and (d) and 1.15(d). |
| Did Kum fail to communicate and abandon client representation? | Commission: Kum left for Ghana without notice, did not respond to Miller’s requests, and failed to protect client interests, violating MLRPC 1.4(a) and 1.16(d). | Kum: (no response/defense; defaulted). | Held: Violations of MLRPC 1.4(a) and 1.16(d). |
| Did Kum fail to respond to disciplinary authority? | Commission: Kum did not reply to Bar Counsel’s lawful demands, violating MLRPC 8.1(b). | Kum: (no response/defense; defaulted). | Held: Violation of MLRPC 8.1(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zimmerman, 428 Md. 119 (misappropriation is dishonest conduct warranting disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Landau, 437 Md. 641 (disbarment where respondent neither administered nor accounted for client funds)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kobin, 432 Md. 565 (depositing personal funds and using trust account to cover personal expenses violates 1.15 and Rule 16-607)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Levin, 432 Md. 439 (failure to deliver client property and to account violates MLRPC 1.15(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 334 (misappropriation of entrusted funds cannot be tolerated; supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. 124 (misappropriation is deceitful and, absent compelling mitigation, requires disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602 (appellate court conducts independent review of disciplinary records)