Attorney Grievance Commission v. Landau
437 Md. 641
Md.2014Background
- Lee Elliott Landau, admitted 1978, was retained by American Marketing Services, Inc. (The Merchandiser) in 2003 to collect delinquent accounts on a one‑third contingency fee basis.
- By 2011 The Merchandiser discovered many referred matters showed judgments or settlements satisfied, but it had received little or no remittance from Landau.
- The Merchandiser’s internal spreadsheet indicated approximately $78,773 in collections for which Landau remitted nothing; Landau did remit on only a few accounts.
- Repeated demands (by the client, its counsel, and Bar Counsel) for accounting and payment went unanswered; Bar Counsel subpoenaed Landau’s trust‑account records, showing withdrawals without client notations.
- Hearing judge (after default for Landau’s failure to respond/appear) found by clear and convincing evidence that Landau misappropriated client funds and violated multiple MLRPC provisions, Md. Rule 16‑609, and BOP § 10‑306; no mitigating evidence was presented.
- This Court (on de novo review of the law) disbarred Landau, concluding misappropriation of entrusted funds ordinarily warrants disbarment absent compelling extenuating circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Landau misappropriated client funds/trust money | Landau collected ~ $78,773 on client matters and failed to remit the client’s share, withdrawing trust funds for personal use | (No response; default) | Yes—misappropriation supported by clear and convincing evidence; violated MLRPC 1.15(a), Md. Rule 16‑609, BOP § 10‑306 |
| Whether Landau failed to communicate and act with diligence | Bar: he ignored repeated client inquiries and failed to provide status/accountings | (No response) | Yes—violations of MLRPC 1.3 and 1.4 established |
| Whether Landau improperly terminated or abandoned representation | Bar: he ceased communications and did not protect client interests on termination | (No response) | Yes—violated MLRPC 1.16(d) by failing to give notice or surrender client property |
| Appropriate sanction for misconduct | Bar Counsel: disbarment is required for trust‑fund misappropriation absent compelling mitigation | (No response) | Disbarment affirmed—misappropriation of entrusted funds warrants disbarment absent compelling extenuating circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602 (explains standard of review and this Court’s original jurisdiction in discipline matters)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jarosinski, 411 Md. 432 (same)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (acceptance of hearing judge’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185 (same)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tinsky, 377 Md. 646 (default does not eliminate de novo legal review)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Joehl, 335 Md. 83 (ultimate disciplinary determinations lie with this Court)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cherry‑Mahoi, 388 Md. 124 (misappropriation of entrusted funds typically warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 334 (entrustment of client funds imposes highest duty; misappropriation intolerable)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Herman, 380 Md. 378 (disbarment for similar pattern of collecting client funds and failing to remit)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mitchell, 386 Md. 386 (disbarment where attorney appropriated settlement proceeds and failed to notify client)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1 (factors for determining severity of sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (purpose of sanctions is protection of public and confidence in profession)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zimmerman, 428 Md. 119 (sanctions aim to deter misconduct and protect public confidence)