Attorney Grievance Commission v. Landeo
132 A.3d 196
| Md. | 2016Background
- Respondent Jennifer Vetter Landeo, a Maryland immigration practitioner, was charged by the Attorney Grievance Commission for multiple ethics violations based on her representation of three clients (Castillo, Flores, Martinez‑Ramos).
- Complaints allege repeated delay or nonfiling of time‑sensitive immigration forms (I‑130, I‑601, I‑360, I‑485, I‑290B, work‑permit, and stay motions), poor communication, and failure to timely turn over files after termination.
- Landeo collected retainers and filing fees but did not deposit them into an attorney trust account, and did not obtain written informed consent to hold unearned fees outside trust.
- The hearing judge found numerous MLRPC violations (competence, diligence, communication, safekeeping, terminating representation, and §8.4 violations generally); the Court of Appeals affirmed most findings, reversed others, and clarified no clear finding supported 8.4(c) (dishonesty) as charged.
- Aggravating factors: pattern of misconduct, multiple rule violations, refusal to acknowledge wrongful conduct, vulnerability of immigrant clients, and substantial experience. Mitigation: no prior discipline. Remedy: indefinite suspension with right to apply for reinstatement after 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Attorney Grievance Comm’n (Plaintiff) | Landeo (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence (MLRPC 1.1) | Argued Landeo failed to provide necessary legal skill/thoroughness (late/untimely filings caused harm). | Denied incompetence; blamed illness and absences. | Court: Violations proven as to Martinez‑Ramos (untimely appeal, improper processing); competence breach upheld. |
| Diligence & Timely Filing (MLRPC 1.3) | Counsel: months‑long delays in filing time‑sensitive immigration forms across matters. | Landeo: delays due to illness/being away; contested credibility of complainants. | Court: Clear violations for all three matters (late or nonfilings); 1.3 violations upheld. |
| Communication & File transfer (MLRPC 1.4; 1.16(d)) | Plaintiff: failed to keep clients informed, respond to status requests, and promptly deliver files on termination. | Landeo: disputed some factual characterizations; asserted partial compliance. | Court: Violations of 1.4 (all matters) and 1.16(d) (Castillo and Flores) proven; failures to explain, respond, and timely surrender files upheld. |
| Fees & Trust Account (MLRPC 1.5; 1.15(c)) | Plaintiff: charged/kept fees for services not performed; failed to deposit unearned fees/filing fees into trust without written consent. | Landeo: contested reasonableness of some fees; later refunded some filing fees. | Court: Fees were unreasonable where services unperformed; violations of 1.5(a) and 1.15(a)/(c) sustained for Castillo and Flores (and for Martinez‑Ramos as to unperformed services). |
| Dishonesty / Misrepresentation (MLRPC 8.4(c)) | Plaintiff: misrepresentations about case status and filings supported 8.4(c). | Landeo: denied intentional misrepresentations. | Court: Hearing judge did not make necessary findings for 8.4(c); court declined to find 8.4(c) proven (but found 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) violations). |
| Prejudicial Conduct / Overall Rule Violations (MLRPC 8.4(d), 8.4(a)) | Plaintiff: pattern of neglect, fee mishandling, poor communication undermines public confidence. | Landeo: argued sanction should be modest (reprimand or short suspension) given mitigation and changes. | Court: 8.4(d) and 8.4(a) violations proven; imposed indefinite suspension with right to apply for reinstatement after 90 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 445 Md. 379 (disbarment where lawyer failed to perform services, misrepresented case status, and engaged in intentional dishonesty)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56 (indefinite suspension with 90‑day reinstatement eligibility for repeated neglect, communication failures, and supervisory lapses)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. David, 331 Md. 317 (indefinite suspension where representation was marked by serious neglect and lack of communication)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 546 (indefinite suspension for persistent failures in diligence, communication, and file turnover)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Geesing, 436 Md. 56 (ninety‑day suspension where non‑lawyer staff misconduct produced ethical violations; mitigation reduced sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494 (standard for sanctions — protect public, deter, and consider violations, mental state, injury, and aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mungin, 439 Md. 290 (indefinite suspension for mishandling trust account and prejudice to administration of justice)