69 A.3d 451
Md.2013Background
- Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Levin on April 2, 2012, alleging misconduct in the aftermath of a settlement and garnishment actions.
- Levin represented Shahparast and Royal in a Maryland legal malpractice action; Creative Concrete Corporation had previously obtained a judgment against Shahparast in 2005.
- In Oct 2010, Creative served a Writ of Garnishment and a Charging Order in Aid of Enforcement naming Shahparast as debtor, Creative as creditor, and Levin as garnishee.
- In Feb 2011, Shahparast/Royal settled for $107,500; two settlement checks were issued, endorsed by Levin, and delivered to Shahparast/third parties rather than Creative.
- Levin did not inform Creative or Nalls of receipt of the settlement funds, failed to timely produce documents, and ultimately paid $40,000 to Creative to satisfy a portion of the debt.
- Judge Burrell found Levin violated MRPC 1.15(d), 1.15(e), and 3.4(c); mitigating factors were acknowledged, and the sanction imposed was a public reprimand with costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Levin violate MRPC 1.15(d) by not notifying and delivering funds to Creative? | Bar Counsel contends funds belonged to Creative and were due to be accounted for and delivered. | Levin believed the garnishment related to disputed, unmatured/contingent interests and did not have to deliver until resolved. | Yes; violated 1.15(d). |
| Did Levin violate MRPC 1.15(e) by failing to keep disputed funds separate awaiting resolution? | Bar Counsel asserts funds with competing interests must be segregated until dispute resolved. | Levin believed funds were primarily his client’s and acted to distribute them; he did not properly segregate. | Yes; violated 1.15(e). |
| Did Levin violate MRPC 3.4(c) by disobeying the Writ of Garnishment/Charging Order? | Bar Counsel argues Levin knowingly disregarded valid court orders. | Levin claims he did not knowingly disobey; he believed the garnishment was invalid or misinterpreted. | Yes; violated 3.4(c). |
| Did Levin violate MRPC 8.4(d) when forwarding settlement proceeds to his client despite dispute? | Bar Counsel argues forwarding disputed funds prejudices the administration of justice. | Levin contends the majority found no deliberate dishonesty or intent to prejudice; violation not shown. | Bar Counsel's exception sustained; 8.4(d) violated. |
| What sanction is appropriate for Levin's misconduct? | Bar Counsel seeks a suspension (e.g., 30 days). | Levin seeks no sanction or only a reprimand given mitigating factors. | Public reprimand with costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Construction Servs., Inc. v. Simpson, 372 Md. 434 (Md. 2002) (contingent interests not garnishable; supports unmatured vs. contingent distinction)
- Attorney Grievance v. Garland, 345 Md. 383 (Md. 1997) (court orders must be obeyed pending appeal; conduct under inquiry)
- Attorney Grievance v. Usiak, 418 Md. 667 (Md. 2011) (suspension for flagrant court-order violation; context for sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance v. Hermina, 379 Md. 503 (Md. 2004) (reprimand for conduct; consideration in sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance v. Mahone, 398 Md. 257 (Md. 2007) (reprimand for courtroom-disruptive conduct; mitigating history)
- Attorney Grievance v. Stolarz, 379 Md. 387 (Md. 2004) (discusses Rule 1.15 and related duties; precedent on obligations)
- Attorney Grievance v. Seltzer, 424 Md. 94 (Md. 2011) (jurisdiction and standard in disciplinary review)