Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lewis
437 Md. 308
| Md. | 2014Background
- Glenn C. Lewis, admitted MD bar 2000, was retained by Lee‑Ann Slosser on Jan 30, 2011 for divorce representation and received a $60,000 retainer.
- Lewis missed a scheduled day of mediation without consent, arrived late the first day, repeatedly failed to timely review or revise a settlement draft, and made misleading statements to his client and opposing counsel about his work.
- Lewis abandoned the client during a critical pre‑trial period, failed to respond to repeated client requests and successor counsel’s requests to withdraw, and did not return the client file or unearned fees.
- Lewis charged and collected fees the hearing court found unreasonable (billing ~4× opposing counsel for similar work) and failed to deposit/maintain the retainer in a client trust account or keep required trust records.
- Bar Counsel’s investigatory letters and an investigator’s calls went unanswered; Lewis did not respond to Bar Counsel’s demands for information or produce records.
- The Montgomery County hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence violations of MLRPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 8.1(b), 8.4(a), (c), (d), and Md. Rule 16‑606.1; the Court of Appeals accepted the findings and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence (Rule 1.1) | Lewis failed to provide necessary preparation and thoroughness. | (No responsive evidence; Lewis did not appear/hear.) | Court: Violation—lack of thoroughness and preparation. |
| Diligence (Rule 1.3) | Lewis abandoned client, missed mediation day, failed timely to act on settlement. | (No defense presented) | Court: Violation—unreasonable neglect and abandonment. |
| Communication (Rule 1.4) | Lewis failed to keep client informed or respond to requests. | (No defense) | Court: Violation—failure to inform and consult. |
| Fees (Rule 1.5) | Fees were unreasonable given limited work; billing far exceeded opposing counsel. | (No defense) | Court: Violation—unreasonable fee charged and collected. |
| Safekeeping / Trust accounting (Rule 1.15 & Md. Rule 16‑606.1) | Retainer not held in trust; no trust records; misappropriation of client funds. | (No defense) | Court: Violations—failed to deposit retainer in trust and maintain records. |
| Termination / Withdrawal (Rule 1.16) | Lewis failed to withdraw when asked and did not protect client upon termination (no file/ refunds). | (No defense) | Court: Violation—improper abandonment and failure to return file/unearned fees. |
| Bar investigation cooperation (Rule 8.1(b)) | Lewis failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s lawful demands for information. | (No defense) | Court: Violation—failure to respond to disciplinary authority. |
| Misconduct / Dishonesty (Rule 8.4(c),(d)) | Lewis made misrepresentations and engaged in deceit; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice. | (No defense) | Court: Violation—dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to justice. |
| Appropriate sanction | AGC: Disbarment given abandonment, dishonesty, pattern, multiple offenses, noncooperation, no mitigation. | Lewis: (no argument; did not appear/offer mitigation) | Court: Disbarment ordered; costs taxed to Lewis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359 (recognizing 8.4(a) follows from other rule violations)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (standard of review in attorney discipline; deference to hearing judge’s facts)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696 (accepting hearing judge findings unless clearly erroneous)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Garfield, 369 Md. 85 (ultimate determination of misconduct reserved to Court)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41 (clear and convincing standard in discipline proceedings)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15 (guidance on review and sanctions)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (disbarment ordinarily appropriate for intentional dishonesty)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565 (protecting public and deterrence as goals of sanctioning)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Heung Sik Park, 427 Md. 180 (disbarment for client abandonment, failure to communicate, failing to return unearned fees)