Attorney Grievance Commission v. London
427 Md. 328
| Md. | 2012Background
- AGC filed a disciplinary action against attorney Perry London based on alleged Rule and statute violations.
- Hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4, but not of 16-609 or §10-306.
- London moved offices and stored records, impairing access; the court treated the lack of records as a factor in credibility and conduct.
- The record showed neglect, poor bookkeeping, and misrepresentation regarding work performed on client Kane’s matters, particularly 813 N. Carey Street.
- Court emphasized that London’s prior disbarment weighed in favor of disbarment, and ultimately disbarred him with the order to pay costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether London violated Rule 1.1, Competence | AGC argues neglect and poor records show lack of competence | London contends he kept Kane informed and acted diligently | Yes, London violated Rule 1.1 |
| Whether London violated Rule 1.3, Diligence | AGC asserts repeated neglect in monitoring matters | London claims ongoing monitoring; gaps due to record storage | Yes, London violated Rule 1.3 |
| Whether London violated Rule 1.4, Communication | AGC contends failure to keep client informed and misrepresentation | London argues communication occurred; issues with access | Yes, London violated Rule 1.4 |
| Whether London violated Rule 8.4, Misconduct (including willful misrepresentation) | AGC alleges deception about work performed for Kane | London denies willful misrepresentation; cites of record-keeping failures | Yes, London violated Rule 8.4(c) |
| Whether Baltimore disciplinary rules 16-609 and §10-306 were violated | AGC claims trust account and misuse of trust money violations | Court found insufficient clear and convincing evidence for these violations | No, no clear and convincing violation shown on these counts |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15 (Md. 2012) (establishes independent review and de novo conclusions of law in discipline cases)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633 (Md. 2002) (disbarment for willful deceitful conduct toward clients)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209 (Md. 2006) (discusses dishonesty and misrepresentation to client under 8.4(c))
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Webster, 402 Md. 448 (Md. 2007) (misrepresentation to a client warranted 8.4(c) violation)