Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mahone
150 A.3d 870
| Md. | 2016Background
- Respondent Willie J. Mahone (admitted 1980) was charged by the Attorney Grievance Commission with multiple violations relating to mismanagement of his attorney trust account, recordkeeping failures, commingling of funds, unauthorized withdrawals, and failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel.
- Bank notice of an overdraft triggered the investigation; forensic analysis found negative balances in nine client matters, earned fees deposited into the trust account, unidentified withdrawals (including checks payable to Mahone and cash withdrawals), and missing electronic-transfer records.
- Bar Counsel repeatedly requested ledgers, deposit slips, and supporting documents; Mahone responded late and ultimately failed to produce sufficient records, admitting at deposition that he did not maintain required records and had commingled funds.
- The hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, violations of MLRPC 1.1, 8.1(b), 8.4(a) and (d); Maryland Rules 16-606.1, 16-607, 16-609; and BP § 10-306; but also concluded Mahone acted without malice or personal gain.
- The Court reviewed the record de novo on law, accepted the hearing judge’s factual findings, sustained most rule violations, but reversed the finding of a violation of MLRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty/fraud) because evidence showed negligence not intentional deceit.
- Considering prior discipline (1997 indefinite suspension and later reprimands), lack of fraudulent intent, no proven client loss, and remedial steps taken, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension (with right to seek reinstatement) and taxed costs to Mahone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mahone violated trust-account recordkeeping rules (Rule 16-606.1 / MLRPC 1.1) | Bar Counsel: Mahone failed to create/maintain requisite records and monthly reconciliations, shown by forensic summaries and missing documentation. | Mahone: He maintained records but could not produce them; nonproduction does not prove nonexistence. | Held: Violation proven; Mahone admitted failures and evidence supported lack of required records. |
| Whether Mahone commingled personal and client funds (Rule 16-607) | Bar Counsel: Deposits of earned fees into trust account and use of account as buffer show commingling. | Mahone: Deposits were inadvertent or for convenience; no intent to misuse. | Held: Violation proven; none of the rule exceptions applied. |
| Whether Mahone used trust funds for unauthorized purposes, withdrew cash, or caused negative balances (Rule 16-609; BP §10-306) | Bar Counsel: Forensic records show unauthorized withdrawals, cash withdrawals, and negative balances in client matters. | Mahone: Transactions reflect sloppy bookkeeping, not theft; no client sustained loss. | Held: Violation proven; unauthorized cash withdrawals and negative balances occurred. |
| Whether Mahone failed to cooperate with disciplinary investigation (MLRPC 8.1(b)) | Bar Counsel: Multiple letters went unanswered or incompletely answered, demonstrating failure to respond to lawful demands. | Mahone: Missed mail due to office move and his responses covered substance; any failures were not willful. | Held: Violation proven as to late/incomplete responses to March and April letters; 8.1(b) violated. |
| Whether conduct amounted to dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (MLRPC 8.4(c)) | Bar Counsel: Pattern of taking trust funds and unexplained withdrawals supports 8.4(c). | Mahone: Conduct was negligent, without intent to deceive or personal gain; no evidence of false statements or client loss. | Held: Not proven; 8.4(c) requires intent/dishonesty and clear and convincing evidence was lacking — violation reversed. |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment vs. suspension) | Bar Counsel: Prior discipline and seriousness warrant disbarment. | Mahone: Lack of dishonest intent, no client loss, remedial steps, and prior sanctions remote favor suspension. | Held: Indefinite suspension imposed (less than disbarment) given no intent to defraud, no proven client loss, but prior record is an aggravating factor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602 (2013) (standard of appellate review in attorney discipline matters)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (2008) (accept factual findings unless clearly erroneous; review conclusions of law de novo)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Taylor, 405 Md. 697 (2008) (attorney’s duty to make reasonably prompt reply to Bar Counsel)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Bell, 432 Md. 542 (2013) (indefinite suspension appropriate for careless mishandling without intent to defraud; mitigating corrective action)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662 (2002) (indefinite suspension with reapplication period where no fraudulent intent and no client loss)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Gracey, 448 Md. 1 (2016) (disbarment ordinarily warranted for intentional dishonest conduct such as theft)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586 (2006) (mitigating and aggravating factors for sanctions analysis)