Attorney Grievance Commission v. Maignan
31 A.3d 467
| Md. | 2011Background
- Maignan was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1995 and suspended indefinitely in 2005 for trust account violations.
- In 2007 and 2008, the Court found further misconduct, including continued suspension violations and misrepresentations about his status.
- In 2010, Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action alleging unauthorized practice of law and other Rule violations while Maignan assisted a client in 2007–2009 and collected fees.
- Maignan failed to respond to process, was defaulted, and a hearing in 2011 established that he practiced law while suspended, solicited and accepted fees, and offered legal services and advice.
- Judge Northrop determined that Maignan violated Rules 1.5, 5.5, and 8.4 and recommended disbarment; Maignan did not file exceptions.
- The Court of Appeals imposed disbarment, effective immediately, and ordered payment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maignan violated Rule 5.5 by practicing while suspended | Maignan practiced law while suspended, giving legal advice and filing pleadings for Smith. | Maignan contends his actions fell outside the rule due to representation of a client in a pending matter. | Yes, Maignan violated Rule 5.5 by unauthorized practice during suspension. |
| Whether Maignan's fees were unreasonable under Rule 1.5 | Fees were collected while not authorized to practice; responsibility lies with Maignan. | Fees were paid for alleged services, but the respondent was not entitled to practice. | Yes, fees were unreasonable given suspension and lack of entitlement. |
| Whether Maignan's misrepresentations violated Rule 8.4 | Maignan misrepresented ability to practice and status, and engaged in deceitful conduct. | Maignan disputes the extent of misrepresentation and its impact. | Yes, misrepresentations and continued purported practice violated Rule 8.4. |
| Whether Maignan's overall conduct prejudiced the administration of justice | Conduct undermined public confidence in the profession and violated multiple subparts of Rule 8.4. | Maignan offered mitigation but failed to show credible justification for continued practice. | Yes, conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. |
| What sanction is appropriate given prior disciplinary history | Disbarment warranted due to repeated Rule violations and overlap with prior disciplinary decisions. | Maignan did not present compelling mitigation; but there is no viable defense against disbarment. | Disbarment appropriate; gravest sanction due to prior offenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Maignan, 390 Md. 287 (2005) (prior suspension for trust account violation)
- Attorney Grievance v. Maignan, 402 Md. 39 (2007) (reaffirmed suspension and misconduct; unauthorized practice)
- Attorney Grievance v. Nwadike, 416 Md. 180 (2010) (Court retained original jurisdiction in attorney discipline)
- Attorney Grievance v. Stern, 419 Md. 525 (2011) (independent review of sanctions; prima facie findings)
- Attorney Grievance v. Awuah, 374 Md. 505 (2003) (mitigation and failure to disclose suspension violates Rule 5.5)
- Velasquez, 380 Md. 651 (2004) (dishonesty and operating without license; Rule 8.4)
- Shryock, 408 Md. 105 (2009) (holding out to public about practicing law while suspended violates Rule 5.5 and 8.4)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (arbitration standard comparison (illustrative citation))