Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlin
171 A.3d 1205
| Md. | 2017Background
- Respondent Louisa C. McLaughlin, a Maryland attorney admitted in 2004, represented elderly client Doris Leedom (then in her 80s) in estate planning and held proceeds from two property sales in escrow.
- McLaughlin agreed not to disburse the sale proceeds until Leedom’s son (George) and daughter (Paula McCabe, successor POA) agreed on disposition, but paid $10,000 to George in October 2014 without McCabe’s consent.
- In January 2015 McLaughlin withdrew $5,175 from the client trust account as fees without providing invoices or obtaining client/POA approval.
- McCabe filed a grievance; McLaughlin submitted a response containing multiple factual statements later found to be knowing misrepresentations to Bar Counsel and then largely ceased responding to investigative requests.
- The hearing judge entered default after McLaughlin failed to answer the Petition or appear; based on admitted facts the court found violations of multiple MLRPC provisions (including diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping, candor to disciplinary authorities, and misconduct) and BP § 10-306 (misuse of trust money).
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed disbarment, emphasizing intentional misrepresentations to Bar Counsel, misuse of entrusted funds, multiple aggravating factors, and no mitigating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC/Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (McLaughlin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McLaughlin failed to act with diligence (MLRPC 1.3) | McLaughlin knew of son’s substance abuse and declining competence of client but did not warn or investigate, exposing client to financial harm | She was caught in a family dispute and not negligent | Violated 1.3 — failure to protect client and investigate/advise constituted neglect |
| Whether McLaughlin failed to communicate and explain material matters (MLRPC 1.4(a),(b)) | She failed to inform or explain risks of keeping son as POA or material changes affecting representation | Claimed client preferences and family dynamics justified her actions | Violated 1.4(a),(b) — client denied information needed for informed decisions |
| Whether fee withdrawal and disbursements misused trust funds / were unreasonable (MLRPC 1.5; 1.15; BP §10-306) | Withdrew $5,175 without invoices/authorization and disbursed $10,000 contrary to escrow agreement — misuse and possible misappropriation | Claimed fees related to prior work and that procedures were followed | Violated BP §10-306; violation of 1.5; court declined to fully resolve some 1.15 issues but found misuse sufficient to support discipline |
| Whether respondent made false statements and obstructed discipline (MLRPC 8.1; 8.4) | Made multiple knowing misrepresentations to Bar Counsel and failed to respond to requests — dishonesty and prejudicial conduct | Argued lack of notice and that she was in the middle of family disputes; later contested scope at sanctions stage | Violated 8.1(a),(b) and 8.4(a),(c),(d); intentional dishonesty to Bar Counsel warranted disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494 (2015) (aggravating factors and sanction analysis for attorney misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McClain, 406 Md. 1 (2008) (appellate court’s standard of review in attorney discipline matters)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602 (2013) (accepting hearing judge’s factual findings absent clear error)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (2014) (default proceedings and when live evidence is required after default)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McDowell, 439 Md. 26 (2014) (purposes of sanctions: protect public and deter misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (2001) (disbarment ordinarily appropriate for intentional dishonest conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Payer, 425 Md. 78 (2012) (deceitful conduct toward Bar Counsel typically warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325 (2013) (failure to respond to disciplinary authorities as evidence of obstruction and no mitigation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rand, 445 Md. 581 (2015) (failure to provide invoices can render otherwise reasonable fees unreasonable)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (2012) (fee must be earned and supported; lack of basis can make fee unreasonable)