Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mitchell
126 A.3d 72
| Md. | 2015Background
- Michael B. Mitchell, Jr., a Maryland attorney admitted in 1999, represented William J. Kolodner in two civil matters (a malpractice/assault claim against Levindale and an insurance reimbursement claim against Blue Cross Blue Shield).
- Mitchell filed the Levindale complaint after the assault/battery statute of limitations had run and then, contrary to Kolodner’s instruction to file an amended complaint narrowing claims, stipulated to dismissal with prejudice without telling Kolodner.
- In the insurance case Mitchell named the wrong defendant, failed to obtain service, and the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution; he did not inform Kolodner or seek timely reinstatement.
- Kolodner complained to Bar Counsel; Mitchell twice told Bar Counsel he had filed an amended complaint and would effect service when, in fact, the amended complaint had been rejected and the case already dismissed. He provided a version of the amended complaint that omitted the court’s rejection marks and made other false statements to investigators.
- Mitchell failed to respond to the disciplinary petition and discovery, defaulted in the proceedings, and did not participate in the sanction phase. The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of multiple MLRPC violations; the Court of Appeals disbarred Mitchell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mitchell violated MLRPC 1.1 (competence) by late filing, naming wrong defendant, and failing to prevent dismissals | Mitchell’s missed filings and failures show lack of competence and harmed client | (No defenses asserted — Mitchell defaulted) | Violated MLRPC 1.1 — incompetence shown by missed statute of limitations, service failures, and inaction |
| Whether Mitchell violated MLRPC 1.2(a) by disregarding client directions and stipulating to dismissal | Mitchell ignored Kolodner’s explicit instruction to file an amended complaint and thus exceeded authority | (No defenses asserted) | Violated MLRPC 1.2(a) — failed to follow client directives and deprived client of informed choice |
| Whether Mitchell violated MLRPC 1.4 and 3.2 by failing to communicate and to expedite litigation | Mitchell repeatedly failed to inform Kolodner of dismissals and did not act to prosecute or reinstate cases | (No defenses asserted) | Violated MLRPC 1.4 and 3.2 — inadequate communication and unreasonable delay in litigation |
| Whether Mitchell violated MLRPC 8.1 and 8.4 by making false statements to Bar Counsel and engaging in dishonest conduct | Mitchell knowingly misrepresented filing status to Bar Counsel and investigator, and concealed material facts from client and counsel | (No defenses asserted) | Violated MLRPC 8.1 and 8.4(c),(d) — intentional misrepresentations and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; disbarment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barton, 442 Md. 91 (recognizing Court of Appeals’ original jurisdiction over attorney discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (failure to timely file a claim and conceal dismissal supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 432 Md. 471 (failure to serve defendant and not attempt reinstatement violates competence and communication rules)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 385 (delayed case review and missed limitations period violate diligence/competence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shapiro, 441 Md. 367 (failure to notify client of dismissal and misrepresentations violate communication and diligence rules)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (misrepresenting case status and failing to communicate support 8.4(c) violations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brigerman, 441 Md. 23 (intentional misrepresentations to Bar Counsel violate MLRPC 8.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nussbaum, 401 Md. 612 (submission of knowingly false documents to Bar Counsel violates 8.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Levin, 438 Md. 211 (intentional dishonesty generally warrants disbarment absent compelling mitigation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zimmerman, 428 Md. 119 (discipline aims to protect public confidence and remove unfit attorneys)