Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mollock
146 A.3d 1117
| Md. | 2016Background
- Respondent Shakaira S. Mollock, admitted 2012, represented Michael C. King (foreclosure defense) and Marlow Bates (petition for writ of coram nobis) and collected prepaid fees ($1,050 and $1,400).
- In King’s matter Mollock filed a defective Request for Foreclosure Mediation that was not served on the secured party; the property was sold and ratified and Mollock failed to inform or effectively represent King or refund unearned fees.
- In Bates’s matter Mollock repeatedly told Bates and his family she had filed and was progressing on a coram nobis petition but performed little or no work and refused to refund the fee after the representation ended.
- During Bar Counsel’s investigations Mollock largely failed to respond to repeated requests for information, and she submitted an altered/falsified Certificate of Service for King’s mediation request to Bar Counsel.
- The hearing judge entered default findings after Mollock failed to participate; the Court of Appeals accepted those findings and disbarred Mollock for multiple MLRPC violations and intentional dishonest conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence / Diligence (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3) | Mollock failed to perform necessary legal work (defective filing, no remedial action) | (No responsive defense — default/nonparticipation) | Violations proven; representation incompetent and dilatory. |
| Communication / Misrepresentations (MLRPC 1.4; 8.4(c)) | Mollock misled clients about case status and misrepresented work to Bar Counsel and Bates’s family | No defense presented | Violations proven; false statements and deceit found. |
| Fees / Trust account / Termination obligations (MLRPC 1.5, 1.15, 1.16) | Mollock kept prepaid fees, failed to deposit funds in trust, and refused to refund unearned fees upon termination | No defense presented | Violations proven; fees unreasonable or unearned and trust-account rules violated. |
| Bar discipline process violations / fabrication (MLRPC 8.1, 8.4, process) | Mollock altered a certificate of service and failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel | No defense presented | Violations proven; fabrication and failure to respond; aggravating factors support severe sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (2001) (intentional dishonest conduct ordinarily warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Williams, 446 Md. 355 (2016) (disbarment appropriate where attorney made multiple misrepresentations to conceal incompetence and lack of diligence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. London, 427 Md. 328 (2012) (disbarment appropriate where attorney repeatedly misrepresented case status to client)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633 (2002) (disbarment appropriate where lack of diligence was compounded by deceitful conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 434 Md. 658 (2013) (listing aggravating and mitigating factors for attorney discipline)