Attorney Grievance Commission v. Moore
135 A.3d 390
| Md. | 2016Background
- Richard W. Moore, Jr., a Maryland lawyer with ~25 years' experience and an 80% immigration practice, was the subject of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action filed March 31, 2015, charging violations of multiple MLRPC rules based on two immigration representations.
- Mr. Moore had received a prior reprimand in 2009 for similar failures (failure to communicate, neglect, and failure to respond to Bar Counsel).
- In the Pasqualucci matter Mr. Moore failed to appear at an initial detention hearing, did little to no work, did not file an N-600 citizenship application despite court direction, delayed communication, and only refunded fees after a Bar complaint.
- In the Custodio matter Mr. Moore failed to ensure required documents were submitted, causing denial of adjustment applications and failing to file an appeal or respond to the client’s inquiries; he retained an unreturned portion of fees.
- Bar Counsel repeatedly sought timely responses to both client complaints; Mr. Moore failed to respond as required, prompting psychiatric evaluation showing avoidant personality traits and credible testimony about personal/emotional problems and remorse.
- The hearing judge found violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d); the Court of Appeals accepted the findings and imposed an indefinite suspension (no minimum period) subject to reinstatement requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence / thoroughness (MLRPC 1.1) | Moore failed to file pleadings, missed hearings, and performed little work for clients | Moore largely admitted facts but attributed lapses to personal/psychological issues | Violations proven; conduct showed lack of preparation and competence (violation sustained) |
| Diligence & communication (MLRPC 1.3, 1.4) | Moore neglected matters, failed to keep clients informed, and ignored client inquiries | Moore cited emotional problems, avoidance, and remorse | Violations proven for both clients (failure to act with reasonable diligence and to communicate) |
| Withdrawal / client property / restitution (MLRPC 1.16) | Moore did not return client papers and delayed refunding fees; failed to take protective steps on termination | Moore eventually refunded one fee after complaint; asserted mitigating personal issues | Violation proven (failure to surrender papers/return unearned fees and protect clients’ interests) |
| Response to disciplinary authority & sanction | Bar Counsel sought discipline and indefinite suspension given prior reprimand and pattern | Moore admitted violations, expressed remorse, offered to seek conditional diversion and cited treatment progress | Violations of MLRPC 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) proven; court imposed indefinite suspension (no minimum period); reinstatement allowed upon satisfactory showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 409 Md. 303, 973 A.2d 820 (2009) (prior reprimand for similar neglect and failure to respond to Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Koven, 361 Md. 337, 761 A.2d 881 (2000) (indefinite suspension appropriate for serious neglect)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gray, 436 Md. 513, 83 A.3d 786 (2014) (collection of cases and guidance on indefinite suspensions for neglect)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147, 994 A.2d 928 (2010) (enumeration of mitigating and aggravating factors for discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534, 16 A.3d 181 (2012) (competence requires applying legal knowledge and skill; failure to do so violates MLRPC 1.1)