Attorney Grievance Commission v. Nnaka
428 Md. 87
| Md. | 2012Background
- AGC filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Nnaka for violations of the MLRPC in two client matters.
- Judge Dugan held by clear and convincing evidence that Nnaka violated were Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d); plus Nnaka had been decertified in 2009 for CPPF nonpayment.
- Dowuona matter: Nnaka traveled to Nigeria for extended periods without informing clients; failed to communicate or provide documents; demanded additional fees; failed to return client documents.
- Shupe matter: Nnaka filed without proper expert reports, failed to cooperate with discovery, left the country during critical motions, and instructed clients to lie to the court about representation.
- The court found abandonment of practice, nonresponse to Bar Counsel, and misleading conduct toward the Shupes.
- The court disbarred Nnaka and ordered payment of all costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Nnaka violate 1.3 and 1.4 in both matters? | AGC: Nnaka failed with diligence and client communication. | Nnaka's position not asserted; no contrary argument presented. | Yes; violations of 1.3 and 1.4 established. |
| Did Nnaka violate 8.1(b) by failing to respond to Bar Counsel? | AGC: Nnaka knowingly failed to respond to lawful demands. | Nnaka did respond initially but did not pursue later; no direct denial beyond that. | Yes; 8.1(b) violated. |
| Did Nnaka’s conduct violate 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) affecting honesty and administration of justice? | AGC: Nnaka instructed clients to lie; deceit prejudiced justice. | Nnaka contested some factual inferences; no extensive defense presented. | Yes for 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). |
| Should disbarment be the sanction for the identified violations? | AGC: Disbarment warranted given multiple violations and abandonment. | Nnaka offered no justification for lesser sanction. | Disbarment imposed. |
| Are findings of the Circuit Court binding given no exceptions were filed? | Nnaka failed to file exceptions; findings should stand for sanction purposes. | No responsive argument; none filed. | Findings established; sanctions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Hodgson, 396 Md. 1, 912 A.2d 640 (Md. 2006) (disbarment for similar rule violations and abandonment)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Tinsky, 377 Md. 646, 835 A.2d 542 (Md. 2003) (disbarment for analogous misconduct and abandonment)
- Park v. Att’y Griev. Comm’n, 427 Md. 180, 46 A.3d 1153 (Md. 2012) (discipline for failure to monitor and communicate with clients)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Culver, 381 Md. 241, 849 A.2d 423 (Md. 2004) (disbarment for deceitful conduct and misrepresentation)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Keiner, 421 Md. 492, 27 A.3d 153 (Md. 2011) (dishonest conduct supporting disbarment)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Rose, 391 Md. 101, 892 A.2d 469 (Md. 2006) (communication failures and mismanagement cases involving attorneys)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Usiak, 418 Md. 667, 18 A.3d 1 (Md. 2011) (sanctions for professional misconduct and public protection)
- Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Park, 427 Md. 180, 46 A.3d 1153 (Md. 2012) (see Park for standard of review and sanction framework)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15, 45 A.3d 281 (Md. 2012) (independent review and de novo analysis of misconduct)