Attorney Grievance Commission v. Olszewski
107 A.3d 1159
| Md. | 2015Background
- Respondent Kevin T. Olszewski, a solo practitioner admitted 1982, faced Bar petitions based on two client matters: Mr. & Mrs. Ware (auto accident) and Ramon A. DeJesus, M.D., LLC (collections).
- With the Wares, Olszewski secured PIP benefits but agreed to represent both spouses, later suing Mrs. Ware on behalf of Mr. Ware; communication with Mrs. Ware deteriorated and cases were ultimately dismissed for discovery failures.
- With DeJesus, a contingency fee agreement (33.3%) existed; after an insurer adjustment on a referred account, Olszewski assessed an additional 15% fee on uncollected/adjusted amounts, withheld disputed funds from a separate client’s receipts, and delayed restitution for ~two years.
- Judge Cahill found clear-and-convincing evidence of multiple MLRPC violations: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.15, 1.16, 8.1, and 8.4 (a) & (d).
- Mitigating facts: no prior discipline, credible testimony of personal stress and remorse, cooperation after initial non-responses; aggravating facts: conflict that led to dismissal, mishandling/withholding client funds, and failure to timely respond to Bar Counsel.
- Court of Appeals adopted the findings and imposed an indefinite suspension with right to reapply after six months; respondent ordered to pay costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence / Diligence (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3) | Olszewski breached minimal competence and delayed filing and discovery, causing dismissal. | Errors due to being overwhelmed by personal problems; no dishonest motive. | Violations proven: missed filing timing, discovery failures, and neglect violate 1.1 and 1.3. |
| Conflict of Interest / Withdrawal (MLRPC 1.7, 1.16) | Representing both spouses and suing one created a non-waivable direct conflict; failure to withdraw aggravated harm. | Maintained he discussed conflict and erred, but did not act dishonestly. | Violation proven: joint representation became an unwaivable conflict when he sued Mrs. Ware; he should have withdrawn. |
| Fee Agreement / Trust (MLRPC 1.5, 1.15) | Charging/collecting a 15% fee on uncollected/adjusted amounts and diverting other client funds was unreasonable and required trust-holding. | Claimed work justified a fee and later repaid; expressed remorse. | Violation proven: unilateral fee change and withholding funds breached 1.5 and 1.15; funds later returned but delay was an aggravating factor. |
| Cooperation with Bar Counsel (MLRPC 8.1) | He knowingly failed to respond to multiple Bar Counsel letters. | Respondent cooperated subsequently and was interviewed. | Technical violations proven for failing to respond to Bar Counsel letters; later cooperation mitigated but did not excuse breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708 (similar multiple-client neglect and mishandling of funds meriting indefinite suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. David, 331 Md. 317 (serious neglect/inattention across multiple clients supports indefinite suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (ninety-day suspension where misconduct lacked dishonest intent and there was cooperation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hines, 366 Md. 277 (conflict of interest violations warranting indefinite suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234 (failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries violates Rule 8.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (lack of diligence causing dismissal can violate 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532 (holding disputed funds in trust required when fee disputes exist)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jarosinski, 411 Md. 432 (appellate review gives deference to hearing judge credibility findings)