Attorney Grievance Commission v. Page
430 Md. 602
Md.2013Background
- The Attorney Grievance Commission filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Alfred Amos Page, Jr. in Jan 2012 and an Amended Petition in Apr 2012.
- Bar Counsel alleged Page violated multiple Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct in his representation of Pamela Jackson and in his Petition for Reinstatement, including 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, 5.5, 8.4, and later 3.3, 8.1, and 8.4.
- Jackson retained Page in May 2006 for $5,000; $2,500 was deposited into a trust account, but funds were later withdrawn without evidence they were earned; a second $2,500 payment’s handling was disputed and found deposited in a non-trust account.
- Page delayed filing Jackson’s complaint (nine-month delay) and failed to perform discovery or obtain expert testimony; he later filed a premature default motion and a questionable summary-judgment motion while not fully understanding the procedure.
- In Oct 2007 Page began employment with the IRS, and in Jan 2008 he was suspended from the Maryland bar for 30 days, but he continued to represent Jackson and did not obtain IRS permission to continue the case.
- Page failed to provide notice of his suspension or to terminate representation appropriately, and eventually he terminated the relationship with Jackson without proper accounting or refund of unearned fees; he did not inform Jackson promptly of the suspension or its impact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Page violate MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, 5.5, and 8.4 in Jackson matter? | Bar Counsel contends Page's representation failed the duties of competence, diligence, communication, safekeeping, termination, and honesty. | Page argues some conduct was reasonable under the circumstances and disputes the extent of violations. | Yes; violations established (1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16, 5.5, 8.4). |
| Did Page’s reinstatement filings and responses violate MRPC 3.3 and 8.1? | Bar Counsel asserts knowingly false statements were made to the Court of Appeals and Bar Counsel in relation to reinstatement and prior disciplinary matters. | Page contends any statements were mistaken or not knowingly false due to confusion about proceedings. | Yes; violations found (3.3 and 8.1). |
| Was disbarment the appropriate sanction? | Bar Counsel recommends disbarment given dishonesty and pattern of misconduct. | Page urges indefinite suspension with right to reapply after 90 days. | Disbarment imposed as appropriate sanction. |
| Did Page’s conduct justify a finding of intentional dishonesty under 8.4(c)/(d)? | Bar Counsel argues the dishonest conduct related to IRS employment and misrepresentations to Jackson and Bar Counsel was intentional. | Page claims misconduct was negligent, not intentional. | Court found intentional dishonesty; violations upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (Md. 2010) (disbarment warranted for systemic concealment and deceit)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440 (Md. 1994) (candor and truthfulness are core lawyer attributes)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41 (Md. 2007) (intentional dishonest conduct warrants severe discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zeiger, 428 Md. 546 (Md. 2012) (dishonest responses to disciplinary processes indicate serious misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Webster, 402 Md. 448 (Md. 2007) (dishonesty intertwined with character concerns in discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pak, 400 Md. 567 (Md. 2000) (lawyer’s false statements to tribunal raise serious discipline concerns)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Byrd, 408 Md. 449 (Md. 2009) (hearing judge may assess credibility and selectively rely on evidence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (Md. 2006) (standards for reviewing facts and conclusions in disciplinary matters)