Attorney Grievance Commission v. Patterson
28 A.3d 1196
| Md. | 2011Background
- Attorney Grievance Commission filed disciplinary action against Roland N. Patterson for IOLTA mismanagement, a Moten district-court de novo appeal, and a Lewis civil matter.
- Judge Souder, under Md. Rule 16-752 and 16-757, conducted fact-finding to determine violations of MRPC Rules and Maryland Rule 16-606.1/16-609(c).
- Findings: overdraft of IOLTA account, improper recordkeeping, improper disbursements, and lack of competence, diligence, and communication in Moten and Lewis matters.
- Court held multiple violations including MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(a)/(d), 1.16(d), 3.2, and 8.1(b), plus Rule 16-606.1 and 16-609(c).
- Mitigation: Court acknowledged MS (multiple sclerosis) as a mitigating factor for Bar 8.1(b) but did not wholly excuse misconduct.
- Petitioner recommended indefinite suspension with readmission after six months; Court ultimately imposed indefinite suspension with right to apply for readmission no sooner than six months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patterson violated IOLTA trust-account rules | Bar Counsel established overdraft and improper records | Patterson disputed intent; relied on bank timing | Yes; violations of 16-609(c) and 16-606.1 (and MRPC 1.15) established |
| Whether Moten matter shows incompetence and improper fees | Patterson failed to prepare, subpoena witnesses, and inform Moten; fees were unreasonable | Dismissed; skilled handling of appeal; fees reasonable given effort | Yes; violations of MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a)/(b), and 1.16(d) |
| Whether Lewis matter demonstrates incompetence and poor recordkeeping | Failure to pursue claims and poor accounting violated multiple MRPC rules | Complaint drafted; not all deficiencies show lack of competence | Yes; violations of MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.15(d), and 3.2 |
| Whether Respondent violated MRPC 8.1(b) by failing to respond to Bar Counsel | Missed inquiries violated disciplinary duty | Mitigation considerations (MS) supported some leniency | Yes; MRPC 8.1(b) established, mitigated by MS |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (2010) (discusses purpose and tailoring sanctions to protect the public)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41 (2007) (clear and convincing standard governs attorney discipline review)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Edib, 415 Md. 696 (2010) (deference to hearing judge on factual findings; de novo on law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (2006) (fee may become unreasonable due to lack of effort; appropriate sanction analysis)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (2008) (de novo review of conclusions of law; credibility warranted)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Granger, 374 Md. 438 (2003) (indefinite suspension with readmission as appropriate for non-misappropriation misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. David, 331 Md. 317 (1993) (indefinite suspension with readmission after six months for multiple MRPC violations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Lee, 393 Md. 385 (2006) (indefinite suspension for repeated misconduct; lack of mitigation)
- Guida, 391 Md. 33, 891 A.2d 1097 (2006) (fee issues and lack of diligent representation)