Attorney Grievance Commission v. Phillips
155 A.3d 476
| Md. | 2017Background
- Dalton F. Phillips, Maryland lawyer admitted 1981, joined (in name) a firm formed by his son Solon Phillips (not admitted to practice) called Phillips, Phillips & Dow, LLC; firm letterhead and materials were prepared by Solon.
- Solon (unlicensed) drafted and sent a cease-and-desist letter on firm letterhead to Abigail Meehan on behalf of a client, Crystal Meehan (Indiana). Solon signed Dalton’s name to the letter.
- Abigail Meehan contacted Dalton; Dalton emailed her (May 29, 2014) stating the firm represented Crystal and that a junior attorney had sent the letter—thereby ratifying the representation.
- Abigail filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission. Bar Counsel investigated; Dalton repeatedly refused to provide requested information, delayed scheduling, and filed a motion to quash a subpoena.
- Dalton gave a statement under oath in January 2015 during which the hearing judge found he knowingly made multiple false statements (e.g., about firm structure, who wrote the letter, receipt of emails, and his son’s bar status). The hearing judge found numerous Rules violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Phillips) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ratification/assistance in unauthorized practice (MLRPC 5.3, 5.4, 5.5) | Dalton ratified and assisted Solon’s unauthorized practice by allowing firm use, supervising, and representing the firm sent the letter | Dalton contended he was not involved, the firm was in development, and he had no knowledge who sent the letter | Court held Dalton ratified and assisted the unauthorized practice and violated Rules 5.3(c), 5.4(d), 5.5(a) |
| False statements / failure to cooperate in disciplinary matters (MLRPC 8.1, 8.4) | Dalton knowingly made material false statements to Bar Counsel and withheld information, obstructing the investigation | Dalton denied wrongdoing and asserted Bar Counsel had not adequately identified the alleged misconduct; sought to limit cooperation | Court found multiple knowing false statements and refusal to provide information; violations of 8.1(a),(b) and 8.4(a),(c),(d) |
| Filing motion to quash subpoena / obstruction (MLRPC 3.1, 8.4) | Motion to quash was frivolous and aimed solely to delay or obstruct Bar Counsel’s investigation | Dalton argued the Commission had not fairly apprised him of the investigation’s scope and thus sought protection | Court held the motion lacked a good-faith legal basis, was filed to obstruct, and violated Rule 3.1; also contributed to Rule 8.4(d) violation |
| Whether firm-name/letterhead rule (MLRPC 7.5) was violated | AGC argued Dalton implied he practiced in partnership which was false | Dalton denied practicing with others or asserted limited involvement; challenged the characterization | Court declined to find an independent violation of 7.5(d) given findings that supported other, overlapping violations (5.3/5.4/5.5) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. 292 (1991) (test for relevance of subpoenaed information adopted for Bar Counsel subpoenas)
- Unnamed Attorney v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 409 Md. 509 (2009) (applies R. Enterprises relevance test to Attorney Grievance subpoenas)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Good, 445 Md. 490 (2015) (standard of review in attorney discipline cases)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Peters-Hamlin, 447 Md. 520 (2016) (disbarment ordinarily warranted for intentional dishonesty)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kahl, 436 Md. 617 (2014) (false statements and failure to produce records to Bar Counsel constitute dishonesty)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Blum, 373 Md. 275 (2003) (filing motion to quash to obstruct Bar Counsel violates Rule 8.4(d))