Attorney Grievance Commission v. Pinno
437 Md. 70
Md.2014Background
- Lawrence Pinno, Jr. was an experienced Maryland attorney with a solo practice who faced multiple disciplinary petitions in two consolidated cases.
- He failed to perform agreed-upon legal work for at least five clients, sometimes for extended periods, without notifying them or returning unearned fees.
- Specific failures included delaying a bankruptcy filing for Hope Small, missing a creditors’ meeting, and not submitting required tax documents.
- In England, Hankins, Snyder, and Juliano matters, Pinno took fees but failed to take action, attend hearings, or communicate status.
- Pinno was decertified from the Maryland Bar for nonpayment to the Client Protection Fund prior to these proceedings.
- The hearing judge found no mitigating circumstances and determined a pattern of neglect across multiple clients over two years, leading to the recommended sanction of disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Pinno violate competence and diligence rules? | Pinno’s conduct shows neglect of five clients. | Pinno argues lack of evidence of intent or pattern? (summary) | Yes; violations found |
| Did Pinno violate communication and termination duties to clients? | Inadequate updates and failure to inform clients breached 1.4 and related duties. | No meaningful response from clients; defense not supported by record. | Yes; violations found |
| Should Pinno be disbarred given the pattern of neglect across multiple clients? | Pattern of neglect warrants severe sanction to protect the public. | No mitigating factors; argues for lesser sanction (if any). | Disbarment warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325 (Md. 2013) (pattern of neglect supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (Md. 2011) (aggravating factor when repeated misconduct undermines integrity)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dominguez, 427 Md. 308 (Md. 2012) (aggravating factors, including lack of mitigation, support discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (Md. 2012) (failure to protect against statute of limitations violates 1.3)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tinsky, 377 Md. 646 (Md. 2003) (procrastination and neglect harming client interests)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Granger, 374 Md. 438 (Md. 2003) (competence includes timely filing and client communication)