Attorney Grievance Commission v. Rand
429 Md. 674
Md.2012Background
- Rand, a Maryland attorney admitted in 1973, faced a Bar complaint alleging misconduct in a pay-advancement dispute for Montgomery County correctional lieutenants.
- Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in 2011, incorporating two earlier complaints; amendments followed reducing the scope of allegations.
- Allegations cited Rule 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, and 8.4 against Rand for competence, diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping, and misconduct.
- The underlying matter involved a group of lieutenants (the “Carroll” case) challenging pay compression after Montgomery County created a sergeant class with pay increases.
- An MOU and later Retainer Agreement purportedly retained Rand’s firm for the lieutenants, some of whom paid retainers; one lieutenant, Lunsford, did not initially sign or pay but later joined.
- The Circuit Court (Judge Jordan) held findings of fact and applied clear and convincing evidence standards; the court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding violations limited and mitigated, with an emphasis on Rand’s communication deficiencies toward Lunsford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rand violated Rule 1.4 (communication) with Lunsford | Bar Counsel contends Rand failed to properly inform Lunsford of his ineligibility and the consequences of not timely filing a grievance. | Rand asserts his communications were sufficient and that any omissions were not violations given the overall circumstances. | Partially: evidence supports a Rule 1.4 violation regarding Lunsford; the petition was dismissed on other grounds. |
| Whether Rand violated Rule 1.1 (competence) and 1.5(a) (fees) in representing Lunsford | Bar Counsel argues Rand’s handling of Lunsford lacked competence and that fees were unreasonable given non-beneficial services. | Rand contends he provided competent representation and that fees were reasonable under the circumstances. | Rules 1.1 and 1.5(a) not sustained against Rand for Lunsford; the court found only Rule 1.4 violation with respect to Lunsford. |
| Whether Rand’s pursuit of fees post-forfeiture violated Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to justice) | Bar Counsel claims continuing collection efforts in the name of a forfeited firm violated ethics and corporate-forfeiture law. | Rand argues the issue was not clearly a violation and, in any case, involved winding-up-related matters. | Court overruled Bar Counsel’s broad assertion; no sustained violation of Rule 8.4(d) for this conduct. |
| Whether the Grievance II matter required separate authorization outside the Carroll matter | Bar Counsel asserts Grievance II was independent and required separate authorization. | Rand treated Grievance II as within the broader scope of the MOU and thus not needing separate authorization. | No violation proven; Grievance II treated as within scope of representation and no Rule 1.5(b) violation shown. |
| Whether Rand violated Rule 1.15 (accounting) with respect to client ledgers and billing | Bar Counsel contends inconsistent ledgers and inadequate accounting for Lieutenants’ fees. | Rand maintained ledgers and provided billing in the ordinary course through an executive committee structure. | No clear and convincing evidence of Rule 1.15 violation; accounting and ledgers deemed acceptable under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dual, Incorporated v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 383 Md. 151 (Md. 2004) (winding up duties when a defunct corporation; ongoing transactions in winding up context)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (Md. 2006) (fee dispute; misconduct when nonservices exceed reasonable fees)
- Attorney Grievance v. Tayback, 378 Md. 578 (Md. 2003) (criminal conduct by attorney not necessarily misconduct unless prejudicial to justice)