Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ross
428 Md. 50
| Md. | 2012Background
- Attorney Ross represented Brian Murphy in criminal and related matters and faced disciplinary charges over mishandling client funds, billing, and trust-account records.
- Judge Burrell found extensive misappropriation of funds, fabrication of case-status documents, and improper trust-account practices.
- The initial $5,000 retainer was paid for future services but was deposited in Ross’s personal account, not a client trust account.
- Additional funds ($4,565, then $85,000 and $8,000) were deposited into Ross’s trust account or used for fees not properly documented, with records and bills lacking contemporaneous support.
- Judge Burrell concluded Ross violated multiple MLRPC provisions (1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 8.4) and Maryland Rules 16-604, 16-606, 16-606.1, 16-609, and BOP §10-306, warranting disbarment.
- Judge Burrell rejected Ross’s exceptions and affirmed disbarment, noting a pattern of deceit and misrepresentation in the records and billing.
- The Court denied Ross’s procedural and constitutional challenges and awarded costs to the Commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ross violated fees and trust-account rules | Murphy's funds were misappropriated for fees; records lacked credibility | Ross contends fees were earned and records were misinterpreted | Yes; violations established and disbarment appropriate |
| Whether Ross failed to communicate fees properly | Murphys were not informed of fee basis; lack of monthly statements | Ross argues fees were justified by work performed | Yes; MLRPC 1.5 and 1.5(b) violations shown |
| Whether Ross’s trust-account designations and records complied with Rule 16-606/606.1 | Funds and records designated/maintained improperly | Designations and records were acceptable or excused by context | No; violations of 16-606 and 16-606.1 established |
| Whether Ross engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation | Fabricated case-status letters/invoices; misused funds | Some evidence disputed; credibility contested | Yes; constituted 8.4(c)/(d) violations and dishonesty |
| Whether disbarment is the proper sanction | Disbarment warranted for misappropriation and record fabrication | No mitigating factors; seeks lesser sanction | Disbarment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keiner, 421 Md. 492 (Md. 2011) (disbarment for deceitful conduct and misappropriation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Elliott, 417 Md. 659 (Md. 2011) (misappropriation and deceit justify disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. 124 (Md. 2005) (misconduct and fees violations; discipline implications)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ellison, 384 Md. 688 (Md. 2005) (designating trust accounts; improper naming violates rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nothstein, 300 Md. 667 (Md. 1984) (fraudulent billing and dishonesty)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Braskey, 378 Md. 425 (Md. 2003) (unreasonable fees; dishonesty)