Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shakir
427 Md. 197
| Md. | 2012Background
- Petitioner filed a disciplinary action against Shakir for alleged violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.5(a), 1.15(c), 1.16(d), and 8.4(d) based on advance fees and alleged neglect of Vasquez’s matters.
- Vasquez paid Shakir $2,500 for an asylum application and $800 for DUI/DWI defense; Shakir did not deposit these into a trust account or complete the services.
- Shakir failed to file the asylum application and failed to appear at multiple DUI/DWI hearings, with negligent communication to client and court.
- A disciplinary hearing was conducted by Judge Goetzke after service issues; Shakir did not appear, and the hearing proceeded ex parte.
- Shakir previously received an indefinite suspension in 2008 for related misconduct, and the current conduct is deemed aggravated by disciplinary history.
- The Court ultimately disbarred Shakir and ordered payment of costs to the Bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Shakir violate 1.1 (Competence)? | Shakir’s failures showed a lack of preparation and thoroughness. | Shakir did not present contrary arguments; the record supports the violations. | Yes; violated 1.1 |
| Did Shakir violate 1.3 (Diligence)? | Shakir failed to pursue Vasquez’s asylum and DUI/DWI matters with diligence. | No defense presented; default issues favored Bar. | Yes; violated 1.3 |
| Did Shakir violate 1.5(a) (Unreasonable fees)? | Advance fees were unearned due to non-performance, rendering the fees unreasonable. | No contrary assertion provided. | Yes; violated 1.5(a) |
| Did Shakir violate 1.15(c) and 1.16(d) (Trust deposits and refunds)? | Advance fees were not deposited into a trust account and unearned fees were not refunded. | No viable defense presented; no consent shown. | Yes; violated 1.15(c) and 1.16(d) |
| Did Shakir’s conduct violate 8.4(d) (Misconduct) and justify disbarment? | Repeated neglect and prejudicial conduct undermine the administration of justice. | No mitigating position advanced; history supports discipline. | Yes; violated 8.4(d) and warranted disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Lara v. Att'y Griev. Comm'n, 418 Md. 355 (Md. 2011) (neglect and unrefunded unearned fees justify discipline)
- Tinsky v. Att'y Griev. Comm'n, 377 Md. 646 (Md. 2003) (unearned fees and failure to refund support disbarment logic)
- Faber v. Att'y Griev. Comm'n, 373 Md. 173 (Md. 2003) (persistent neglect supports disbarment)
- Guida v. Att'y Griev. Comm'n, 391 Md. 33 (Md. 2006) (failure to file necessary documents demonstrates lack of preparation)
- De La Paz v. Att'y Griev. Comm'n, 418 Md. 534 (Md. 2011) (failure to appear and neglect support discipline findings)
- Harris v. Att'y Griev. Comm'n, 366 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (noncooperation and neglect as aggravating factors)
- Nwadike v. Att'y Griev. Comm'n, 416 Md. 180 (Md. 2010) (court maintains independent review in attorney discipline)
- Ugwuonye v. Att'y Griev. Comm'n, 405 Md. 351 (Md. 2008) (complete and original jurisdiction over discipline; de novo review of law)
- Edib v. Att'y Griev. Comm'n, 415 Md. 696 (Md. 2010) (prior discipline supports harsher sanction when pattern exists)