Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shapiro
108 A.3d 394
| Md. | 2015Background
- In 2005 Shapiro agreed to represent Diana Wisniewski in a medical‑malpractice claim arising from a 2004 surgery, with contingent fees (1/3 settlement; 40% after litigation).
- Shapiro failed to secure an expert to file a required Certificate of Merit; he filed a Statement of Claim in 2007 but never submitted a Certificate of Merit; the Health Claims Arbitration Office dismissed the claim and the statute of limitations later expired.
- Shapiro concealed the dismissal and the limitations bar from Wisniewski for about five years, repeatedly misrepresenting that the case was active and later that it had settled.
- After Bar Counsel received a complaint, Shapiro disclosed the truth and executed a handwritten settlement with Wisniewski providing $12,500 plus monthly payments totaling $66,000; no written disclosure advising independent counsel or written informed consent appears in the record.
- The hearing judge found Shapiro violated multiple MLRPC provisions (1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(a)(2), 1.16, 8.4(a),(c),(d)); Petitioner excepted only as to whether the settlement terms were facially unfair under 1.8(a)(1).
- The Court of Appeals accepted the hearing facts and affirmed violations, holding the lack of written disclosure under 1.8(a)(2) alone sufficed to find a 1.8(a) violation; it imposed an indefinite suspension (dissent would have ordered disbarment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to inform client of dismissal/limitations violated MLRPC 1.2(a) (client’s control over objectives) | Petitioner: concealment deprived client of ability to decide objectives (e.g., pursue malpractice or seek other counsel) | Shapiro did not contest facts; argued mitigation by later settlement/payments | Court: Violation; attorney must keep client honestly informed so client can make informed objectives decisions |
| Whether delay/inaction after dismissal violated MLRPC 1.3 (diligence) | Petitioner: Shapiro should have acted to reopen, researched tolling, or at least informed client | Shapiro argued he attempted to find experts and later remedied via settlement | Court: Violation; doing nothing and hiding dismissal violated diligence rule |
| Whether misrepresentations and lack of case status communication violated MLRPC 1.4 and 8.4(c)/(d) (communication; dishonesty) | Petitioner: repeated lies about status and a fictional settlement amounted to dishonesty and prejudice to administration of justice | Shapiro offered that he eventually settled and paid client; no argument rebutting dishonesty findings | Court: Violations established; active misrepresentations violate 1.4 and 8.4(c)/(d) |
| Whether the settlement transaction violated MLRPC 1.8(a) (business transaction with client) — written disclosure and fairness | Petitioner: agreement was inherently unfair given Shapiro’s mishandling and benefit to attorney; lack of written disclosure and written consent supports 1.8 violation | Shapiro: argued settlement made client whole; relied on oral counseling and performance of payments | Court: Violation of 1.8(a) based on failure to provide written advice to seek independent counsel (1.8(a)(2)); court declined to decide facial unfairness under 1.8(a)(1) due to insufficient evidence on claim value |
| Whether Shapiro should have withdrawn and advised independent counsel after learning limitations had run — MLRPC 1.16 | Petitioner: once conflict/possible malpractice arose, Shapiro had to withdraw and advise independent counsel | Shapiro continued representation and negotiated settlement with client | Court: Violation; attorney must withdraw when representation would cause violation or conflict exists |
| Appropriate sanction (indefinite suspension vs. disbarment) | Petitioner: disbarment urged given pattern of deceit and seriousness of 8.4(c) violations | Shapiro: urged lesser sanction; cooperated and paid client restitution | Held: Indefinite suspension imposed; dissent argued disbarment was appropriate due to prolonged deliberate dishonesty |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 432 Md. 471 (2013) (concealment of dismissal and long‑term misrepresentation violated 1.2, 1.3, 1.4; sanctioning guidance)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209 (2006) (lost file, failure to inform client, and deceit warranted indefinite suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (2012) (failure to inform clients, multiple rule violations, and deceit supported disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Davy, 435 Md. 674 (2013) (pattern of dishonesty, fee and trust issues, and multiple client harms supported disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565 (2005) (presenting a sham ‘‘settlement’’ to conceal dismissal and paying clients personally still warranted disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (2010) (concealment of statute‑of‑limitations bar and failure to withdraw required disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lawson, 428 Md. 102 (2012) (financial overreaching and lack of informed consent in 1.8 context supported disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633 (2002) (extensive, elaborate client deceit warranted disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337 (2006) (repeated dishonesty across matters and improper client transactions supported disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325 (2013) (sanctions and standards where multiple client harms and noncooperation justify disbarment)