147 A.3d 362
Md.2016Background
- Steven L. Shockett, admitted 1985, was the attorney for three clients (Thankamma Indukumar, Tony Alvarez Jr., and David Leader) and was decertified from practice March 14, 2014 for failure to pay an assessment.
- Indukumar hired Shockett in 2012 to create an irrevocable trust for grandchildren; she deposited $50,000. Shockett withdrew at least $61,077.71 from the trust without authorization and failed to return it after being instructed to do so.
- Alvarez paid a $5,000 retainer for a divorce; Shockett represented to him that a complaint was drafted, filed, and served when in fact it was never filed and Shockett ceased communicating in 2014.
- Leader paid a $2,500 retainer for a FINRA arbitration; Shockett provided a proposed complaint but never filed it and stopped communicating after March 2014.
- Bar Counsel investigated and sent multiple letters to Shockett requesting responses; Shockett did not respond and did not appear at the disciplinary hearing. The hearing judge found violations by clear and convincing evidence and recommended discipline.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record, affirmed findings that Shockett violated MLRPC 1.4(a)(1)–(3) and (b), 1.15(a), and 8.4(a)–(d), and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shockett violated duty to communicate (MLRPC 1.4) | Shockett failed to inform clients, lied about filings, and ceased communication. | Shockett offered no response or evidence; did not dispute findings. | Court held Shockett violated MLRPC 1.4(a)(1)–(3) and (b) for all three clients. |
| Whether Shockett misappropriated client funds / failed to safeguard property (MLRPC 1.15) | Shockett withdrew >$60,000 from Indukumar’s trust without consent and failed to restore funds. | No rebuttal or restitution offered; no evidence he had authorization. | Court held Shockett violated MLRPC 1.15(a). |
| Whether Shockett’s conduct constituted misconduct (MLRPC 8.4(a)–(d)), including criminality and dishonesty | Conduct (theft, deceit, misrepresentations, failure to perform) demonstrated dishonesty, fraud, and prejudicial conduct; supports 8.4 violations. | No defense presented; hearing judge found underlying criminal conduct (theft by deception) proven. | Court held violations of MLRPC 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). |
| Whether Shockett violated duty to respond to disciplinary authority (MLRPC 8.1(b)) | Bar Counsel alleged failure to respond to AGC requests. | Hearing judge found insufficient evidence that Shockett knowingly received or willfully ignored AGC letters. | Court affirmed hearing judge: no proven violation of MLRPC 8.1(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602 (discusses standard of independent review and deference to hearing judge’s factual findings)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (standard for reviewing hearing judge’s findings in disciplinary proceedings)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (disbarment appropriate for flagrant neglect, failure to communicate)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Gracey, 448 Md. 1 (disbarment ordinarily required for intentional dishonest conduct such as theft)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (treatment of intentional misconduct and sanctions)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Landeo, 446 Md. 294 (lists aggravating factors to consider in discipline)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Gerace, 433 Md. 632 (criminal conduct need not result in conviction to support 8.4(b) violation)