Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shuler, 117 A.3d 38

Melodie Venee Shuler, admitted to Maryland Bar in 2002, represented Kevin Wilson on appeal and filed a timely brief but did not appear at scheduled oral argument on Feb. 5, 2013, claiming illness.
Shuler called the Court of Special Appeals clerk twice that morning but did not file a written explanation or a request to reschedule; the court treated the case as submitted on the briefs and affirmed.
Shuler failed to inform Wilson of the adverse result, depriving him of the opportunity to timely seek certiorari in the Court of Appeals.
The Attorney Grievance Commission charged Shuler with violations of MLRPC 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 8.4(d) (prejudicial conduct), and 8.4(a) (violating rules). A hearing judge found violations; Shuler filed exceptions.
The hearing judge also found prior informal admonition by D.C. Bar Counsel for similar failures to appear, a pattern of misconduct, and that Shuler obstructed discovery in the disciplinary proceeding.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings and imposed a 30-day suspension, conditioned on evidence acceptable to the Commission and Court that Shuler is mentally and physically fit to resume practice.

Issue	Commission's Argument	Shuler's Argument	Held
Did Shuler violate MLRPC 1.3 (diligence) by failing to appear and not remedying the absence?	Shuler negligently abandoned client by not filing explanation or seeking rehearing/rescheduling.	Illness excused absence; she called the clerk and relied on clerk’s statement.	Yes. Clear and convincing evidence of violation for failure to act with reasonable diligence.
Did Shuler violate MLRPC 1.4(a)(2) (communication) by failing to inform client of appeal result?	Failure to notify Wilson of the adverse outcome deprived him of certiorari opportunity.	Disputed facts and characterization; no sufficient basis for charge.	Yes. She failed to keep the client reasonably informed.
Did Shuler engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (MLRPC 8.4(d))?	By effectively abandoning representation and causing client harm, she harmed public perception and administration of justice.	Her illness and limited actions (two calls) mitigate culpability.	Yes. Conduct would negatively impact public perception; abandonment supports violation.
Appropriate sanction and conditions for reinstatement	Recommend 30-day suspension with condition: demonstration of mental/physical fitness.	Opposes conditioning reinstatement on fitness absent a diagnosed condition; argues lesser or no sanction.	30-day suspension imposed; reinstatement conditioned on acceptable proof of mental/physical competence.

Marcalus v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 442 Md. 197 (Court of Appeals) (framework for sanction factors and purpose of discipline)
Walker-Turner v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 428 Md. 214 (Court of Appeals) (60-day suspension for failure to appear at trial and related misconduct)
Kovacic v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 389 Md. 233 (Court of Appeals) (indefinite suspension where lack of remorse and risk of repetition were significant)
Lee v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 393 Md. 546 (Court of Appeals) (indefinite suspension where failure to respond and lack of remorse were aggravating)
Butler v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 426 Md. 522 (Court of Appeals) (failure to appear at scheduled court date violates MLRPC 1.3)
Davy v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 435 Md. 674 (Court of Appeals) (standards for challenging hearing judge’s factual findings)
Felder v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 440 Md. 272 (Court of Appeals) (deference to hearing judge on witness credibility)
Bar Ass’n of Baltimore City v. Cockrell, 274 Md. 279 (Court of Appeals) (limits on charging misconduct beyond petition allegations)