Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shuler
164 A.3d 209
| Md. | 2017Background
- Melodie V. Shuler was the attorney for incarcerated client Calvin Keene; Keene’s sentencing judge had jurisdiction to modify sentence only until 14 Aug 2013 (five years after sentencing).
- Keene’s mother, Gale Scoggins, paid Shuler initial and additional fees between 2011–2015; Shuler repeatedly promised to visit Keene, file a motion to modify sentence, or pursue post-conviction relief but failed to do so.
- Shuler entered appearance in June 2011 but did not verify the status of a previously filed Motion for Reconsideration or the Application for Review of Sentence and missed timely action that might have preserved relief.
- Keene filed a bar complaint in Feb 2015; Shuler failed to meaningfully and timely respond to Bar Counsel’s lawful requests for information and refused investigator contacts.
- The assigned hearing judge found Shuler violated multiple Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, diligence, communication, bar cooperation, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) and found numerous aggravating factors; Shuler had prior discipline for similar misconduct.
- The Court of Appeals, reviewing de novo as appropriate, affirmed the violations and disbarred Shuler on April 3, 2017 (per curiam).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Attorney Grievance Commission) | Defendant's Argument (Shuler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shuler provided competent representation (Rule 1.1) | Shuler failed to check case status, missed the five-year opportunity and gave false/conflicting legal information | Keene and others knew of the five-year deadline; Shuler provided advice and had excuses (illness, license reinstatement) | Held: Violated Rule 1.1 — failed to monitor status, misinformed client, did not investigate options (e.g., §8-507 treatment motion) |
| Whether Shuler failed to abide by client objectives and act on them (Rule 1.2) | Shuler did not file requested motions and failed to consult or pursue means to achieve client’s goals | Keene changed his mind and did not timely pay; lack of consent impeded action | Held: Violated Rule 1.2(a) — attorney has implied authority to act toward client objectives and Shuler failed to do so |
| Whether Shuler lacked diligence and communication (Rules 1.3, 1.4) | Repeated unresponsiveness, promises unfulfilled, failure to inform client of loss of jurisdiction or available options | Claimed attempts to communicate, temporary incapacity, or procedural obstacles (jail denied visits) | Held: Violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4(a),(b) — failed to act with reasonable promptness and failed to keep client informed or explain options |
| Whether Shuler failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel and engaged in dishonesty (Rules 8.1, 8.4(c),(d)) | Shuler knowingly failed to respond to lawful demands, made misrepresentations about deadline and her actions, and conduct was prejudicial to administration of justice | Claimed nonreceipt of some mail, requested email-only contact, and that responses were burdensome; denied intentional noncooperation | Held: Violated Rule 8.1(b) and Rules 8.4(a),(c),(d) — knowingly failed to respond and made dishonest misrepresentations; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 452 Md. 26 (2017) (standard of review and Court’s jurisdiction in discipline matters)
- Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15 (2012) (clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard in disciplinary review)
- Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (2012) (competence violation when attorney acts untimely causing harm)
- Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388 (2008) (failure to exercise thoroughness/preparation supports Rule 1.1 violation)
- Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Kreamer, 404 Md. 282 (2008) (failure to perform client-directed tasks violates Rule 1.2)
- Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Van Nelson, 425 Md. 344 (2012) (failure to keep client informed and to respond violates Rule 1.4)
- Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (2014) (dishonesty and failure to communicate can warrant disbarment)
- Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 633 (2002) (disbarment for pattern of deceitful conduct designed to conceal lack of diligence)
- Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494 (2015) (prior discipline for similar misconduct considered in aggravation)