Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sperling
432 Md. 471
| Md. | 2013Background
- Sperling, admitted 1998, faced a Bar Counsel petition under Rule 16-751(a) for his handling of Victoria Brunson-Hill’s Montgomery County personal injury case.
- Sperling, then a junior attorney in his father Leonard Sperling’s firm, performed day-to-day tasks but never entered an appearance in the case against Greta Frank.
- The case was filed November 30, 1998, served improperly, and dismissed after multiple missed hearings in 1999–2000; Ms. Brunson-Hill was not informed of the dismissal.
- In 2008, Brunson-Hill questioned the status; Sperling’s firm filed a Motion to Re-open Case and a Supplemental Motion to Re-open Case, both supported by Sperling affidavits asserting ongoing contact with the clerk’s office.
- Judge Ensor found Sperling violated multiple Rules (competence, diligence, communication, candor to the tribunal, truthfulness, and professional misconduct) but did not find a Rule 1.2(a) violation at the hearing level; the court ultimately imposed an indefinite suspension.
- Sperling’s conduct included false statements to the court and client, failure to inform about the dismissal and statute of limitations, and misrepresentations in affidavits used to reopen the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sperling violated core duties of competence and diligence. | Brunson-Hill posits sustained neglect and failure to pursue remedies. | Sperling argues limited responsibility as a junior attorney without notice of dates. | Yes; violations of Rules 1.1 and 1.3 established. |
| Whether Sperling violated the duty of communication to the client. | Brunson-Hill claims she was not informed of dismissal and limitations. | Sperling contends he kept communications but did not inform of dismissal. | Yes; Rule 1.4(a)-(b) violated. |
| Whether Sperling’s candor to the tribunal was violated by false statements. | Bar Counsel asserts false statements to reopen motions were made. | Sperling argues good faith reliance on clerk’s assurances. | Yes; Rule 3.3(a) violated. |
| Whether Sperling’s communications or actions violated disciplinary rules by deception and misrepresentation. | Bar Counsel asserts deception and misrepresentation in filings. | Sperling disputes intent or impact. | Yes; Rules 8.4(a), (c), (d) and 4.1-related findings supported. |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct. | Bar Counsel seeks disbarment; pattern of deceit present. | Mooney/Harrington guidance supports suspension. | Indefinite suspension with costs was imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance v. Seltzer, 424 Md. 94 (Md. 2011) (jurisdiction and de novo review framework for discipline)
- Attorney Grievance v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56 (Md. 2000) (rule violations and indefinite suspension guidance)
- Attorney Grievance v. Harrington, 367 Md. 36 (Md. 2001) (indefinite suspension for serious neglect)
- Attorney Grievance v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209 (Md. 2006) (indefinite suspension for multiple rule violations)
- Attorney Grievance v. Lane, 367 Md. 633 (Md. 2002) (disbarment for egregious deceit pattern)
- Attorney Grievance v. London, 427 Md. 328 (Md. 2012) (disbarment for pattern of deceit and neglect involving real estate transactions)