Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sperling
434 Md. 658
| Md. | 2013Background
- Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Sperling for alleged violations of MLRPC Rules 1.1, 1.5, 1.15, 4.2, 4.4, and 8.4 and BOP § 10-306.
- The circuit court held a hearing; findings of fact were made by Judge Finifter based on clear and convincing evidence.
- Findings showed Sperling represented two clients, Lucas and Thompson, and executed subrogation agreements assigning liens to the Fund, with language demanding withholding of amounts due to the Fund without attorney’s fees.
- The Fund’s liens were $1,413.56 (Lucas) and $4,948.63 (Thompson); Sperling failed to pay these liens promptly and retained funds for years after settlement.
- The hearing court found violations of 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(d), 4.2, and 8.4(d); it found no proven violations of 1.5(a), 4.4, 8.4(c), or BOP § 10-306, and concluded the misconduct was inadvertent or caused by mathematical error.
- Mitigation included remorse, restitution of funds from Sperling’s own pocket, timely client payments, and cooperation with Bar Counsel; clients were not harmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Sperling violate trust accounting rules? | Sperling violated 1.15 by failing to preserve liens in trust and pay promptly. | Sperling acted without intent to defraud; delays were inadvertent and in good faith to obtain lien reductions. | Yes; violations of 1.15(a), (b), (d) established |
| Did Sperling’s communications with the Fund violate rules on communication with represented parties? | Rule 4.2 was violated by contacting Fund employee despite representation. | Any contact was over technical issues and not to mislead; later acknowledgment of error acknowledged. | Yes; 4.2 violation established |
| Was Sperling's conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice warranting discipline? | Delay in paying liens for over four years harmed public confidence. | Mitigating factors show remorse and no intent to misappropriate; action taken to rectify. | Yes; 8.4(d) violation established; aggravation balanced by mitigation |
| What sanction is appropriate given the conduct and mitigation? | Indefinite suspension is warranted due to prior discipline and persistent conduct. | Thirty-day suspension with reinstateability is sufficient given mitigation and lack of dishonesty. | Indefinite suspension with six-month minimum sit-out; costs awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Paul, 423 Md. 268 (Md. 2011) (discipline aims to protect the public, not punish)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Snyder, 406 Md. 21 (Md. 2008) (factors for sanctioning including aggravation and mitigation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zuckerman, 386 Md. 341 (Md. 2005) (restraints and considerations in sanctions and mitigation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Freedman, 285 Md. 298 (Md. 1979) (remorse and restitution as mitigating factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Protokowicz, 329 Md. 252 (Md. 1993) (scope of egregious conduct and sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Weiss, 300 Md. 306 (Md. 1984) (persistent misconduct may lead to harsher sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Santos, 370 Md. 77 (Md. 2002) (considerations in sanctioning including prior offenses)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (Md. 2010) (reference to Standards for imposing lawyer sanctions)