Attorney Grievance Commission v. Stillwell
434 Md. 248
| Md. | 2013Background
- Respondent Garland H. Stillwell was retained by real estate agent Temitope Akojie under a written Legal Services Agreement (dated March 9, 2010) to form a Maryland LLC, remove a member of a New York LLC, and transfer assets/liabilities; client paid $2,000 of a $3,000 flat fee at signing.
- Respondent deposited the $2,000 check into his personal account; he did not have an active attorney trust account and did not obtain the client’s written informed consent to treat the payment as non-trust funds.
- Communication and work after the retainer were sporadic; client complained in April 2010 and terminated the representation in July 2010, requesting a refund and paperwork. Respondent refunded the $2,000 only after Bar Counsel’s inquiry in August 2010.
- The circuit court (Judge Wallace) found by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney-client relationship began only when the written agreement was executed, that the $2,000 was an advance/unearned fee (trust funds), and that Stillwell violated MLRPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (a,c,d), 8.4(a), and Maryland Rules 16-603 and 16-604.
- This Court reviewed the factual findings (deferentially) and conclusions of law (de novo), overruled some narrow factual findings (only-email communications; timing of fax receipt), but upheld the central findings and conclusions; imposed indefinite suspension with right to apply for readmission after 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Attorney Grievance (Plaintiff) Argument | Stillwell (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did an attorney-client relationship exist prior to the March 9 written retainer? | No; relationship commenced on execution and payment per the agreement. | Yes; consultations and work in Jan–Feb 2010 created the relationship earlier. | Held: Relationship began on March 9; hearing court’s finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Was the $2,000 retainer an advance (client trust) or an earned fee? | Advance fee — unearned at receipt and therefore trust funds requiring deposit to trust account. | Earned based on prior work and hours billed; not trust funds. | Held: $2,000 was unearned at receipt and constituted trust funds. |
| Did deposit of client funds into personal account and lack of trust account violate MLRPC/Rules? | Yes — violated MLRPC 1.15(a),(c),(d) and Rule 16-603 (no trust account), and 16-604 obligations. | Argued fee was earned so trust rules did not apply; refund was voluntary. | Held: Violations of 1.15(a),(c),(d) and 16-603 sustained; 16-604 not expressly decided by hearing court but trust-account rules breached. |
| Did respondent fail in diligence and communication (MLRPC 1.3, 1.4) and commit professional misconduct under 8.4(a)? | Yes — missed self-imposed deadlines, failed to document/engage creditors adequately, and did not keep client reasonably informed. | Contended he communicated (calls, conference calls, some documents) and acted on creditors; disputed some factual findings. | Held: Violations of 1.3 and 1.4 sustained; 8.4(a) found on basis of other rule violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708 (contrast on sanctions; multiple clients and repeated violations justified severe sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Goff, 399 Md. 1 (standard of review: de novo for conclusions of law; deference to factfinder)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brooke, 374 Md. 155 (test for attorney-client relationship; factors indicating formation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. James, 355 Md. 465 (existence of written agreement/payment not dispositive for formation of relationship)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zuckerman, 386 Md. 341 (prior suspension authority where trust accounting failures occurred without dishonesty)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Monfried, 368 Md. 373 (factfinder credibility determinations entitled to deference)