Attorney Grievance Commission v. Stinson
428 Md. 147
| Md. | 2012Background
- Respondent Katrice S. Stinson, admitted in 1999, is a Maryland solo practitioner with no other state or federal bar admissions.
- From June 2008 to April 2010, she did not maintain an attorney trust account.
- Merchant engaged Stinson for potential employment disputes and a TRO/divorce matter, paying a $7,000 engagement/retainer and later an additional $2,000 retainer received as part of a larger $7,000 sum.
- Stinson deposited Merchant’s funds into a non-attorney account and failed to provide written fee agreements or explain the basis of fees at the outset.
- McIntosh engaged Stinson in October–November 2008 for a nonrefundable engagement fee and a separate retainer; funds were not deposited into a trust account, and billing was disputed.
- Judge Jaklitsch held that Stinson violated multiple Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended disbarment; sanctions were imposed after considering aggravating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stinson violated fiduciary safeguards on client funds | Merchant alleged misappropriation of advance fees and failure to deposit in trust. | Stinson argued engagement fees may be earned upon receipt and may be nonrefundable. | Yes; improper safekeeping violated Rule 1.15 (and related) and unearned fees were retained. |
| Whether Stinson charged or billed an unreasonable or improper fee | Fees were largely unearned with minimal work performed. | Engagement fees and billing were reasonable under the circumstances and related to availability. | Yes; fees were unreasonable under Rule 1.5(a) and violated 1.5(b). |
| Whether Stinson failed to provide basis for fees and communicate rate | No written fee basis provided timely; overbilling occurred. | Written fee basis eventually provided; client informed of engagement terms. | Yes; violated Rule 1.5(b) and related disclosure requirements. |
| Whether Stinson engaged in misrepresentation or dishonesty in billing | Billing included double charges and charges for work not performed. | Billing was accurate or the judge overruled some credibility findings. | Yes; violated Rule 8.4(c) (and 8.4(a)) due to dishonesty in billing. |
| Whether Stinson used improper letterhead and failed to respond to bar authorities | Letterhead implied DC license; failed to respond to Bar Counsel requests. | Letterhead use was permissible with jurisdictional clarity; some responses contested. | Yes; violated Rules 7.5(b) and 8.1(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (Md. 2008) (retention of unearned fees and safekeeping rules implicated)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kreamer, 404 Md. 282 (Md. 2008) (engagement fees and reasonable fee standards clarified)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Lawson, 401 Md. 536 (Md. 2007) (unreasonable fees and fee disputes analyzed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. McLaughlin, 372 Md. 467 (Md. 2002) (unearned fees and excessive billing addressed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ward, 396 Md. 203 (Md. 2006) (retainer analysis and sanctions guidance)
- In re Gray's Run Technologies, Inc., 217 B.R. 48 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1997) (retainer types and earning expectations discussed)