Attorney Grievance Commission v. Thomas
103 A.3d 629
| Md. | 2014Background
- Respondent Gayton J. Thomas, Jr., an attorney admitted in 2000, was accused by the Attorney Grievance Commission of multiple violations arising from representation of immigrant client Mohamed Hamed (PDRA served Dec. 6, 2013).
- PDRA alleged incompetence, lack of diligence, poor communication, failure to respond to Bar Counsel, and misconduct (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), 8.4(c) & (d)); Thomas did not file an answer or appear at the hearing and an Order of Default was entered.
- Despite default, a circuit hearing was held; Bar Counsel presented Hamed as the sole live witness and offered documentary exhibits; the hearing judge found many factual issues unclear and credited only a violation of MLRPC 8.1 (failure to respond to the Commission).
- Petitioner filed exceptions arguing the default established all pleaded averments as admitted and that the hearing judge erred in undermining the default by making credibility findings and requiring additional proof.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo legal conclusions and for clear error factual findings; it held that the Order of Default rendered the PDRA averments admitted and, on that basis, concluded Thomas had violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c) & (d).
- Given the admitted facts, the Court imposed disbarment, citing aggravating factors (failure to participate, refusal to make restitution, client vulnerability) and the need to protect the public.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commission) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Order of Default / Admitted Averments | Default and Rule 2-323(e) mean the PDRA averments are admitted; hearing judge must treat them as true | (No answer; no defense presented) | Order of Default deemed the PDRA averments admitted; Court accepts them and proceeds on that basis |
| Whether evidence at hearing could overcome default admissions | Bar Counsel argued hearing testimony and documents established facts and violations; default should control | Thomas offered no answer or testimony to rebut | Court held default admissions control; additional hearing was unnecessary to establish liability |
| Violations of competence, diligence, communication (MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4) | Commission: Thomas failed to appear, gave wrong advice re: asylum filing, ceased communications, accepted fees and abandoned client | (No participation/argument) | Held that admitted facts established violations of 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4 (failure to appear, improper advice, cessation of communication) |
| Failure to respond to disciplinary authority and misconduct (MLRPC 8.1(b), 8.4(c),(d)) | Commission: Thomas ignored multiple certified requests and engaged in dishonest/prejudicial conduct | (No participation) | Held violations of 8.1(b) (failure to respond) and 8.4(c),(d) (dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); sanction = disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 390 Md. 517 (2006) (order of default requires treating petition averments as admitted)
- Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Nefflen, 436 Md. 300 (2013) (default order conclusively determines liability unless vacated)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325 (2013) (Court’s original jurisdiction in attorney discipline; disbarment for client abandonment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534 (2011) (MLRPC 1.1 includes presence at proceedings; failure to appear undermines competence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (2012) (failure to communicate and act promptly supports rule violations and may implicate 8.4)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (2011) (disbarment appropriate where attorney collected fees, abandoned clients, and failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Walker-Turner, 428 Md. 214 (2012) (attorney’s absence from court prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Maignan, 390 Md. 287 (2005) (appellate review gives limited deference to credibility findings when documentary evidence is unambiguous)