Attorney Grievance Commission v. Van Nelson
40 A.3d 1039
| Md. | 2012Background
- Respondent Adrian Van Nelson II was admitted to Maryland Bar in 1992 and had a Rockville office; he faced a disciplinary petition arising from Ms. Latania Maise’s employment-discrimination matter against USDA.
- Maise paid a total of $9,825 in fees to Nelson under several retainer agreements, with a later $10,000 settlement check intended for Maise but which was applied to Nelson’s debt to the USDE without Maise’s knowledge.
- No hearing occurred because Nelson did not respond to the petition or discovery, and a default was entered; the hearing court proceeded in his absence.
- Judge Greenberg found clear and convincing evidence that Nelson violated multiple rules of professional conduct and related trust-account provisions, though he did not violate Rule 1.1 (competence).
- The Court of Appeals disbarred Nelson effective immediately, after reviewing the findings of fact and law de novo due to no exceptions filed, and ordered costs to be paid to Bar Counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nelson violated communication rules | Maise’s persistent inquiries about the settlement funds were unmet. | Nelson contends no violation shown given the settlement arrangement. | Yes, violated Rule 1.4(a)(2)-(3). |
| Whether Nelson charged an unreasonable fee | Total fees ($19,825) exceeded the parties’ anticipated amount. | Fees were within the agreed-upon hourly rate despite the settlement allocation. | Yes, violated Rule 1.5(a). |
| Whether Nelson mishandled client funds in trust accounts | Retainer and other payments were not deposited or recorded in trust accounts. | No evidence of intentional misappropriation; one mistake not misconduct. | Yes, violated Rule 1.15(c) and 16-606.1(a)(3) and related provisions. |
| Whether Nelson failed to return unearned funds upon termination | Maise entitled to unearned funds; Nelson did not remit or account. | No timely action taken by Maise to secure funds. | Yes, violated Rule 1.15(d) and 1.16(d). |
| Whether Nelson failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel | Nelson ignored Bar Counsel letters and interviews. | No comment provided due to default. | Yes, violated Rule 8.1(b) and contributed to 8.4 misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thompson, 376 Md. 500 (Md. 2003) (negligence alone not misconduct under Rule 1.1)
- Attorney Grievance v. Lawson, 401 Md. 536 (Md. 2007) (failure to keep client informed violates Rule 1.4)
- Attorney Grievance v. Oswinkle, 364 Md. 182 (Md. 2001) (aggravating factor for repeated failure to respond to bar requests)
- Attorney Grievance v. Khandpur, 421 Md. 1 (Md. 2011) (standards for aggravating factors in sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance v. Carithers, 421 Md. 28 (Md. 2011) (misconduct includes prejudicial impact on administration of justice)