Attorney Grievance Commission v. Walker-Turner
428 Md. 214
| Md. | 2012Background
- Walker-Turner was charged with four MLRPC violations arising from representing Leslie’s Limousine’s Service and Anderson in a Yellow Book dispute.
- A settlement in principle was reached the night before a scheduled 26 January 2007 trial; no signed agreement was delivered to Botsaris before trial.
- Walker-Turner did not appear at the 26 January 2007 trial and did not check in with the courtroom clerk or locate Botsaris.
- A default affidavit judgment was entered against Anderson and Leslie for about $7,827.23 plus other costs and interest.
- Judgment and related notices were not promptly communicated to Anderson or Leslie, hindering corrective action and credit reporting.
- Walker-Turner filed a tardy motion to vacate the judgment, which the District Court denied; he did not timely pursue a proper revisory remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walker-Turner violated MLRPC 1.1 by incompetence. | Walker-Turner failed to appear and check docket, undermining competence. | Settlement anticipated; no need to appear. | Yes; violation established. |
| Whether Walker-Turner violated MLRPC 1.3 by lack of diligence. | Failure to appear and follow up showed neglect. | Reliance on opposing counsel’s statements; settlement in place. | Yes; lack of diligence proven. |
| Whether Walker-Turner violated MLRPC 1.4 by improper communications. | Failure to inform Anderson timely about judgment. | Client expected assistance; relied on Botsaris. | Yes; improper communications. |
| Whether Walker-Turner violated MLRPC 8.4(d) by conduct prejudicial to justice. | Failure to appear prejudiced administration of justice. | Efforts to remedy after learning of judgment. | Yes; prejudicial conduct proven. |
| Whether sanctions of 60-day suspension are warranted given prior discipline. | Mitigate risk to public; prior sanctions justify stronger sanction. | Reprimand or lesser sanction appropriate; not repeated pattern. | 60-day suspension warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- De La Paz v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 418 Md. 534 (Md. 2011) (incompetence shown by failure to appear or timely act)
- Byrd v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 408 Md. 449 (Md. 2009) (timeliness of motions and appeals; competence concerns)
- Awuah v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 374 Md. 505 (Md. 2003) (diligence and timely action in matters for clients)
- Ficker v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 319 Md. 305 (Md. 1990) (single failure to appear can be actionable neglect)
- Byrd v. Att’y Griev. Comm’n, 408 Md. 449 (Md. 2009) (timeliness and adequacy of revisory motions)