Attorney Grievance Commission v. Weiers
102 A.3d 332
| Md. | 2014Background
- In 2009 Van Hulamm (for Crescendo Realty, LLC) paid Weiers a $1,000 non‑refundable retainer for fence‑removal related work; Weiers deposited it into his client trust account.
- Weiers took partial payments to himself ($300 on Jan. 27, 2009; $300 on Mar. 13, 2009) and withdrew the remaining $700 on March 18, 2010, about one year after the work was completed.
- Hulamm requested a refund after the fence was removed; Weiers eventually returned $500 in January 2012 after Hulamm filed a grievance.
- Bar Counsel repeatedly requested records and an interview; Weiers responded belatedly to several letters, refused an investigator interview, and used inflammatory language in communications.
- The hearing judge found violations of MLRPC 1.15(a), 8.1(b), and Md. Rule 16‑607 (commingling/timely withdrawal and failure to cooperate); other charged violations were not proven.
- The Court of Appeals accepted the findings and imposed a reprimand, finding the failures were nondishonest (recordkeeping/dilatory conduct) but warranting disciplinary notice and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weiers violated MLRPC 1.15(a) and Md. Rule 16‑607 by leaving earned fees in trust for ~1 year (commingling) | Petitioner: earned fees must be withdrawn promptly; delay here caused impermissible commingling | Weiers: fees were earned; delay was unintentional and arose from poor recordkeeping and ongoing client contact | Court: Violation proven — one‑year delay in withdrawing earned fees violated Rule 1.15(a) and Rule 16‑607 |
| Whether Weiers violated MLRPC 8.1(b) by failing to timely respond and refusing an investigator interview (failure to cooperate) | Petitioner: dilatory and reluctant responses plus refusal to meet amounted to failure to respond to lawful demands | Weiers: he answered follow‑ups, contested the basis of requests, and ultimately participated; he denied intentional noncompliance | Court: Violation proven — 8.1(b) applies to dilatory as well as intentional failures to respond; Weiers’ conduct was delinquent and discourteous to Bar Counsel |
| Whether other charged rules (MLRPC 1.1, 1.15(c), 1.5(a), 8.4(d), Md. Rule 16‑606.1) were violated | Petitioner: alleged multiple recordkeeping, fee, competence, and misconduct issues | Weiers: disputed or provided explanations; no clear evidence of those violations | Court: Not proven — hearing judge’s findings that these charges failed were accepted |
| Appropriate sanction for proven violations | Petitioner: public reprimand (citing similar cases) | Weiers: requested no discipline/do nothing | Court: Reprimand imposed — misconduct nondishonest, no client harm, no prior discipline, but deterrence and respect for Bar Counsel required; costs assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zuckerman, 386 Md. 341, 872 A.2d 693 (2005) (failing to timely withdraw earned fees can violate Rule 1.15(a) and Rule 16‑607)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 409 Md. 121, 973 A.2d 185 (2009) (holding delay in withdrawing earned fees violated anti‑commingling rules)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sapero, 400 Md. 461, 929 A.2d 483 (2007) (reprimand for combined violations of fee/commingling and 8.1(b) due to disorganized records and untimely cooperation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Oswinkle, 364 Md. 182, 772 A.2d 267 (2001) (8.1(b) violation for failing to respond to lawful demands of Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nelson, 425 Md. 344, 40 A.3d 1039 (2012) (refusal to meet with investigator and failure to respond supports 8.1(b) violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234, 760 A.2d 1108 (2000) (importance of lawyer cooperation with disciplinary investigations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Taylor, 405 Md. 697, 955 A.2d 755 (2008) (untimely responses do not excuse 8.1(b) violations; Bar Counsel need not explain how each requested record relates to investigation)