Attorney Grievance Commission v. White
136 A.3d 819
| Md. | 2016Background
- Erica S. White, admitted 2007, was under a Conditional Diversion Agreement (CDA) and an Amended CDA from March 2012 to November 2013 for prior trust-account misconduct; the Amended CDA was revoked for non‑compliance in April 2014.
- While under the CDA/Amended CDA White represented two clients (Fleming and Sewell‑Carpenter) and mishandled those matters (missed pro hac vice/appearances, late/post‑judgment filings, failure to advise client on appeal deadlines).
- During and after surgery/recuperation White failed to implement safeguards (did not forward/check mail), did not notify or protect clients, and remained counsel of record after her active representation had ended.
- White maintained inadequate trust‑account records, deposited earned fees into trust, made cash disbursements from trust, and ran negative trust balances for months; she conceded ignorance of trust rules.
- White failed to cooperate fully with Bar Counsel and her law‑practice monitor (missed document submissions, asked for interview questions in advance, provided evasive responses); she admitted misconduct but attributed some failures to illness and caretaker responsibilities.
- The hearing judge found numerous violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct and trust account rules; the Court of Appeals affirmed those findings and ordered an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for readmission after six months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Attorney Grievance Commission) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trust‑account mismanagement and record‑keeping violations | White repeatedly violated trust rules (commingling, cash disbursements, negative balances, failure to keep required records) despite CDA remediation opportunities | Misconduct resulted from ignorance, illness, winding down practice, and bank fees; not intentional theft | Court held clear and convincing evidence of violations of MLRPC 1.15, Md. Rules 16‑606.1/16‑607/16‑609, Bus. Occ. & Prof. §10‑306; discipline warranted |
| Failure to protect clients / case mismanagement (Sewell & Fleming matters) | White failed to advise clients of deadlines, missed hearings, delayed file turnover, failed to withdraw timely — prejudicing clients | Illness, surgery, and caregiving duties impeded her ability to act; she attempted to notify clients/courts | Court held violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16(d); illness was mitigating but not exculpatory |
| Failure to cooperate / misrepresentations to Bar Counsel and monitor | White made false or misleading statements about client communications and failed to timely provide records, evincing lack of candor and cooperation | Asked for interview questions in advance and sought to provide statement under oath; claimed some communications existed | Court held violations of MLRPC 8.1(a) and (b) and 8.4(c); requesting questions did not excuse non‑cooperation |
| Appropriate sanction | Indefinite suspension justified given repeated trust violations, CDA noncompliance, noncooperation, and client harm; public protection requires suspension | Pointed to illness and absence of intentional dishonesty; sought mitigation | Court imposed indefinite suspension with right to apply for readmission after six months (costs taxed to respondent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mba‑Jonas, 397 Md. 690 (Court applied indefinite suspension for repeated escrow/trust violations and CDA noncompliance)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mba‑Jonas, 402 Md. 334 (Court affirmed indefinite suspension where trust mismanagement persisted and respondent failed to respond adequately to Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moeller, 427 Md. 66 (recognizing that failure to keep client funds separate and maintain trust records violates MLRPC 1.15)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gage‑Cohen, 440 Md. 191 (holding that failure to maintain trust records and mismanage client funds violates MLRPC 1.15 and related trust rules)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kum, 440 Md. 372 (misappropriation/commingling of client funds is dishonest and prejudicial to administration of justice under MLRPC 8.4)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (failure to communicate and protect client interests can violate MLRPC 1.4 and related rules)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337 (untimely withdrawal and failure to protect client interests violate MLRPC 1.3 and 1.16)