Attorney Grievance Commission v. Williams
132 A.3d 232
| Md. | 2016Background
- Garrett V. Williams, a Maryland attorney admitted in 1995, represented Leslie Valentine-Bowers in a medical‑malpractice claim arising from vision loss in 2008.
- Williams filed pleadings between 2010–2011 but failed to timely serve defendants, ignored discovery requests, missed deadlines and court orders, and did not appear for his client’s deposition.
- Opposing counsel moved to compel and for sanctions; the circuit court found Williams misrepresented that delays were due to lack of client cooperation and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; Williams filed a frivolous motion for reconsideration and appealed without his client’s knowledge.
- Williams repeatedly misrepresented facts to the circuit court and the Court of Special Appeals about his inability to contact the client; the appeal was affirmed and the client was not informed of these developments.
- Bar Counsel sought information in 2014; Williams never responded to multiple letters and personal service during the disciplinary investigation and failed to participate in the disciplinary proceedings, leading to a default and adoption of the hearing judge’s findings.
- The hearing judge found Williams violated multiple Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, diligence, communication, candor, expediting litigation, disciplinary cooperation, and misconduct) and recommended disbarment; the Court of Appeals disbarred Williams and awarded costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams violated MLRPC 1.1 (competence) and 1.3 (diligence) | Williams’ failures to serve, respond to discovery, comply with orders, and prosecute the case show lack of competence and diligence leading to dismissal | Argued lack of client contact caused delays (claimed inability to reach client) | Violations proven: incompetence and egregious lack of diligence causing dismissal with prejudice |
| Whether Williams violated MLRPC 1.4 (communication) and 1.2 (scope) | Williams failed to keep client informed of discovery, orders, dismissal, reconsideration, and appeal | Claimed client unresponsive; thus limited ability to communicate | Violations proven: failed to keep client reasonably informed and to consult on case strategy/actions |
| Whether Williams violated MLRPC 3.3 (candor) and 8.4(c)/(d) (dishonesty/prejudicial conduct) by misrepresenting reasons for delay | Williams knowingly misrepresented to trial and appellate courts that delays were due to client non‑cooperation to conceal his own failures | Williams maintained the misrepresentations were explanations for delay | Violations proven: knowingly made false statements to tribunals and engaged in deceit prejudicial to administration of justice |
| Whether Williams violated MLRPC 8.1(b) by failing to respond to Bar Counsel | Bar Counsel’s written and personally served requests were lawful; failure to respond violated duty to cooperate | No response or participation in disciplinary process | Violation proven: knowingly failed to respond to lawful disciplinary inquiry; aggravating factor supporting disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565 (purpose of sanctions: protect public and deter misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Khandpur, 421 Md. 1 (sanctions must be commensurate with violations and intent)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Litman, 440 Md. 205 (misrepresentation to tribunals can warrant indefinite suspension depending on context)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lane, 367 Md. 376 (pattern of intentional dishonest conduct designed to conceal lack of diligence supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. London, 427 Md. 328 (disbarment appropriate where attorney willfully misrepresented case status to conceal negligent practice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McClain, 406 Md. 1 (intentional dishonest conduct and misrepresentations to trial/appellate courts support disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zhang, 440 Md. 128 (lists aggravating factors considered in attorney discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Frost, 437 Md. 245 (failure to respond to requests may be deemed admissions under rules when no answer is filed)