105 A.3d 479
Md.2014Background
- Respondent Talieb N. Wills, admitted 2002, represented elderly client Millicent Goode beginning in 2009 and was given a durable power of attorney in April 2010.
- Wills added himself as joint owner of Goode’s bank account and, after Goode sold her house in June 2010 (≈$246,000 deposit), withdrew and spent tens of thousands for personal use (cash, bills, travel, purchases).
- By June 2012 (Goode’s death) the account was depleted; Wills’s checks for funeral expenses bounced and monthly annuity deposits were spent rather than returned.
- Wills provided a fabricated memorandum and itemized accounting to the estate’s personal representative (Weinberg) purporting to justify his actions, and failed to produce original files or documentary proof when requested.
- Wills ignored multiple Bar Counsel inquiries, misled investigators about file location, failed to comply with subpoenas and did not offer mitigating evidence or testify at the disciplinary hearing.
- The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of violations of MLRPC 4.1(a), 8.1(a) & (b), and 8.4(a)-(d); the Court of Appeals disbarred Wills and assessed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wills make materially false statements to a third person (MLRPC 4.1(a))? | Wills knowingly fabricated the memorandum and accounting given to Weinberg to conceal misappropriation. | No substantive defense presented; Wills did not rebut or provide records. | Court: Violation proven. |
| Did Wills knowingly make false statements or fail to respond in a disciplinary investigation (MLRPC 8.1(a),(b))? | Wills lied about file location, failed to produce subpoenaed documents, and ignored repeated Bar Counsel requests. | No effective rebuttal; failed to cooperate or appear as subpoenaed. | Court: Violation proven. |
| Did Wills engage in dishonesty, fraud, and criminal acts reflecting adversely on fitness (MLRPC 8.4(b),(c),(d))? | Misappropriation of client funds, deceit in accounting, and false statements amount to criminal and dishonest conduct prejudicial to administration of justice. | No defense offered; no mitigating evidence. | Court: Violations proven (misappropriation + deceit). |
| Is disbarment the appropriate sanction? | Misappropriation of entrusted funds compounded by deceit and failure to cooperate warrants disbarment absent compelling mitigation. | Wills offered no mitigating circumstances or sanction argument. | Court: Disbarment affirmed; costs awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zhang v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 440 Md. 128 (false statements to co-counsel/disciplinary context)
- Nussbaum v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 401 Md. 612 (misappropriation of escrow funds establishes rule violations)
- Zimmerman v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 428 Md. 119 (misappropriation is dishonest and ordinarily merits disbarment)
- Landau v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 437 Md. 641 (withdrawing client funds for personal use violates professional rules)
- Weiss v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 389 Md. 531 (misappropriation alone generally results in disbarment)
- Vanderlinde v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 364 Md. 376 (entrustment of client funds imposes highest responsibility; misappropriation intolerable)