Attorney Grievance Commission v. Zhang
100 A.3d 1112
| Md. | 2014Background
- Zhang, a Maryland attorney, represented her niece Wife in a Virginia annulment/divorce while not licensed to practice in Virginia and while her representation overlapped with Husband’s immigration matter that Zhang had handled.
- Zhang coordinated with co-counsel Metcalf, who sought Virginia pro hac vice admission, but Zhang controlled communications with Wife and did not ensure direct English-language communication.
- Two settlement efforts—the January and February 2011 agreements—were negotiated with Husband and others, with Metcalf signing on Wife’s behalf based on Zhang’s assurances that Wife had consented, when Wife had not.
- Zhang prepared pleadings, conducted research, and participated in hearings for Wife’s annulment/divorce, yet she did not disclose her conflict of interest or enter an appearance in Virginia.
- Before the February Agreement, Zhang misrepresented to Metcalf that Wife had participated in negotiations and consented to terms, and she later misled about Wife’s consent to the February Agreement.
- The Virginia Court later vacated the February Agreement, finding a mutual fraud on the court, and Zhang’s conduct led to substantial sanctions and ultimately disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Zhang violate MLRPC 1.1 competence? | Zhang lacked Virginia competence; represented Wife without adequate preparation. | Metcalf handled Virginia matters; Zhang’s general authority sufficed. | Yes; violations found. |
| Did Zhang violate MLRPC 1.2(a) scope and allocation of authority? | Zhang overstepped by signing/authorizing settlements without Wife’s knowledge. | Zhang reasonably believed she acted with Wife’s implied authority. | Yes; misrepresentation of authority. |
| Did Zhang violate MLRPC 1.16(a) withdrawal/continuing representation? | Conflict prevented continued representation of Wife. | No Virginia appearance; withdrawal not required. | Yes; improper continuation violated rule. |
| Did Zhang engage in dishonesty or misrepresentation (MLRPC 4.1, 8.4)? | Zhang misled Metcalf and the Virginia Court about Wife’s consent and English proficiency. | Some misstatements were statements of beliefs or inadvertent errors. | Yes; multiple misrepresentations established. |
| Was Zhang practicing law in Virginia (MLRPC 5.5) and holding out as a specialist (7.4)? | She drafted pleadings and conducted settlement negotiations in Virginia. | No formal appearance; no Virginia practice. | Yes; unauthorized practice and misrepresentation found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dory, 433 Md. 685 (Md. 2013) (outline of standards for sanctions and aggravating factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (disbarment appropriate for serious dishonest conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keiner, 421 Md. 492 (Md. 2011) (disbarment for multiple Rule violations including misrepresentations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McGlade, 425 Md. 524 (Md. 2012) (suspension vs disbarment based on extent of misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheinbein, 372 Md. 224 (Md. 2002) (motivation to help a relative does not justify lesser sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Elmendorf, 404 Md. 353 (Md. 2008) (reprimand where conduct relatively limited; comparison for sanctions)