Attorney Grievance Commission v. Zimmerman
428 Md. 119
| Md. | 2012Background
- AGC filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Donya Tarraine Zimmerman for alleged violations of MLRPC rules and Maryland trust-law provisions regarding Shilling and Danner.
- A Montgomery County circuit court hearing found Zimmerman violated Rules 1.15(a)-(c), 1.16(d), and 8.4(b)-(d) for Shilling, and violated 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a), 1.16(d), and 8.4(b)-(d) for Danner, plus Rule 16-609 and Section 10-306.
- The hearing judge found Zimmerman misused Shilling’s unearned retainer, failed to keep funds in escrow, and commingled or otherwise mishandled client funds, including a $1,500 unearned portion deposited June 8, 2010.
- In Danner’s matter, Zimmerman cashed the retainer check instead of depositing it in escrow, then disbursed funds for non-earned fees and business expenses, leading to negative escrow balances.
- She acknowledged overdrafts and repeated failures to hold and refund client funds; she also used funds to pay taxes, premiums, dues, and personal expenses, allegedly misrepresenting refunds to clients and committees.
- The Court granted disbarment, affirmed the hearing judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered Zimmerman to pay costs; mitigating factors were considered but not found sufficient to avoid disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Zimmerman misappropriate client funds and misuse escrow? | Bar Counsel argues willful misappropriation of Shilling and Danner funds violated 1.15, 1.16, and 10-306. | Zimmerman contends any shortfalls were due to poor record-keeping and hardship, not willful misappropriation. | Yes; willful misappropriation found, violating 1.15, 1.15(c), and 10-306. |
| Did Zimmerman’s conduct violate Rule 8.4(b)-(d)? | Bar Counsel asserts dishonest, fraudulent, and prejudicial conduct from misappropriation and false promises. | Zimmerman contends no intentional dishonesty or misrepresentation occurred. | Yes; violations of 8.4(b)-(d) were established. |
| Did the handling of Shilling’s and Danner’s funds breach Rule 1.15(a)/(c) and 16-609? | Bar Counsel contends funds were not deposited in escrow or were used for unearned purposes. | Zimmerman asserts procedural or benign misunderstandings limited to account practices. | Yes; Rule 1.15(a) and (c) and 16-609 violations were proven. |
| Did Zimmerman’s delay in refunding unearned retainer fees violate Rule 1.16(d) and related duties to former clients? | Bar Counsel argues unreasonable delays in refunds and failure to protect clients’ interests. | Zimmerman claims family circumstances mitigated conduct. | Yes for 1.16(d) violations; mitigation not sufficient to avoid discipline. |
| Should the conduct lead to disbarment given the mitigating factors? | Disbarment is warranted due to pervasive misappropriation and dishonesty; prior disciplinary precedent supports severe sanction. | Mitigating factors (family illness, attempts at reform) argued for lesser sanction. | Disbarment affirmed; mitigating factors insufficient to avoid disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. London, 427 Md. 328, 47 A.3d 986 (Md. 2012) (independent review of record; de novo review of conclusions of law; clear-and-convincing standard)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 773 A.2d 463 (Md. 2001) (disbarment for misappropriation of funds)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Agiliga, 422 Md. 613, 31 A.3d 103 (Md. 2011) (disbarment for misuse of escrow funds)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Stern, 419 Md. 525, 19 A.3d 904 (Md. 2011) (disbarment for escrow misappropriation)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Nussbaum, 401 Md. 612, 934 A.2d 1 (Md. 2007) (misuse of escrow funds; dishonesty findings)