Attorney Grievance v. Collins
469 Md. 134
| Md. | 2020Background
- Natalie Thryphenia Collins, a Maryland attorney admitted in 1991 who practices family law, represented Crystal Davis in a contested divorce/custody matter in Wicomico County.
- Opposing counsel served written discovery in January 2017; Ms. Collins failed to finalize or serve her client’s responses and ignored two motions for sanctions and a court order compelling discovery.
- Ms. Collins also failed to pursue discovery she had served on the opposing party and did not arrange timely meetings between her client and the child’s court‑appointed attorney; the child’s attorney first met the mother on the morning of the hearing.
- Ms. Collins met her client and the client’s witness for trial preparation only about one hour before the May 16, 2017 merits hearing; the magistrate precluded Ms. Davis from admitting documentary evidence and granted sanctions for discovery abuses.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission filed a petition (June 20, 2019); the hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of violations of MARPC 19‑301.1, 19‑301.3, 19‑301.4, 19‑303.4(d), and 19‑308.4(a) and (d). The Court of Appeals adopted the findings and imposed a 60‑day suspension (effective 30 days after the opinion) and assessed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence (MARPC 19‑301.1) | Collins’ lack of preparation and failure to respond to discovery showed insufficient thoroughness and preparation. | Collins blamed co‑counsel, prior counsel, or lack of notice; offered excuses (vacation, out of country) and disputed receipt of some communications. | Violation proved by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Diligence (MARPC 19‑301.3) | Repeated delays and non‑responses to discovery and motions evidenced lack of reasonable diligence. | Collins claimed efforts were made and attributed delays to others or circumstances. | Violation proved. |
| Communication (MARPC 19‑301.4) | Collins failed to keep client reasonably informed, did not explain consequences (sanctions, evidence preclusion), and ignored requests for information. | Collins claimed intermittent contact and denied receipt of certain letters; no effective rebuttal. | Violation proved. |
| Fairness/pretrial discovery (MARPC 19‑303.4(d)) and Misconduct (MARPC 19‑308.4) | Failure to comply with discovery and to cooperate with opposing counsel and child’s counsel prejudiced the proceedings and public confidence. | Collins minimized responsibility and did not accept wrongful nature of conduct. | Violations proved; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice. |
| Sanction | Bar Counsel: 60‑day suspension for multiple, serious violations. | Collins offered no proposal; testimony showed lack of remorse and blaming others. | 60‑day suspension appropriate given misconduct and aggravating factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shuler, 454 Md. 200 (2017) (failure to act or untimely action can establish competence violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (2012) (precedent on competence and client harm)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 695 (2014) (definition/examples of conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Walker‑Turner, 428 Md. 214 (2012) (60‑day suspension for similar single‑matter misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hill, 398 Md. 95 (2007) (30‑day suspension where substantial mitigation existed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56 (2000) (suspension commonly imposed for first‑time competency violations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 459 Md. 194 (2018) (framework of aggravating and mitigating factors for sanctions)