262 A.3d 257
Md.2021Background:
- Thereen Dian Daley, a Maryland attorney, represented her husband (Austin Valentine) in disputes with his condominium association over leasing violations and fines; Oliveri & Associates represented the association and its manager, Wallace H. Campbell & Co.
- Daley made multiple written and oral statements accusing the association and its manager of fraud, claimed she had contacted officials in the Maryland Attorney General’s office, and sent a letter to the mortgagee (Rosedale Federal) alleging the lien was invalid. Those statements were proven false.
- Daley directly communicated with the association’s management supervisor, Susan Saltsman, despite knowing Saltsman was represented by counsel (violating Rule 4.2).
- During Bar Counsel’s investigation Daley missed deadlines, failed to respond to requests for admissions, refused to give dates for a sworn statement, submitted false information to Bar Counsel, and did not attend the disciplinary hearing; a default order was entered and many matters were deemed admitted.
- The hearing judge adopted Bar Counsel’s proposed findings by clear and convincing evidence, concluding Daley violated MARPC Rules 4.1, 4.2, 8.1, and 8.4; the Court of Appeals affirmed and imposed an indefinite suspension and taxed costs against Daley.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC/Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Daley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daley violated Rule 4.1 (truthfulness) by making false statements to opposing counsel and third parties | Daley knowingly made materially false statements (e.g., about fraud, the lien’s invalidity, contacts with AG’s office, and a written admission of lying) | Daley disputed service and contended she could refute the allegations if heard | Court held Daley knowingly made false statements; Rule 4.1 violated and finding upheld by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Daley violated Rule 4.2 by communicating directly with a represented party (Saltsman) | Daley repeatedly emailed Saltsman about the dispute despite knowing Saltsman was represented and counsel’s objections | Daley argued she represented family interests and disputed procedural service issues | Court held Daley contacted a represented management agent without consent; Rule 4.2(a) and (b) violated |
| Whether Daley violated Rule 8.1 by lying and failing to cooperate with Bar Counsel | Bar Counsel argued Daley knowingly made false statements to investigators and failed to timely respond to lawful discovery requests | Daley claimed defects in service and delayed knowledge of the proceedings; she did not meaningfully respond or appear at hearing | Court held Daley violated 8.1(a) (false statements) and 8.1(b) (failure to respond/cooperate) |
| Appropriate sanction for the proven violations (including Rule 8.4 misconduct) | Bar Counsel recommended indefinite suspension given multiple violations, false submissions, obstruction, and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing | Daley urged dismissal or no sanction, citing procedural defects and her ability to rebut allegations outside the hearing | Court imposed an indefinite suspension, found multiple aggravating factors and no mitigating factors, and taxed costs to Daley |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dailey, 474 Md. 679 (2021) (failure to comply with Bar Counsel’s process can exacerbate disciplinary consequences)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith-Scott, 469 Md. 281 (2020) (standard of review for hearing judge findings; discussion of Rule 4.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Trye, 444 Md. 201 (2015) (scope of Rule 4.2 communications with represented persons)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moawad, 475 Md. 424 (2021) (Rule 8.1 violation where attorney knowingly misrepresented facts to Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shuler, 454 Md. 200 (2017) (failure to respond to Bar Counsel’s lawful requests supports Rule 8.1(b) violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sanderson, 465 Md. 1 (2019) (framework for weighing aggravating and mitigating factors in sanctioning)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Yi, 470 Md. 464 (2020) (purpose of discipline is public protection and deterrence; sanctions must fit gravity and intent)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keating, 471 Md. 614 (2020) (violations of other rules support Rule 8.4(a) misconduct finding)