Attorney Grievance v. Davenport
472 Md. 20
| Md. | 2021Background:
- Davenport was retained in June 2018 to represent Lisa Stanley in a divorce/custody case and received a $2,500 flat fee that he did not place in an attorney trust account.
- He filed an untimely, defective counter-complaint (missing client oath) and failed to file required amendments.
- Davenport repeatedly failed to appear at a scheduling conference, a pre-trial settlement conference, and a show-cause hearing, and he did not notify his client of those dates.
- He ignored discovery requests and opposing counsel’s motions (including motions to compel and for fees), did not respond to his client’s communications, and did not withdraw after the client terminated the representation and requested a refund.
- Bar Counsel repeatedly requested information and the client file; Davenport failed to respond (though he later told an investigator he had health issues and had misplaced correspondence). He did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings; the hearing court entered default findings.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed findings that Davenport violated multiple Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct and imposed disbarment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commission/Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Davenport) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence & Diligence (Rules 1.1, 1.3) | Davenport neglected the matter: missed hearings, filed deficient pleadings, ignored discovery | No substantive response or defense at proceedings; only later oral claim of health issues to investigator | Violations proven; attorney incompetent and dilatory |
| Communication & Scope (Rules 1.2, 1.4) | Failed to keep client informed, ignored requests, abandoned objectives and strategy | No timely explanation to client or court; no participation in hearing | Violations proven; client was not informed and could not make decisions |
| Fees, Trust Accounting & Termination (Rules 1.5, 1.15, 1.16) | Collected $2,500 not in trust, performed little/no work, refused refund and failed to withdraw, harming settlement prospects | No evidence of earned services or proper trust accounting; no return of unearned fee | Violations proven; fee became unreasonable and trust/accounting rules breached |
| Cooperation with Disciplinary Authority (Rule 8.1) | Willfully failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s lawful requests and failed to participate in the grievance proceeding | Minimal oral claims of health issues but no written responses or production of records | Violation proven; failure to cooperate established |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (2012) (neglect can render an otherwise reasonable fee unreasonable)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ibebuchi, 471 Md. 286 (2020) (failure to appear can constitute incompetent representation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, 469 Md. 134 (2020) (neglecting discovery and failing to oppose motions evidences incompetence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ndi, 459 Md. 42 (2018) (failure to keep client informed violates diligence rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642 (2019) (abandoning prosecution and failing to communicate can violate scope rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163 (2015) (funds must be maintained in an attorney trust account)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stinson, 428 Md. 147 (2012) (failure to refund unearned fees violates termination rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Blair, 440 Md. 387 (2014) (disbarment for abandonment, retained unearned fees, and nonparticipation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kaufman, 466 Md. 404 (2019) (disbarment where attorney abandoned client and ignored Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Woolery, 456 Md. 483 (2017) (sanctioning approach: protect public and deter misconduct)