Attorney Grievance v. Ibebuchi
471 Md. 286
| Md. | 2020Background
- In October 2017 Ferdinand U. Ibebuchi was retained to defend Carlos Morales (Spanish‑speaking) in a District Court uninsured‑motorist/third‑party matter; Morales paid an initial $1,000 and later $650 (total $1,650 paid while representation continued).
- State Farm served interrogatories and later filed a motion for sanctions for failure to answer; Ibebuchi did not prepare or file discovery responses or a response to the sanctions motion.
- On November 29, 2017 neither Ibebuchi nor Morales appeared for the merits hearing; the District Court entered a $15,000 default judgment against Morales. Ibebuchi did not notify Morales of the judgment.
- Morales only learned of the default after receiving an MVA notice (Feb 22, 2018) threatening suspension; Ibebuchi told Morales he would seek to reopen the case but never filed a motion to vacate, did not assist with the MVA matter, and did not refund unearned fees.
- Morales filed a grievance; Bar Counsel sent multiple letters requesting a written response and file materials. Ibebuchi delayed and largely failed to respond; at a short interview he produced the client file but no substantive written reply.
- The hearing judge found multiple violations of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct; the Court of Appeals affirmed those violations and imposed an indefinite suspension and taxed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC/Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Ibebuchi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence (Rule 1.1) and Diligence (Rule 1.3) | Ibebuchi failed to respond to discovery, did not oppose the sanctions motion, failed to appear, and took no remedial action after default—causing material harm | He called the clerk and received incorrect scheduling information and was inexperienced | Court held violations of Rules 1.1 and 1.3; presence at proceedings and timely action are minimum duties and his inaction caused harm |
| Communication (Rule 1.4) | He failed to inform Morales of the default judgment, ignored client texts, and did not follow up after promising to reopen the case | He relied on the client’s friend as interpreter and used Google Translate; contends translation sufficed | Court found violations for failing to notify client of the judgment and for failing to respond to client inquiries; but did not impose violation based solely on lack of Spanish translation of the retainer |
| Fees and termination/refund (Rules 1.5, 1.16(d)) | The fee became unearned when he abandoned the matter; he failed to refund unearned fees upon termination | He contends he performed some services and attempted to refund the client late | Court held fee was unreasonable as earned value was lacking and that he violated the refund obligation under Rule 1.16(d) |
| Expediting litigation / discovery cooperation (Rules 3.2, 3.4(d)) | He did not timely complete discovery or respond to the motion for sanctions, impeding litigation | Blamed client for missed meetings and asserted misunderstandings | Court held violations for failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation and for failing to comply with discovery obligations |
| Response to disciplinary investigation (Rule 8.1(b)) | He repeatedly failed to provide timely, substantive responses to Bar Counsel’s lawful demands | He claimed delay was due to investigating the matter to provide accurate information | Court held a violation: the rule requires response, not proof of bad faith; his limited and late replies were insufficient |
| General misconduct / prejudice to administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)) | His pattern of neglect and silence undermined public confidence and the justice system | Asserted mitigating facts (language barriers, inexperience) | Court held an 8.4(d) violation based on cumulative misconduct and the prejudicial effect on the administration of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (2014) (competency includes presence at court proceedings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (2012) (failure to act or untimely action can violate Rule 1.1)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bahgat, 411 Md. 568 (2009) (doing nothing to advance a client’s cause violates Rule 1.3)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (2012) (a fee reasonable at outset may become unreasonable if attorney neglects the matter)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stinson, 428 Md. 147 (2012) (failure to refund unearned fees violates Rule 1.16(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bellamy, 453 Md. 377 (2017) (failure to provide substantive responses to Bar Counsel violates Rule 8.1(b))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kirwan, 450 Md. 447 (2016) (indefinite suspension appropriate for similar combination of Rule violations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Woolery, 456 Md. 483 (2017) (sanctioning focused on public protection and deterrence)