Attorney Grievance v. Kaufman
466 Md. 404
| Md. | 2019Background
- In Sept. 2015 Arasteh Hekmat retained Kenneth S. Kaufman; she paid $2,500 and agreed to a one‑third contingent fee but Kaufman did not provide a written contingency agreement.
- Kaufman filed a complaint (Apr. 2016) and opposed an early motion to dismiss, but after defendants filed motions for summary judgment (Jan. 2017) Kaufman did not meaningfully respond.
- Kaufman failed to appear at the Feb. 28, 2017 summary‑judgment hearing; the court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed Hekmat’s case with prejudice.
- Defendants moved under Rule 1‑341 for fees; Kaufman received notice of hearings (May 31, 2017) but failed to notify his client, appear, or oppose; successor counsel later obtained a postponement and the Rule 1‑341 motion was denied.
- Hekmat filed a grievance (Aug. 2017); Bar Counsel repeatedly attempted contact (Sept. 2017–Feb. 2018) and Kaufman did not respond or participate in the disciplinary process.
- Kaufman defaulted in the disciplinary proceeding, did not appear at the evidentiary hearing, and the Hearing Judge—relying on deemed admissions—found multiple MARPC violations; the Court of Appeals adopted those findings and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence (MARPC 19‑301.1) | Kaufman abandoned representation, failed to oppose summary judgment, failed to appear at hearings, demonstrating incompetence. | No responsive defense; did not participate. | Violated Rule 19‑301.1; clear and convincing evidence of incompetent representation. |
| Scope/Diligence/Communication (19‑301.2, 19‑301.3, 19‑301.4) | Kaufman failed to keep client informed, missed deadlines/hearings, ignored client inquiries, depriving client of meaningful participation. | No responsive defense. | Violated Rules 19‑301.2, 19‑301.3, 19‑301.4. |
| Fees/Contingent‑fee requirements (19‑301.5(a), (c)) | The $2,500 retainer became unreasonable when Kaufman performed little to no work; he failed to provide a written contingency agreement and did not refund unearned fees. | No responsive defense. | Violated Rules 19‑301.5(a) and (c); retainer became unreasonable given lack of work. |
| Termination obligations (19‑301.16) | Kaufman effectively abandoned the case without giving notice, failing to protect client interests or refund unearned fees. | No responsive defense. | Violated Rule 19‑301.16(d). |
| Cooperation with disciplinary investigation (19‑308.1) | Kaufman knowingly failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s lawful requests and evaded the investigation. | No responsive defense. | Violated Rule 19‑308.1. |
| Misconduct / prejudicial conduct (19‑308.4) | Multiple rule breaches and abandonment prejudiced administration of justice and brought profession into disrepute. | No responsive defense. | Violated Rule 19‑308.4(a) and (d). |
| Appropriate sanction | Petitioner recommended indefinite suspension given misconduct and precedents. | Kaufman offered no mitigation or participation to contest sanction. | Disbarment ordered given multiple violations, bad‑faith obstruction, long experience, indifference to restitution, and no mitigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Monfried, 368 Md. 373, 794 A.2d 92 (recognizing fee becomes unreasonable when attorney performs practically no services)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 891 A.2d 1085 (same principle: lack of effort after collecting fee renders fee unreasonable)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Walker‑Turner, 428 Md. 214, 51 A.3d 553 (attorney absence from courtroom prejudices administration of justice)
- Ficker v. State, 319 Md. 305, 572 A.2d 501 (absence of counsel intrudes on court’s operation and dignity)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 451 Md. 55, 152 A.3d 639 (complete failure of representation supports Rule 19‑301.1 violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 753 A.2d 17 (ultimate incompetency where representation is a complete failure)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara, 418 Md. 355, 14 A.3d 650 (disbarment for abandonment and failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Blair, 440 Md. 387, 102 A.3d 786 (disbarment for abandoning client, retaining unearned fees, and non‑participation in disciplinary process)