251 A.3d 1157
Md.2021Background
- Neverdon, a Maryland lawyer since 1999, represented four cousins in a survival (personal-injury) claim and related estate administration after their relative Rodney Chase was fatally struck. He concurrently worked full time for DPSCS and delegated much work to an unlicensed assistant/paralegal, Scherron Lee.
- Lee performed substantial client-facing work: drafted and sent demand letters, met with clients alone, communicated with insurers, prepared estate filings, and signed documents using Neverdon’s signature with his knowledge or consent; Lee also forged a client signature on an Information Report filed in the Orphans’ Court.
- Neverdon failed to: adequately investigate the survival claim (did not interview witnesses or obtain/ review the reconstruction report), investigate the identity/relationship of the insured, advise clients fully about litigation options and liens, or obtain written informed consent when conflicts arose among co-personal representatives.
- Settlement: Nationwide tendered $30,000; liens (CEICO $7,000; MDH ~$19,124) and a $10,000 attorney fee left disputed interests. Neverdon deposited funds into escrow, withdrew a $10,000 fee, and did not timely notify lienholders or maintain complete trust-account records for the transaction.
- Procedurally, the Orphans’ Court matters continued; Purvey (one co-personal rep) resisted settlement; Neverdon filed an emergency petition to remove her; Bar Counsel filed charges alleging multiple MARPC violations; the hearing judge found numerous violations and this Court imposed a six‑month suspension with a one‑year monitored reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Neverdon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence & diligence (MARPC 1.1, 1.3): adequacy of investigation and handling of survival claim | Neverdon failed basic investigative steps (no witness interviews, no analysis of reconstruction report, inadequate asset investigation) and failed to attempt meaningful lien negotiations | He conducted online research, delegated tasks to Lee, and took steps to open the estate and seek lien reductions; some omissions were mistakes, not incompetence | Court held violations of 1.1 and 1.3 for investigation failures and for not adequately pursuing lien reductions (MDH, CEICO) |
| Conflict of interest & withdrawal (MARPC 1.7, 1.16): representing co-personal reps with divergent settlement positions | After Michael signed release and Purvey refused, Neverdon had an actual adverse conflict and failed to advise, obtain written informed consent, or withdraw | Clients’ interests were aligned; prosecution desire (criminal charges) didn’t change common civil interest; counsel argued actions were to benefit all clients | Court held violation of 1.7 and 1.16(a)(1): conflict arose and Neverdon continued without required written informed consent |
| Communication & scope (MARPC 1.2, 1.4): sufficiency and accuracy of client communications | Neverdon (and Lee acting) sent letters with incorrect legal statements, failed to inform clients of investigation status and lien implications, and pressured settlement | He communicated frequently (calls, letters, home visits) and supervised Lee; some statements reflect lay explanation, not misconduct | Court found violations of 1.2(a) and 1.4(a)(2)/1.4(b) for misleading/insufficient communications during critical decision periods |
| Supervision & unauthorized practice (MARPC 5.3, 5.5) | Neverdon failed to reasonably supervise Lee; allowed Lee to give legal advice, negotiate with insurers, sign pleadings, and otherwise practice unlawfully | Lee acted at Neverdon’s direction; clients knew Lee was an assistant; Neverdon reviewed work | Court held violations of 5.3(b) and 5.5(a): delegation and inadequate supervision enabled unauthorized practice |
| Safekeeping & trust‑account / notice (MARPC 1.15) | Neverdon failed to maintain required trust records, did not promptly notify lienholders of receipt, and withdrew fee before matters resolved | He deposited funds in escrow, maintained that funds remained under estate/accounting practice and that some actions complied with Orphans’ Court practice | Court held violations of 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) (recordkeeping and notice). The court did not sustain 1.15(e) given disputed facts about disposition/estate handling |
| Candor / false statements (MARPC 3.3, 8.1, 8.4) re: forged signature and communications to Bar Counsel | Bar Counsel alleged false statements and failure to correct tribunal filings (forgery on Information Report) and false statements to Bar Counsel | Neverdon contended he did not know of forgery until complaint; some statements to Bar Counsel were imprecise but not knowingly false; testimony issues not pursued as additional charged violations | Court declined to sustain 3.3(a)(1) / 8.4(c) violations (no clear convincing proof Neverdon knew of the forgery when filed). Court did find no clear 8.1(a) violation for certain letter statements and limited findings on false evidence aggravator |
Key Cases Cited
- Slate v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 457 Md. 610 (framework for sanctions; goals and factors for discipline)
- Ambe v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 466 Md. 270 (competence/incompetence standards and failure to appear)
- Woolery v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 462 Md. 209 (attorney obligations when participating in estate administration)
- Ruffalo v. United States, 390 U.S. 544 (due process/notice in disciplinary charges)
- Patton v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 432 Md. 359 (limitations on charging unpled misconduct)
- Frank v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 470 Md. 699 (discipline precedents)
- Steinhorn v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 462 Md. 184 (overlap of candor and dishonesty rules)
- Berry v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 437 Md. 152 (failure to correct false estate accounting; candor to tribunal)
- Bleecker v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 414 Md. 147 (duty to correct false statements to court)
- Smith v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 443 Md. 351 (supervisory duties under Rule 5.3)
- Maldonado v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 463 Md. 11 (what constitutes practice of law and unauthorized practice)
- Barton v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 442 Md. 91 (indefinite suspension factors where pattern, dishonesty, prior discipline)
- Dore v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 433 Md. 685 (90‑day suspension for supervisory failures and false filings)
- Hallmon v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 343 Md. 390 (suspension for failure to supervise and trust‑account failures)
- Robbins v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 463 Md. 411 (vulnerable‑victim aggravator; severity of sanctions)
- McClain v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 406 Md. 1 (false testimony and knowledge standards)