225 A.3d 19
Md.2020Background
- William C. Planta (admitted 1998) was the subject of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action based on complaints from six former clients (Boteler, Huber, Darshna Patel, Nicarsia & Brandon Jackson, and LeeAnne Jeffreys).
- Across multiple matters, Planta repeatedly missed or was late to court, appeared unprepared, failed to meet deadlines, did not comply with discovery, and failed to communicate case status to clients.
- He accepted retainers/fees ($ amounts given in several matters) but failed to deposit them in an attorney trust account, refund unearned fees, or return client files upon termination.
- He made a demonstrably false statement to the court about being hospitalized to excuse tardiness and failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel’s investigations, resulting in a default and sanctions in the disciplinary proceeding.
- The circuit court (Judge Cummins) entered findings based on Petitioner’s exhibits; the Court of Appeals accepted those findings and, after independent review, disbarred Planta.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence / neglect (MARPC 1.1) | Planta repeatedly failed to appear, prepare, and file required pleadings, depriving clients of competent representation | No contested defense — Planta defaulted and did not participate | Violations of MARPC 1.1 sustained for each represented client where neglect occurred |
| Communication / scope (MARPC 1.2, 1.4) | Planta failed to inform clients of court orders, settlement offers, and case status, preventing informed client decisions | No response or rebuttal from Planta | Violations of MARPC 1.2 and 1.4 sustained across multiple matters |
| Fees / trust-account / post-termination duties (MARPC 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(d)) | Planta took retainers but did not place funds in trust accounts, failed to earn or refund fees, and did not return files | No addressing of these allegations by Planta | Violations of MARPC 1.5, 1.15, and 1.16(d) sustained; unearned fees not returned and trust-account rules breached |
| Candor to tribunal and disciplinary cooperation (MARPC 3.3, 8.1, 8.4(c)) | Planta lied to the court about hospitalization and repeatedly failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries | No rebuttal; default deemed admission of allegations including substance abuse | Violations of MARPC 3.3(a)(1), 8.1, and 8.4(c)/(d) sustained for dishonesty and failure to cooperate |
| Appropriate sanction | AGC: disbarment given pattern, misappropriation, multiple offenses, obstruction, and no mitigation | Planta offered no proposed sanction or participation | Court disbarred Planta as the only adequate remedy to protect the public |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163 (Md. 2015) (repeated neglect, missed appearances, and trust-account violations justify disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (Md. 2012) (retainer can become unreasonable if lawyer fails to earn it; keeping unearned fees violates Rule 1.5)
- Zuckerman v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 386 Md. 341 (Md. 2005) (retainer not earned until work completed; trust-account obligations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136 (Md. 2014) (standard of appellate review for disciplinary findings and clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. 124 (Md. 2005) (intentional misappropriation of client funds is dishonest conduct violating Rule 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rheinstein, 466 Md. 648 (Md. 2020) (default/admitted factual averments can be treated as admissions in disciplinary proceedings)