479 Md. 650
Md.2022Background
- Bar Counsel (Attorney Grievance Commission) filed a consolidated disciplinary Petition against Deidra N. Proctor in 2020; evidentiary hearing held September 20, 2021; hearing judge found multiple MARPC violations by clear and convincing evidence.
- Client misconduct findings centered on four matters: Belfast (failed to file EEOC-derived lawsuit, repeatedly lied about status, later settled for and paid only small, sporadic sums leaving ~$224,000 unpaid); Colvin (failed/late discovery, false statement about mailing responses, default/damages award); Barrow (family-law matter: defaults, discovery failures, overcharged transcript fee, failure to refund/unreturned funds); Ireland/Jacques‑Ireland (failure to serve/communicate).
- Proctor repeatedly failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s investigation requests, refused discovery, and was subject to discovery sanctions (requests for admission deemed admitted; evidentiary limitations imposed).
- Proctor practiced while temporarily suspended/decertified for nonpayment of assessments and pro bono reporting failures and did not disclose that status to clients.
- Hearing judge concluded Proctor violated numerous MARPC rules (including 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.3, 5.5, 8.1, 8.4); Court of Appeals affirmed and disbarred Proctor (Per Curiam order March 9, 2022; opinion explaining reasons filed July 25, 2022).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Proctor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence/diligence (MARPC 1.1, 1.3) | Proctor neglected matters (missed filings, ignored discovery/deadlines), harming clients. | Proctor claimed she had evidence/mitigating explanations and reduced caseload once investigation began. | Court: violations proven by clear and convincing evidence; incompetence/dilatory conduct supported. |
| Communication/scope (MARPC 1.2, 1.4, 1.16) | Proctor failed to keep clients informed, concealed adverse developments, and refused to return files/refunds. | Proctor asserted lack of records/memory and procedural objections to discovery. | Court: clients were deprived of information and files; rules violated. |
| Dishonesty/candor (MARPC 3.3, 8.1, 8.4) | Proctor knowingly made false statements to clients, opposing counsel, Bar Counsel, and the tribunal. | Proctor disputed service/notice and contested discovery sanctions; denied some allegations. | Court: false statements and failures to correct were proven; misconduct and dishonesty violations affirmed. |
| Unauthorized practice (MARPC 5.5) | Proctor practiced while temporarily suspended/decertified and failed to disclose that to clients. | Proctor argued delay/lack of records and challenged timeliness of older allegations. | Court: violations proven—she practiced while suspended/decertified and did not inform clients; laches/statute‑of‑limitations defenses rejected. |
| Discovery sanctions / due process | AGC relied on admissions and excluded untimely evidence after proper service and court orders. | Proctor argued improper service, prejudicial sanctions, and denied receipt of discovery/orders. | Court: service and sanction process were proper under Rules 2-424/2-432; admissions deemed admitted; sanctions within judge’s discretion. |
| Sanction (disbarment vs suspension) | Disbarment necessary given intentional dishonesty, client harm, pattern of misconduct, and refusal to make restitution. | Proctor urged one-year suspension. | Court: disbarment imposed—intentional dishonesty plus client harm and lack of mitigating proof warranted the most severe sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanderlinde v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (intentional dishonesty ordinarily warrants disbarment absent compelling, debilitating mitigation)
- Collins v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 477 Md. 482 (Md. 2022) (reexamined Vanderlinde standard and noted disbarment typically follows dishonest conduct causing harm)
- Hamilton v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 444 Md. 163 (Md. 2015) (Court’s standard of independent review in attorney discipline proceedings)
- McCarthy v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 473 Md. 462 (Md. 2021) (disbarment for self‑serving dishonest conduct causing client harm)
- Brown v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 426 Md. 298 (Md. 2012) (incompetence/delay harming client supports discipline)
- Taliaferro v. State, 295 Md. 376 (Md. 1983) (factors for assessing discovery‑related sanction and whether a continuance cures prejudice)
- Rheinstein v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 466 Md. 648 (Md. 2020) (discussing competence and serious misconduct in attorney discipline)