242 A.3d 206
Md.2020Background
- Respondent John T. Riely, a long‑time Maryland immigration practitioner, was the subject of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission (Bar Counsel) alleging multiple MARPC violations based on two client matters; Judge Maloney conducted an evidentiary hearing and made findings; this Court reviewed exceptions and imposed discipline.
- Matter 1 (Guatemalan couple, “MC” and “CS”): the couple paid the $300 retainer; Riely failed to file entries of appearance, did not appear at status hearings, did not notify them he was withdrawing, and took no steps to protect their interests (including failing to advise CS of the asylum one‑year filing limitation); successor counsel later mitigated the consequences.
- Matter 2 (Mariana Fernandez Gonzalez, H‑1B extension): Riely misstated the invoice address, did not timely file Form I‑129 to extend the H‑1B, repeatedly gave misleading assurances to the client, accompanied her to DHS and told an agent he had filed when he had not, and later made false or misleading statements to Bar Counsel; successor counsel obtained a belated extension and termination of removal proceedings.
- The hearing judge found violations of competence (Rule 1.1), diligence (1.3), communication (1.4), termination duties (1.16(d)), truthfulness (4.1), Bar‑discipline candor (8.1), and misconduct rules (8.4(a),(c),(d)).
- Aggravating factors included respondent’s experience, vulnerable victims, multiple offenses, and deceptive conduct in the disciplinary process; mitigating factors included no prior discipline, remorse, health issues, good character testimony, refund of fees, and some cooperation.
- Disposition: the Court imposed an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement no sooner than one year (to begin 30 days after the opinion); Justice Watts dissented, arguing for disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC/Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Riely) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Riely violated competence, diligence, and communication rules (Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4) in both matters | He failed to prepare/appear, advance clients’ cases, and respond or explain, thus violating 1.1/1.3/1.4 | Attributed failures to client nonpayment or confusion and to limited communications via firm liaison; argued mitigation | Court held he violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4 in both matters (exceptions overruled) |
| Whether terminating representation duty (Rule 1.16(d)) was breached with MC/CS | He failed to give reasonable notice, return unearned fees, or protect clients’ ability to secure new counsel and to preserve CS’s asylum deadline | Claimed uncertainty about retention and payments; argued no formal retainer signed initially | Court held he violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to protect clients’ interests on termination |
| Whether Riely made false statements to DHS and Bar Counsel (Rules 4.1, 8.1) and engaged in dishonesty (8.4(c)) | He knowingly misled a DHS agent and Bar Counsel about having filed the H‑1B petition and about fee communications | Claimed he intended to change the “temperature” in DHS meetings and relied on confusion over fees; disputed some characterizations | Court held he violated Rules 4.1(a), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) — knowingly misleading DHS, client, and Bar Counsel |
| Appropriate sanction (reprimand, suspension, or disbarment) | Bar Counsel urged disbarment given intentional dishonesty and harm to vulnerable clients | Riely sought a public reprimand or lesser discipline, citing long good record, remorse, mitigation, and no pattern of self‑enrichment | Court imposed indefinite suspension with right to apply after one year; dissent argued for disbarment given repeated intentional dishonesty |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Koven, 361 Md. 337 (2000) (previous disciplinary precedent involving failure to file government petitions and misrepresentations; suspension imposed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (2001) (holding that intentional dishonesty ordinarily warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Aita, 458 Md. 101 (2018) (competence violation precedent where failure to notify client of court dates and failure to appear supported Rule 1.1 violation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bahgat, 411 Md. 568 (2009) (attorney who did nothing to advance client’s cause violated diligence rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Miller, 467 Md. 176 (2020) (disbarment principles for intentional dishonest conduct reiterated)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cocco, 442 Md. 1 (2015) (misrepresentations to clients/third parties supporting severe discipline)