465 Md. 1
Md.2019Background
- Garland M. J. J. Sanderson, a Maryland solo practitioner since 2005, was the subject of multiple Bar complaints spanning competency, communication, and trust-account management arising from representation of several clients (Odubanjo, Ozel, Wilkinson, Parham, Sangare) and a non-client (Isom-Cyrus).
- Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action; a circuit-court judge heard the case and found numerous violations of the Maryland Lawyers’/Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and Maryland trust-account rules; the matter was then reviewed by the Court of Appeals.
- Relevant misconduct included: failing to appear at scheduled hearings; not informing clients of settlements or providing settlement accounting; conditioning scope of representation without written consent; repeated cash withdrawals from the attorney trust account; transferring operating funds into the trust account; underfunded client balances; and urging a client to provide false information to Bar Counsel.
- Procedurally, Sanderson previously entered a Conditional Diversion Agreement (CDA) after an earlier failure-to-appear matter; he failed to complete required courses and Bar Counsel later revoked the CDA and proceeded with discipline.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the hearing judge’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, sustained most findings (correcting a few factual errors), concluded multiple rule violations including 8.4(d), and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Sanderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency (MLRPC 1.1) for failing to appear and to manage matters | Sanderson failed to appear for clients and showed insufficient legal knowledge/preparation | Claimed scheduling conflicts, some successful settlements, and explanations for delays | Court: Violations proven by clear and convincing evidence for multiple clients (Odubanjo, Ozel, Sangare, Wilkinson) |
| Trust-account mismanagement & recordkeeping (MLRPC 1.15; Md. Rules 19-407/408/410; BOP §10-306) | Repeated cash withdrawals, transfers from operating to trust, underfunded client balances, and failure to maintain required records | Argued some transfers were benign, claimed lien resolution justified delays, and disputed some specific withdrawal attributions | Court: Found pervasive violations (cash withdrawals prohibited, improper transfers, deficient records); sustained violations and some factual corrections where Petition lacked notice |
| Communication, fees, and witness tampering (MLRPC 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5; 3.4) | Failed to communicate settlements, lacked written contingent-fee agreement, delayed disbursements, and urged client to give false statements to Bar Counsel | Contended client received reasonable settlement and asserted reasons for delay (worker’s comp lien), disputed some factual findings | Court: Held violations for failing to consult/communicate, lacking written contingency agreement and settlement accounting, untimely disbursements, and counseling a client to provide false information (3.4) |
| Aggregate misconduct and sanction (MLRPC 8.1, 8.4, aggravating/mitigating factors) | Pattern of multiple, dishonest, obstructive acts warrants disbarment | Requested six-month suspension and reinstatement upon compliance with conditions; offered limited mitigating claims (monitoring, personal issues) | Court: Found aggravating factors (prior discipline, dishonesty, pattern, obstruction, multiple offenses, vulnerable immigrant client) and no persuasive mitigation; sustained 8.4(d) and ordered disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Maldonado v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 463 Md. 11 (2019) (standards for reviewing hearing judge and de novo review of legal conclusions in disciplinary matters)
- Ghatt v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 461 Md. 228 (2018) (rule 8.4(d) analysis—conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- Mahone v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 451 Md. 25 (2016) (misuse of trust funds and related sanctioning principles)
- Lang v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 461 Md. 1 (2018) (competency violations where counsel fails to pursue claims or appear)
- Smith v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 443 Md. 351 (2015) (failure to promptly deliver settlement funds and client accounting violates competence and diligence rules)
- Thomas v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 440 Md. 523 (2014) (failure to appear can be conduct prejudicial to administration of justice and violates competence rules)
- Walker-Turner v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 428 Md. 214 (2012) (single failure to appear may constitute actionable neglect)
- Framm v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 449 Md. 620 (2016) (pattern of intentional misrepresentations normally warrants disbarment)