248 A.3d 224
Md.2021Background
- Samuel Sperling, a solo personal-injury attorney, represented Ebony Boyd and Darius Bailey in a 2016 motor-vehicle personal-injury matter against Lauren LaPlante (MAIF insurer).
- Sperling filed suit in January 2017 but was unable to effect service on LaPlante; the court granted a deferment to attempt service and later dismissed the suit without prejudice in December 2017 for lack of service.
- MAIF made at least one documented $500 offer that Sperling conveyed; MAIF records reflect a subsequent $750 offer left by voicemail on April 14, 2017 that Sperling never conveyed to his clients.
- Sperling obtained prior medical records for Boyd (relevant to her miscarriage claim) but did not transmit them to MAIF before his suspension; MAIF repeatedly requested those records.
- Sperling was suspended 90 days in 2018 for unrelated matters and sought reinstatement while Bar Counsel’s investigation of Boyd/Bailey was pending; the Court reinstated him. Bar Counsel later filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (PDRA) alleging violations of competence, diligence, communication, and misconduct rules.
- The circuit hearing judge found multiple rule violations; the Court of Appeals affirmed violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(2) & (b), and 8.4(a) & (d) and imposed a 120-day suspension plus one year of practice monitoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Sperling) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel / res judicata from prior reinstatement | Grant of reinstatement over Bar Counsel’s objections precluded relitigation of Boyd/Bailey complaints | Reinstatement was a final decision on merits of complaints | Reinstatement was not a merits judgment; doctrines do not bar PDRA proceedings |
| Exclusion of proffered expert testimony | Expert unnecessary; matters were straightforward | Expert would show Sperling met practice standards for PI work | Court did not abuse discretion excluding expert as not helpful to judge’s factual-credibility determinations |
| Receipt and non‑communication of MAIF’s $750 voicemail offer | MAIF chronology establishes voicemail was left; Sperling received it and failed to convey offer, violating Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 | Sperling argued he never received the voicemail (technical loss); cannot be proved by MAIF entry alone | Hearing judge credited MAIF chronology and discredited Sperling; Court found sufficient clear-and-convincing evidence to sustain violations for failing to convey offer |
| Failure to pursue service, to transmit Boyd’s records, and to notify clients of dismissal | After deferment to effect service, Sperling failed to pursue statutory/available means (e.g., written request to insurer for last-known address), failed to send Boyd’s requested records to MAIF, and did not inform clients their case was dismissed—violations of competence, diligence, communication, and misconduct rules | Sperling contended he made reasonable efforts overall, was reviewing records strategically, and communicated sufficiently with clients; dissent argued facts insufficient to prove violations by clear-and-convincing evidence | Majority found Sperling’s post-deferment inaction, failure to transmit records, and failure to notify clients violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4(d); Rule 8.4(c) and 8.1(a) largely rejected or limited |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling & Sperling, 459 Md. 194 (prior 90-day suspension and related discipline considered in aggravation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136 (standard of review for hearing‑judge findings and expert testimony admissibility)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jacobs, 459 Md. 291 (comparison for service‑failure and concealment sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Chanthunya, 446 Md. 576 (Rule 1.4 violation for failure to convey insurer offer and aggravating/mitigating factor analysis)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harris, 366 Md. 376 (suspension for failures of competence, diligence, and communication)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 356 (sanction analysis where multiple client harms and false promises existed)