Attorney Grievance v. Wescott, 290 A.3d 1014

Background

In April 2020 Cynthia Johnson retained Sherwood R. Wescott to represent her son Antrell Johnson on criminal charges; retainer set a $15,000 flat fee (installments), "earned in full" upon appearance, nonrefundable, and not to be placed in trust.
Ms. Johnson paid $7,000 between April and September 2020; Wescott never deposited those funds in an attorney trust account.
Wescott performed minimal work: entered appearance, filed routine pretrial papers, briefly met Johnson once (15–20 minutes), spoke once on the phone, attended one hearing; another lawyer appeared for a bond review without Johnson being informed.
Johnson terminated Wescott in October 2020, the Public Defender later obtained pretrial release and the State nol prossed the charges; Wescott did not refund any portion of the $7,000.
Bar Counsel filed a disciplinary petition; the hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence violations of MARPC 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, and 8.4.
The Court adopted the hearing judge’s findings, rejected one factual inference about prejudice, and imposed a 60-day suspension (to begin 30 days after the opinion) and costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competence & preparation (MARPC 1.1) and communication (MARPC 1.4)	Wescott failed to prepare Johnson for hearings, rarely met or communicated with him, and did not inform him another attorney would appear — violating 1.1 and 1.4.	Wescott disputed need for suspension and maintained he earned the fee and acted appropriately.	Court held Bar Counsel proved violations of MARPC 1.1 and 1.4 by clear and convincing evidence.
Unreasonable fee (MARPC 1.5)	The $15,000 flat fee became unreasonable given the scant services performed; the $7,000 collected was not earned.	Wescott maintained the fee was earned under the retainer terms.	Court held the fee charged/collected was unreasonable under MARPC 1.5 because services performed did not justify the amount.
Safekeeping of client funds & informed consent (MARPC 1.15; 1.1)	Wescott failed to deposit unearned fees into a trust account and did not obtain informed, written consent or explain risks.	Wescott’s retainer purportedly authorized immediate collection and non-trust handling.	Court held Wescott violated MARPC 1.15 (and 1.1 as to competence) because no informed consent was shown and funds were not held in trust.
Refunds on termination (MARPC 1.16) and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (MARPC 8.4(d))	Wescott failed to refund unearned fees upon termination; cumulative misconduct brought the profession into disrepute.	Wescott argued against suspension and maintained fee was earned; court should not find causation for any extended incarceration.	Court held Wescott violated MARPC 1.16(d). It found a violation of MARPC 8.4(d) based on the cumulative misconduct but rejected speculative causation that his failures prolonged Johnson’s detention.

Key Cases Cited

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Yi, 470 Md. 464 (discussing when initially reasonable fees become unreasonable if not earned)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Silbiger, 478 Md. 607 (failure to maintain client funds in trust can demonstrate incompetence)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, 469 Md. 134 (60-day suspension for failures to communicate, prepare, and act diligently)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tauber, 421 Md. 415 (30-day suspension for mishandling unearned funds due to ignorance of MARPC)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (90-day suspension where multiple client-matter failures, unreasonable fee, and trust-account misuse occurred)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Colton-Bell, 434 Md. 553 (nonrefundable fee obtained for unperformed work can be unreasonable under Rule 1.5)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gracey, 448 Md. 1 (attorney must explain risks when deviating from standard escrow of unearned fees)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Proctor, 479 Md. 650 (framework for evaluating communication violations and effect on profession)