*1 A.2d 1260 ATTORNEY MARYLAND GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF
v.
Richard D. HARRINGTON. AG, Sept. Term, Misc. Docket No. 2001. Maryland. Appeals Court of Dec. *2 Hirshman, Broderick,
Melvin Bar and Counsel John C. Bar Atty. MD, Asst. Counsel for Grievance Com’n of for Petitioner. argument
No Respondent. behalf of BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, Argued RAKER, before WILNER, CATHELL, BATTAGLIA, HARRELL and JJ.
CATHELL, Judge. Attorney The (“Commission”), Grievance Commission peti- tioner, Counsel, by Bar in petition filed this Court a seeking disciplinary action Richard D. Harrington, respondent. petition alleged multiple of Maryland violations Rules (MRPC). of Professional Conduct Pursuant Maryland Rule 16-709, we referred the matter to the Honorable D. William Simpson of County, the Circuit Court for Wicomico for a hearing findings and to of make fact and conclusions of law. person was served with a for Disci- Petition plinary required response Action that days within fifteen respondent service and notified that a hearing would be held thirty days no than from response. Respon- later the date of Thereafter, any response. petitioner dent failed to file filed Request for Judge Simpson Order of Default. entered Order of Default on 2001. Respondent June did not file a request Judge Simpson vacate Order Default. respondent appear and did not
proceeded hearing with the hearing. Subsequently, for the court on the date scheduled judgment by default was entered. Disciplinary for
Judge Simpson considered the' Petition Fact and Requests for Admissions of Action and received the Fact and Findings and Conclu- Genuineness Documents Judge Simpson found presented by petitioner. of Law sions of fact convincing allegations by clear and evidence true, i.e., provi- respondent were violated alleged petitioner 8.4(c) (d) (b), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 1.3,1.4(a) and sions 6, 2001, Judge Simpson adopted the August MRPC.1 On (Diligence) lawyer shall act with reasonable "[A] 1. MRPC 1.3 states representing diligence promptness in a client.” (Communication) provides that: MRPC 1.4 "(a) reasonably lawyer keep a client informed about the A shall requests comply promptly matter and with reasonable status of a information. *3 (b) reasonably lawyer neces- explain A shall a matter to the extent regarding the sary permit client to make informed decisions to ’’ representation. (Declining terminating representation) provides in or MRPC 1.16 part relevant that: "(d) lawyer steps Upon representation, a shall take termination of interests, reasonably practicable protect a client’s extent to the client, allowing time for giving notice to the such as reasonable counsel, surrendering papers property to employment of other refunding any payment advance of fee the client is entitled and which relating lawyer may papers earned. The retain that has not been by permitted other law.” the client to the extent matters) (Bar provides in disciplinary MRPC 8.1 admission and part relevant that: bar, or a applicant or reinstatement "An for admission lawyer application or in connect in connection with a bar admission matter, disciplinary shall not: lion with a (b) necessary misapprehension to correct a fail to disclose a fact matter, knowingly fail to by person to have arisen in the known from an admissions or respond a lawful demand for information authority, require disclo- disciplinary except that this Rule does not by protected Rule 1.6.” sure of information otherwise (Misconduct) provides part that: relevant MRPC 8.4 lawyer to: professional misconduct for a "It is (b) adversely lawyer’s on the a criminal act that reflects commit lawyer respects; honesty, or fitness as a other trustworthiness Findings by of Fact and Conclusions of Law peti- submitted tioner.
I. Facts Judge Simpson’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are: County] [the Court Circuit Court for Wicomico finds “[T]his following by facts have been established clear and convincing evidence:
BC DOCKET NO. 99-615-10-6 COMPLAINANT: MARINER WILLIAM H. In or about January, Complainant 1998 the mailed a tax sale certificate with a Respon- letter instructions to the seeking employ dent him to rights foreclose the redemption Complainant which purchased had at tax Complainant sale. The had previously employed the Re- spondent prepared, and was from previous experience, to paid have between plus advertising costs for $500 $600 representation. January On Complainant wrote the Re- spondent about right the foreclosure of the to redeem. The Complainant had previously made several efforts to contact attorney, all Upon to no avail. inquiry, prior to the letter, January 18th Complainant had been assured Respondent’s secretary that had completed the title search on the property but had not initiated the appropriate court proceedings or undertaken necessary advertisements. Within letter the asked proceedings initiate days within ten otherwise, if he were unable to timely matter, deal with the *4 Respondent the should return the certificate tax sale and the Complainant pay would for his time and services. The Complainant requested Respondent the to indicate whether (c) fraud, engage involving dishonesty, in conduct misrepre- deceit or sentation; (d) engage in prejudicial conduct that is to the administration of justice...." or judicial proceedings the return would either initiate
he Respon- days. few The within the next the tax certificate to the tax Respondent failed return respond. dent failed certifícate. subject of the property which was the owners of the
The sought to who had had retained counsel tax foreclosure and, doing, in so sent a check property redeem The obligations. of all financial in fulfillment Respondent filing point some time after Respondent, at Complainant. to the proceeds forwarded the complaint, April Complainant 1999 the dated By complaint Respondent’s of the Petitioner brought to the attention right foreclosure diligence pursuing lack of brought also to Petitioner’s redemption. The sale, of tax certificate the fact that attention had not been returned Respondent, to the entrusted requested. by letter to the complaint was forwarded
The that a 30,1999 Respondent on notice putting the April dated 99-0-1172, inquiry file number disciplinary investigation, complaint not whether or to ascertain was undertaken docketed, not, as a formally that should be was one respond requested disciplinary file. The to do so. days. He failed within fifteen Respondent dated posted to the A letter was certified asking, yet 26,1999 April 30th letter and enclosing the May days. This letter reminded within ten again, response for a Rule of obliged under that he was in- disciplinary in a cooperate 8.1 Professional Conduct May delivery on receipt indicated vestigation. The return of Krista signature Warfield. 1999 evidenced respond. Respondent failed two respond to the major to his failure part Due in information, previously inquiry file previous requests disciplin- as a formally docketed 99-0-1172 was numbered bearing BC Docket ary complaint against Respon- posted A notice letter was 99-615-10-6. No. action, informing him of dated June dent
41 enclosing the two earlier letters as well the complaint, Respondent respond and asked to the allegations additionally of and substantive the explain respond requests his failure the two earlier Respondent given days information. The was fifteen respond. He failed to do so. 7,
By July request certified 1999 a letter dated second Respon- BC Docket No. 99-615-10-6 was forwarded to the with all copies correspondence. dent of earlier That letter requested a response days, again within ten reminded the Respondent obligations of his under Rule Pro- 8.1, delivery by fessional Conduct was reflected the 9, receipt indicating 1999, return delivery July on evidenced signature the response Krista No Warfield. was forthcoming. July
On 1999 another letter was forwarded the Respondent calling to his attention fact that the he had previously ignored four requests written for information. That letter investigator noted an was being assigned to but, nonetheless, meet with the expla- written nation expected required was still Respondent. No response forthcoming. was August
On investigator Petitioner’s attempted to contact Respondent by telephone and arrange for a meeting. Although placed the call was p.m. at 12:51 investigator was informed the had left for the day. A message was left with secretary indicating the phone needed to return call. phone September returned the call on arranged 1999 and meeting with investigator on September investigator, Petitioner’s in preparation for meeting Respondent, with having and not any the benefit of input from Respondent, obliged investigate indepen- dently Complainant. factual contention of the The investigator conducted a number of interviews with the Complainant, the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Dorchester County, attorney represented who the owner investigator further had interview
subject premises. The County Tax Dorchester Office. a member with Petitioner’s investi- Respondent ultimately met interview, and, during that gator September *6 by him forwarded to all of the letters admitted he received Respon- to his file the produce asked the Petitioner. When a file.’ ‘really did not have replied dent he 2000-187-10-6 NO. BC DOCKET PATRICIA R. TAYLOR COMPLAINANT: Respon- the Complainant 1994 the retained In or about original attorney. The against suit another dent file by prose- employed attorney had been in slip a and fall damages as a result of civil action for cute a place taken store that had grocery Market an Acme original attorney had failed 1991. The about 1990 or limita- and the statute of pursue legal matter diligently Although attorney had recovery. precluding tions ran suggested the client properly he offered a cash settlement It was in connection settling. before consult with counsel against original legal malpractice with the settlement Respondent was consulted. attorney that the 4,1999, complained the client complaint dated October By claim pursue her Respondent had failed phone refusing to return her attorney, and was original calls. Respondent was 1999 the
By dated October letter Taylor, of Ms. original complaint provided copy bearing BC had been docketed complaint informed the 2000-187-10-6, re- requested he Docket Number days complaint in her within fifteen allegations to the spond Respon- notice letter to the that letter. The of the date of Maryland obligations him his under out to pointed dent Respondent failed to 8.1. The of Professional Conduct Rule respond. 1999 the November
By letter dated certified forwarded October 15th were and the letter dated complaint requested This Respondent again. correspondence again days within ten of the date the letter reply Respondent obligations of his under reminded the 8.1. Rule of Professional Conduct The letter delivered own Respondent’s 1999 as evidenced November signature receipt. on the return The failed respond. assigned investigator to initiate the investi-
Petitioner necessary gation Respondent’s provide due to failure requested response. investigator information and at- The tempted Respondent by telephone to contact on Decem- 1999 and was told was not in his office. ber investigator message secretary request- left a with the ing his reminding return call and the secre- tary long that the had a overdue written re- sponse to complaint particular this matter. On investigator again attempted December 1999 the to con- *7 Respondent Respondent tact the and was told was ‘at the message settlement.’ Another requesting was left the Re- spondent return the call. No call return was made the 8, investigator. attempt by On December 1999 another the investigator was to contact Respondent by made the tele- phone. At that secretary investigator time the informed the Respondent the was on telephone. waiting the After period secretary time on hold investiga- the informed the Respondent tor that was telephone still the at which time investigator yet message the left another for Respondent to call him. Respondent failed to return that call. Final- ly on investigator December 1999 the made last attempt Respondent by telephone. contact was in- He formed, again, Respondent that the was on another line. waiting period After a reasonable was told by time he the secretary Respondent that the was still on phone the investigator yet message. the left another By letter dated investigator December 1999 the memorialized all of his Respondent efforts to contact the that forwarded letter to the with an instruction to provide a written response days within ten receipt that letter. That mail and was 16th was sent certified
letter of December Respon- 1999 as evidence delivered on December receipt. response No signature own on the return dent’s forthcoming. was investigator again called the December 1999 the
On meeting call A phone took the this time. Respondent, who meeting At that January arranged for had did not have the file but he Respondent stated he day on some uncertain provided it to the meeting Respondent indicated the During that earlier. $25,000 compensation Complainant had wanted receive attorney. claim for the investiga- with the During the interview complaint in the allegation him about an questioned tor Respondent contended the Com- had he received $500. that it was a free with him after 1994 but plainant first met matter. De- was for some other consultation the $500 1.15(a) to maintain financial obligation under Rule spite his completion legal of a years after the for at least five records matter, any not evidence of the Respondent did have $500, for provide nor could he documentation receipt of the matter, legal malpractice, which other than the legal During meeting this he was retained. he contended if were another ‘promised’ that there ever respond immediately. complaint he would Complainant, after up interview [with] In the follow Complain- it was meeting Respondent, -with established 31, 1999 office on December Respondent’s ant went meeting During that and obtained her file. *8 $25,000 willing pay her Complainant he was
informed the that offer. indicated she refused forget the matter. She Respondent admitted to the Com- meeting that the During attorney longer no involved was plainant that the run far as he, [the ‘let the statute Respondent, the since in that It was was concerned.’ attorney’s legal case] other would said he meeting Respondent that the 31st December up following the week. ready pick for her to the file have 4th, friend, January company Complain- in of a the On the from Respondent’s ant did obtain her file the office. Complainant, during investiga- her interview with the tor, telephone would discussions with indicated she have year’ couple period ‘a of times each between the filing complaint. 1997 and of discussion[s] her Those always highlighted by Respondent indicating that were ‘waiting misrepresen- he was for a court date.’ That was a tation, Respondent filing any had law never initiated suit. January Respondent paid 2000 the
On Com- $35,000 plainant check on that drawn his date personal account with Bank of the Eastern Shore. This of, to, knowledge was done without the or notice the Peti- It not until inquiry panel tioner. was was convened to allegations Complainant consider the inten- September tions 2001 that Peti- was Complainant tioner made aware the did not feel she give testimony complaint could about her finan- due Respondent. During cial settlement with she reached hearing, Complainant it was ascertained the did not copy a of a receive release a statement of settlement although signed she contended she a document. As a result, inquiry panel substantively ques- unable to tion the about to which com- matters she plained, and for clarification of matters about which the testimony. offered
BC DOCKET NO. 2001-23-10-6 COMPLAINANT: COLLEEN CURRAN BROMWELL
By complaint May dated 2000 Petitioner was notified Complainant’s to obtain payment efforts funds bill had with her and funeral where the met simply paid stated she would be time. The Com- plainant contended the Board of State Morticians funeral, required signed contract for the which the Re- execute, spondent importantly, refused but more she *9 outstanding had not remitted complained Respondent 11,1999. August that went back to bill for services 26, informa- May sought 2000 Petitioner By dated letter 2000-0- inquiry in file number Respondent tion from the on Respondent placed was that letter the 1337. Within determine, initially, ‘... must whether notice Petitioner com- as a formal docketed should be classified this matter not, opinion, in which is plaint [Petitioner’s] or is one to Respondent pro- was asked in nature.’ The disciplinary writing to enable allegations to response vide his Respondent The was to this decision.’ petitioner ‘make do so. days respond. to He failed to given fifteen Respondent 2000 the dated June By certified letter May 26th copy an additional of the earlier provided was He was asked original complaint. and the correspondence to have days. Delivery was evidenced respond to within ten by signature of 2000 indicated place taken on June receipt. response No R. on the return Heather Wittstadt forthcoming. was matter, previously dealt July on
Thereafter file, part major was docketed due inquiry with as an requested. provide the information Respondent’s failure 2001-23- as BC Docket Number The matter was docketed activity by of that Respondent was notified 10-6 and the provided was with a July letter dated including correspondence, all copy of earlier days within fifteen provide response his complaint, asked letter, additionally response expla- provide to the two respond had failed to why nation as to he inquiry in the file. previous requests was certi- for information sent request A written second 7, 2000, in file. August the docketed by fied mail letter dated obligation of his under again was reminded The given 8.1 and ten Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct previously all provided with days respond. He delivery original complaint. and the requests, indicated signature was verified of that certified letter evidencing delivery on receipt Krista Warfield on the return August respond. 2000. The failed allegations An inquiry panel was convened consider the and the conduct of the *10 September During hearing, by 2000. necessitated Respondent’s respond requests failure to to the numerous by disciplinary agency, for information a it was ascertained underlying of not allegation the misconduct did constitute a disciplinary matter. Court[2]
Based upon Findings the above Fact this of concludes the Respondent, in each matter as set separate below, violated the Rules Pro following Maryland forth of Conduct then in fessional effect: 99-615-10-6, In BC Docket No. where the is Mariner, H. William the Court the violat- finds Maryland ed of by Rules Professional Conduct 1.3 his diligently pursue legal failure to the which matter he under- 1.4(a)(b) took on of his failing behalf client and Rule to promptly comply requests with reasonable for information legal by a failing fully about matter client and actions, truthfully explain in accurately his more this case inaction, to permit the client to make informed decisions Further, regarding representation. the the Court concludes Maryland violated Rule of Professional 1.16(d) by effectively terminating Conduct representa- tion of failing Mr. Mariner but steps take such reasonably protect interest, his giving client’s such as his representation, client of his termination of surrender- notice entitled, papers and to which the client is ing property Mary- Court concludes the violated further the 8.1(b) by land of Professional Conduct his failure to Rule respond disciplin- to a lawful for information from a demand investigation ary authority in connection with the concludes complaint Mr. Mariner. The Court these violations, Respondent’s partici- failure to particularly acting hearing Judge Simpson as a officer for this Court under jurisdiction. our disciplinary investigation, in constitutes violations
pate 8.4(d) as conduct Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct justice. administration of prejudicial 2000-187-10-6, the Complainant In BC Docket No. where conclude, finds, R. and does Taylor, is Patricia Court Maryland Respondent violated Rules Professional diligently pursue legal his by Conduct 1.3 failure client, malpractice case of his violation Rule 1.4(a)(b) keep reasonably about failed to his client informed legal promptly status of matter and his failure to her respond requests to reasonable for information the client actions, explain appro- his or more as well as his failure to matter, inactions, permit so client priately this regarding representation. to make informed decisions finds the violated The Court further 8.1(b) by respond his Rule of Professional Conduct failure to for information in to lawful demands connection with *11 that disciplinary investigation and violated 8.4(c) by committing Maryland Rule Professional Conduct dishonesty, professional engaged misconduct when he by leading his misrepresentation deceit and client believe behalf, in fact he had he had filed a law suit her when not, delay ‘waiting and accounted for the he was because Further, Respondent’s finds the a court date.’ Court herein, particularly persis- forth and his misconduct as set [cooperate] disciplinary investigation, tent failure to with Maryland violation of Rule of Professional constitutes a 8.4(d) prejudicial as conduct administration Conduct justice. concludes that in Docket No. 2001- Finally the Court BC 28-10-6, is Curran-Brom- where Colleen well, Maryland violated Rule Professional 8.1(b) by apparently his habitual failure to assist Conduct and, disciplinary investigation by cooperate with failure, he violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) prejudicial conduct is committing justice.” [Emphasis alter- added.] [Some administration ations added.]
49
II.
of Review
Standard
jurisdiction
original
complete
This Court has
709(b);
attorney
proceedings.
Rule
disciplinary
over
Md.
16 —
Gavin,
176, 189,
v.
350 Md.
711
Attorney Grievance Comm’n
Adams,
193,
(1998);
v.
Attorney
A.2d
200
Grievance Comm’n
86, 93,
1080,
(1998); Attorney
349 Md.
706 A.2d
1083
Grievance
Glenn,
448, 470,
463,
Co
341 Md.
671 A.2d
473
mm’n
v.
(1996);
Kent,
361,
v.
337 Md.
Attorney Grievance Comm’n
371,
909,
(1995);
v.
Attorney
653 A.2d
914
Grievance Comm’n
(1992).
Powell,
276, 287,
102,
328 Md.
614 A.2d
108
“hearing
findings
court’s
of fact
prima
are
correct and
facie
they
clearly
will not be
unless
are shown to
disturbed
be
Garland,
erroneous.”
Grievance
v.
Attorney
Comm’n
345 Md.
383, 392,
(1997)
(citing
692 A.2d
469
Attorney Grievance
342, 347,
Comm’n v. Goldsborough, 330 Md.
624 A.2d
505
(1993)). Accordingly,
authority
this Court has the ultimate
lawyer
professional
decide whether a
has violated the
rules.
Garland,
469;
We further hold that Simpson’s conclusions of supported law findings. are those As to the conclusions of judge, law of a to whom assigned hearing we have duties case, attorney grievance our essentially consideration is de novo, even where judgments default orders and have been See, at hearing entered e.g., Attorney level. Grievance Shaw, (1999) 636, 646, Comm’n v. 354 Md. A.2d (“This jurisdiction has complete Court over attor *12 ney disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the ultimate deci lawyer sion as to whether a has violated [MRPC] rests (citations omitted)). with this Court.” Judge Simpson, finding respon addition to that the MRPC, provisions dent had violated various other also respondent cooperate found that had failed to with Bar Coun petitioner investigation alleged sel and in its of his violations. hold from undisputed findings Judge We these factual 50 provisions has violated the of MRPC
Simpson
respondent
8.1(b),
attorney
“knowingly
not
provides that an
must
which
from a[ ]
to a lawful demand for information
respond
fail to
disciplinary authority.”
Attorney
...
See
Grievance Comm’n
(1999)
Brown,
271, 287,
(holding that
In an 1.4, 8.1, ethical and 8.4. We held that the numerous MRPC violations, cir- attorney’s attempt mitigate despite the right to cumstances, suspension an with a warranted indefinite year. reapply one Alison, 349 709
In Comm’n v. Md. Attorney Grievance (1998), separate out of three grievance 1212 arose A.2d attorney. We determined complaints filed MRPC, 8.1, including by his attorney had numerous violated Commission, Attorney respond Grievance refusal right apply with suspension an held indefinite years proper. readmission after two David, Md. 323- v. Attorney In Grievance Comm’n (1993), attorney suspended A.2d we because, among other indefinitely practice from the law violations, of four clients was attorney’s representation addition, In he neglect and inattention. marked serious Bar to his to answer violated MRPC 8.1 due failure had in connection with the requests for information Counsel’s
51 David, grant- complaints. In we investigation of three of the attorney right apply for reinstatement after the ed the suspension had been in effect for six months. conduct, flagrant via his
Respondent has like demonstrated from Bar Coun- disregard response of and to communications sum, sel, In coupled with the various other MRPC violations. 8.1(b), respondent only not violated MRPC but also MRPC 8.4(c) (d). 1.4(a) (b), 1.3, 1.16(d), with and Consistent Alison, David, Brown, we hold indefinite Mooney, suspension appropriate remedy. to be the Suspension
III. repeatedly purpose disciplinary have that the of We stated proceedings protect is to deter future violations and to ethical public integrity profession, punish and the of this not to Hess, Attorney the individual offender. Grievance Comm’n v. 438, 453, 905, (1999); 352 Md. 722 Attorney A.2d 913 Griev- Awuah, 420, 435, 446, ance v. 346 Md. 697 A.2d 454 Comm’n (1997); Attorney Goldsborough, Grievance Comm’n v. 330 Md. (1993). public 624 A.2d 513 is “[T]he interest imposes served when this a sanction demon- Court which legal strates to of profession type members of conduct that will not Attorney be tolerated.” Grievance Comm’n v. 440, 447, (1994); Myers, 333 Md. 635 A.2d see 1318 also Breschi, 590, 601, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Md. 667 (1995). A.2d severity sanction with varies account the circumstances each case and takes into Powell, mitigating Attorney factors. Grievance Comm’n v. (1992). 276, 300, 102, 114 328 Md. 614 A.2d beginning, complaints Since the when the first of the three him, respondent consistently has failed to filed cooperate presented anything with Bar has Counsel and not mitigation any exceptions ruling. judge’s to the trial We sanction, appropriate body with determine that the line above, suspension of case law stated is an indefinite to com- thirty days filing from Opinion. mence the date this ORDERED; PAY ALL IT IS RESPONDENT SHALL COURT, TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COSTS AS TRANSCRIPTS, THE ALL INCLUDING COSTS OF PUR- 16-715(0, SUANT TO MARYLAND RULE FOR WHICH *14 IN THE SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED FAVOR OF MARY- ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF LAND D. AGAINST RICHARD HARRINGTON.
RAKER, Judge, dissenting. should be disbarred. He has violated Rules 1.4(a) 8.4(c) (d) 8.1(b), 1.3, 1.16(d), (b), (MRPC). Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct Particular- (Misconduct), ly disturbing is his violation of MRPC 8.4 which reads, pertinent in as follows: part, lawyer professional
“It is misconduct for to: (c) fraud, deceit, dishonesty, in engage involving conduct misrepresentation;
(d) engage prejudicial in conduct that is to the administra- justice.” tion of complainant Taylor,
In the related to Patricia R. matter engaged in and deceitful conduct when respondent dishonest misrepresented by stating his actions to his client that he he when, fact, “waiting for a court in he had never even date” action on her filed the cause of behalf. Brown, Attorney Grievance v. exception 353
With the
(1999),
majority
Md.
In Harrington was deceitful and dishonest. An attorney who is dishonest and practic- deceitful should not be ing law. Accordingly, respectfully I dissent.
v.
Kelly Day MARTIN. 22, Sept. Term,
No. of Appeals Maryland. Court
Dec.