*1 very Mr. and his son as “two Mughal their of characterization sleazy characters.” unwarranted character assassination wholly
This kind
and is condemned.
very
professionalism
core of
violates
was admonished once before
this Court for
Mr. Link
Link,
behavior,
v.
very
Attorney
supra,
kind of
see
Grievance
429-30,
he apparently
at
Feb. *3 (Glenn Grossman, *4 Ridgell, Bar Counsel M.
Dolores O. Asst. Counsel, Attorney Maryland), Grievance Commission of
for petitioner. Dubin, Rockville, MD, for Esq., respondent.
Herbert Alan GREENE, BELL, C.J., HARRELL, Argued before ADKINS, BARBERA, (Retired, ALAN M. WILNER (Retired, DALE R. specially assigned) CATHELL specially assigned), JJ. (Retired, specially assigned),
DALE R. J. CATHELL 17, 2011, Attorney Grievance Commission of On March Commission) (the Disciplinary filed a Petition for Maryland Ambe, Respon- Remedial Action in which it asserted Jude 5.5, 7.1, dent, Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct violated 8.1,1 following and 8.4.2’3 The Petition included the assertions: of practice
1. The was admitted to the State New York on or about 2009. now, been,
2. is not and has never a member Appeals Maryland. of the Bar of the Court of of matter, Respondent times relevant to this main- During 3. Montgomery tained an office for the of law County, Maryland. 9, 2009,[4] sent a
5.
or about November
On
on behalf of a client in a
letter
to State Farm Insurance
alleged
Although
petition
violation of
1.
the Commission’s
identified an
8.1(b)
8.1(a)
(b),
pursue
charge.
Bar Counsel did not
both
portion
quoted
hearing judge’s
2. The
of these rules are
in the
relevant
pp.
"Proposed Findings
Fact and
of Law.”
at
111-
Conclusions
Infra
22,
6. On of a client in a Insurance on behalf letter to Allstate included a misrepresen- This letter injury matter. personal practice law the was authorized Respondent tation that Maryland. State 19, 2010, sent a letter April Respondent
7. On or about personal of a client a Farm Insurance behalf State misrepresentation a This letter contained injury matter. in the practice authorized to law State Respondent that was Maryland. 6, 2010, sent a letter May Respondent 8. On or about a personal on behalf of client a State Farm Insurance misrepresentation injury matter. This letter contained law in the State practice was authorized to Respondent Maryland. matter, During Respondent 9. times relevant to this of law in engaged practice in the unauthorized matter, During Respondent times relevant to this communications about himself misleading made false and his services. and/or 23, 2010, Respondent falsely repre-
11. On or about March letterhead that to Bar Counsel that he would use sented practice Mary- not admitted to law in reflected that he was was limited to mat- land and that his ters. 3, 2010, August or was sent
12. On about letter included a lawful demand by letter Bar Counsel. This to Bar Respond for information. failed request Counsel’s for information. actually permitted an inference that he was authorized to
5. The letters by and the content of the a combination of his letterhead statement, i.e., "I am authorized to law in letters. No direct Maryland” Maryland” were ever made. "licensed 18, 2011, this “ordered ... On March Court be heard and determined charges against *6 of the hearing judge] Steven G. Salant Sixth Judge [the Maryland in accordance Rule 16-757[.]” Judicial Circuit with 15, evidentiary hearing held an Judge September Salant below, the conclusion of the proceedings Judge 2011. After of fact and conclu- following findings proposed Salant filed sions of law:
Background Ambe, a LLM Respondent, degree The Jude received of Re- University from the American School Law 2008. Exam in eligible Maryland was not to take the Bar spondent Instead, not a degree. 2009 because he does have JD Exam, Bar and Respondent passed, took the New York in the of York in practice February admitted to State New not, been, and has never a member of Respondent is Appeals Maryland. the Bar of the Court of of Bar, Respondent his admission to the New York Since Avenue, Georgia has maintained a law office at 8121 Silver Spring, Montgomery County, Maryland. According to Re- solely practice the office is maintained for the spondent, immigration Respondent law. does not maintain a law jurisdiction. Respondent’s office in New York or other firm. occasionally part wife as practices She, like is admitted to the New York Bar and Respondent, immigration lawyers practice law. No other as practices part Respondent of his firm. Prior to March used letterhead for his which read: ASSOCIATES(AT- THE AMBE & LAW OFFICES OF COUNSELORS-AT-LAW) 8121 GEOR- TORNEY’S & AVENUE, SPRING, GIA MD SUITE SILVER 20910 TEL: 301-326-2723 FAX: 301-326-2739 complaint, separate Bar Counsel received a from the matter, present against Respondent December 2009. response request response, to Bar Counsel’s for written comprehensive sent a letter to Bar Counsel January dated 2010. The addressing complaint, writ- letterhead and was on Respondent’s was not response format. type ten a memorandum Counsel wrote February On are not you that: “since and, things, stated among other only limited Bar, if is your practice Maryland of the member any signs your letterhead matters then immigration Bar, of the New York are a member you indicate that must Mary- of the are not a member you state that specifically to federal Bar, only limited your practice is land you it be that are may matters. Therefore out as able to holding yourself therefore, restrictions, necessary it be may without in the unautho- engaged have been you whether investigate law, Bar Counsel injunction.” an and seek rized further. respond also asked *7 2010, to Bar Coun- 3, wrote back On March sel, correspon- his in the form of a memorandum. again that he was aware assured Bar Counsel dence and that his of the restrictions on his response, Like his earlier limited to matters. was not on letter- correspondence March 3rd Respondent’s head. 11, 2010, copy requested March Bar Counsel
On sending a Respondent complied, letterhead. Respondent’s letterhead, Bar received on his which Counsel copy of 16, letterhead read: March 2010. second (AT- THE OFFICES OF AMBE & ASSOCIATES LAW COUNSELORS-AT-LAW) TORNEY’S & —ADMITTED (PRACTICE THE STATE IN YORK. OUTSIDE NEW YORK LIMITED TO IMMIGRATION OF NEW IS ONLY). AVENUE, SUITE MATTERS 8121 GEORGIA SPRING, 20910 TEL: 301-326-2723 MD SILVER FAX: 301-326-2739 18, 2010, Bar wrote to
On March Counsel “specifically letterhead must indicating respondent’s ” Again, Respondent com- Maryland.’ state ‘not admitted letterhead, which sending updated an version of plied, on 2010. The third letter- Bar Counsel received March head text “not admitted in Maryland” per added the Bar Counsel’s Bar request. original Counsel closed com- plaint against Respondent May In June State Farm Insurance Bar contacted Coun- sel the Respondent provided copies about of a number of documents received from and sent to Respondent. These documents related to claims received Farm from State three claimants identified as: Ngwese, Susan Celestine (also Ngwa, and Brigitte Nsanguet Brigitte referred to as Edimo). Farm correspondence State had received on the original & Ambe Associates letterhead sent furtherance Later, of claims for these individuals. Counsel received documents from Allstate Insurance pertaining to another (also claimant, Daisy Epie Dessy-Liza referred to as Epie). These documents included a letter of representation on the original Ambe Associates letterhead on behalf of Daisy & Epie.
Nsangueti/Edimo Farm
State received letter dated November 2009 on original Ambe & Associates letterhead concerning Brigitte Nsanguet “client” that an initial requesting Respondent. settlement offer be sent The letter informed Farm that State the client had treat- completed ment in connection with her claim and that of all copies bills, notes, medical treatment wage lost verification being were submitted so that the claim could be evaluated. original This letter was written on Respondent’s letterhead that did not include language disclosing the restrictions on *8 trial, Respondent’s practice. During Respondent acknowl- edged that he knew this letter was sent and authorized his non-lawyer assistant to send the letter. $3,222.22
State Farm issued a check for “Bri- payable to Ambe, gitte attorney” N. Edimo & Jude her dated January 25, 2010. office address on the appeared check and he Respondent acknowledged that received the check, check, Nsanguet/Edimo endorsed the that Respondent deposited he then endorsed the check. the account, check to either his or personal operating kept Nsanguet/Edimo. remainder $1,000 and returned $1,000 trial, indicated that During the and the client’s the client representing him for owed to and that the client owed matter family an payment. after that money him more even Ngwa Ngwese and 19, 2010 April letter dated Farm received demand
State concerning & Associates letterhead original on the Ambe thereafter, Farm State Ngwese. Shortly injuries Susan 6, original 2010 on the May a demand letter dated received injuries concerning letterhead to Celes- Ambe & Associates dated Farm received two letters Ngwa. Finally, tin State letterhead original Ambe & Associates June 2010 on the longer represented & Associates no indicating that Ambe None of the letters sent Ngwese Ngwa. or Celestin Susan letterhead contained Farm on Ambe & Associates State limitations, stating “admitted language noting practice York,” Maryland.” stating “not admitted New Epie letter dated De-
Allstate Insurance received a demand Ambe & Associates letter- original cember 2009 on letter con- Daisy Epie. “our client” The concerning head are counsels” for the [Respondent’s firmed that “we firm] that, indicated if further information was claimant and should be contacted. undersigned, Respondent, desired the acknowledged later that it was his intent to act minor, for who was a for legal representative Epie, as Ms. adjuster. communicating with insurance purposes Later, received two letters dated June separate Allstate Ambe Associates letterhead indicat- original 2010 on the & longer represented Epie. & Associates no
ing Ambe num- trial detailed a produced Evidence at Bar Counsel All- Respondent phone ber of conversations between An indicated: April entry representatives. state @ Atty requesting Ambe 240-498-0285—still “Spoke is not in office info on this claim. He profile injury until (today, said he is out of town and won’t be back he An entry He that I then.” for Wednesday.) next asked e/b *9 April briefly 2010 stated: “Spoke Atty Ambe who promised today later in a meeting c/b —he unable to me give profile/injury info and treatment status ” 18, 2010, for claim.... May this On Allstate “called and 240-498-0285, spoke atty to Jude he said his assis- office— tant at handling file is John 240-604-6547.” Investigation and Trial 27, 2010, Fletcher, July
On met Respondent Sterling with an for Bar investigator meeting place Counsel. The took at Georgia office on Avenue Spring. Silver During meeting, sign Fletcher observed a for Respon- dent’s law firm that did not disclose that Respondent was not admitted to practice Maryland prac- that his and/or tice to immigration was limited matters. testi- Respondent Fletcher, at trial meeting fied that at the time of the with he requested building manager change sign. had Fur- ther, Respondent sign indicated that the had been removed time waiting updated of the trial and he was for an sign that disclosed the limitations on his practice. meeting, told Fletcher that he Respondent knew legally practice only he was able to immigration law Maryland. Respondent also told Fletcher that he had that, handled personal injury cases but at the time he did so, he did not know he could not with the negotiate insur- for company ance clients.
informed that he Fletcher learned he was mistaken about this when he received a letter from Bar Counsel March trial,
At testified he believed he could non-lawyers concerning communicate with motor vehicle tort claims for who To already individuals were clients. this end, testified that he authorized his non-lawyer assistant, Epie, John to send letters to State Farm and Brigitte Nsanguet/Edimo Daisy Allstate on behalf of Epie, that he respectively. Respondent further testified Epie ordered John to withdraw Ambe & Associates from when he that he could not communi- representation learned non-lawyers concerning cate with motor vehicle tort claims. During meeting, Respondent copies Fletcher showed *10 original Farm on the Ambe & of the letters sent State trial, that Associates letterhead. At Fletcher testified Re- “yes” answered when he was asked whether his spondent contrast, In signature Respondent was each letter. during meeting simply acknowledged testified that the he it was his on each of the but was not that name letters admitting signature. it was his Fletcher also testified that meeting, representing the during Respondent acknowledged Daisy Epie regard Finally, with to an auto accident case. during Fletcher that the stat- meeting, Respondent testified prior assump- ed that he did not know Kevin Tabe to Tabe’s Ngwa Ngwese tion of the and matters. trial, in
During July meeting Fletcher noted that his with Respondent, did not Respondent deny representing Ngwa Fletcher, Ngwese. According or Respondent did not mention non-lawyer that his assistant John Epie sent authorization; fact, letters without Fletcher indicated Respondent did not mention that he received assistance from Epie. Respondent, testimony, John stated that represent Ngwa Ngwese he did not and instead, the by Epie, part-time letters were sent John assistant, without Respondent’s authorization. Epie
John testified at trial that he for Respon- worked dent on a through case case basis from March 2009 September Respondent’s 2010. His services to firm includ- providing country ed research on conditions for cases. He also communicated with Allstate and State Farm Insurance on behalf of the Respondent’s clients with auto accident According Epie, experience claims. he had working auto accident cases from for lawyers. other Testimony Respondent from both the and Epie indicated that Respondent engaged Epie’s services be- specifically Epie’s cause of past experience handling insurance claims trial, from arising car accidents with firm. At Epie another confirmed that he worked on Brigitte Nsangue/Edimo Daisy Epie and Respondent. at the direction of the [claims] contrast, Epie testified that he and Ngwese Ngwa knew and, when he community immigrant from the Cameroon accidents, he wrote to they had been auto learned that letterhead. Respondent’s on their behalf on State Farm doing he told he was not sure that Epie he it was not clear that obtained this and clients and Farm authorization to tell the State express Ngwese firm represented Ambe & Associates Ngwa. Respon- testified that the Epie
Both the Instead, Respon- letterhead. not have preprinted dent did template generate a computer-based relied on dent Epie used correspondence. for his firm’s letterhead used Epie’s for work done for computer his own letterhead Ambe & Associates [original had the computer *11 testified that 'Respondent Epie on it. and stored template] Respondent, contacted the after Bar Counsel some time template to change to the letterhead Epie told Respondent Both version, by Bar Counsel. approved third the one had failed to Epie testified that Epie and Respondent not computer. Epie on his did the letterhead stored update to do so. explain why he failed Bar, that Tabe, testified a member of the Kevin Epie May/June and to Respondent prior he knew both Respon- known the Tabe testified that he had Specifically, went on met at a law firm. Tabe they since 2008 when dent Respon- with the played he soccer testify that since Tabe, was May or June he According to dent. repre- to take over the Epie and asked by contacted John time, contact- At that Tabe Ngwa Ngwese. of and sentation Tabe they agreed representation. ed the clients 9, 2010, Tabe the files. On June provided was then with Farm. He received to State representation sent letters attor- informed that another from Farm and was call State spoke Respondent Tabe then already was record. ney Ngwa in the appearances him to withdraw his and asked Respon- to do so. Respondent agreed cases. Ngwese Farm that had sent letters State Epie also told Tabe dent knowledge. Ngwese without Ngwa on behalf of Conclusions of Law .....This Court finds that Respondent violated Maryland 5.5, 7.1, Rules Professional conduct and 8.4. This Court also finds that Bar Counsel failed to show clear and convincing evidence that violated Rule 8.1....
It undisputed not, is is and has never been, Bar, a member of Maryland to practice licensed state tort law in the State of There is no dispute that Respondent responsible for the four personal injury claims that he initiated either by through himself or his agent, Epie. parties John Both agree that John Epie sent demand letters to State Farm on behalf of clients Susan Ngwese Ngwa and Celestin on Ambe & Associates letterhead, working while as an assistant to the Respondent. Moreover, dispute there is no himself engaged in negotiations settlement and reached a settle- ment agreement with State Farm regarding Brigitte Nsan- gue/Edimo. Finally, it is undisputed that the Respondent repeated himself had contacts with Allstate on behalf of Daisy Epie. 5.5
MRPC provides Rule 5.5 part] [in relevant that: (a) A lawyer shall not practice law in jurisdiction violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist in doing another so.
(b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice jurisdic- in this tion shall not:
(2) hold out to public the or represent otherwise that the lawyer is practice admitted to in jurisdiction. law this
There is convincing clear and evidence that the Respon- 5.5(a) dent violated Rule representing Mary- clients in land state tort law cases while not to practice licensed law in Maryland. Maryland’s Business, Occupations, & Profes- Article, §§ sions 10-101 and 10-206 enunciate the scope of in Respondent’s practice law Sec- authority 10-206(a)(l) may that “before an individual tion establishes State, shall ... be admit- law in the the individual practice Bar.” 10-206 enumerates number ted to the Section applica- this but none of them are exceptions requirement 10-101(h)(2) following defines the ble this case. Section in the or “preparing helping acts as law”: “practicing court that is filed in a form or document preparation court; be in a or may giving a case that is or filed affects filed in court.” may that is or be advice about case actions the undisputed Respondent’s It is that constituted and, there is consequently, § 10-206 practice of law under Respondent that violated convincing clear evidence the 5.5(a). drafted, or Respondent Rule had draft- Specifically, name, seeking to cases ed his demand letters settle under four state tort claims that could be separate from arising Also, Daisy Epie advice to Respondent gave filed in court. tort Nsanguet/Edimo about state claims Brigitte the in a court. Those acts constitute may Maryland filed be § thus pursuant law 10-101 and practice of 10-206(a)(l) § he not admitted to violated because was those prior engaging Bar of actions. Maryland that he not know action contention did such analysis affect practice of law does not constituted the rule. Under as to violated whether “[cjlaimed law, ... is of ethical duties Maryland ignorance proceedings.” Attorney Griev- not a disciplinary defense Awuah, [, ance 697 A.2d Commission Md. (1997). law, Respondent was Maryland Based 454] practice limitations on law expected to know the his Mary- immigration he could federal fact that law. mean he could state tort land not did Moreover, that his prac- after was informed federal tice in had to be limited to Mary- one of to work on at least matters he continued presented cases. records Specifically, phone land tort law Respondent that well after by Bar Counsel indicate in Maryland, scope of the limited informed *13 in Respondent engaged a number of conversations with Daisy Allstate on Epie. February behalf On explicitly Counsel warned his Respondent practice that limited to immigration must be federal matters. Respondent On March informed Bar Counsel that he was aware of practice. Despite the limitations on his Re- assurances, spondent’s engage he continued practicing law, state tort as Allstate’s records three show communica- tions with Respondent regarding Daisy Epie’s account after March 2010. This undermines claim that he simply was unaware on limitations on Respondent actively and instead shows that ignor- ing of those limitations.
There is convincing also clear and that Respon- evidence 5.5(b)(2) dent by clearly violated Rule failing to indicate on his business cards that he was not to practice licensed Maryland. Bar Counsel’s first interaction with the Respon- dent was an concerning extensive back-and-forth what spe- cific language had to provide his “letter- head and any signs.” Despite Bar thorough Counsel’s review approval and eventual of specific language that the use, trial, as must of the still not in compliance with Bar request. Specifi- Counsel’s cally, at trial Respondent introduced a of his copy business card which did not contain the required language “not admitted in Maryland” and a showing statement that Re- spondent’s practice outside of New York was limited to reasons, matters. For all these this Court finds clear and convincing evidence the Respondent violated Rule by engaging 5.5 the unauthorized of law holding out to public he was authorized law in
MRPC 7.1 Rule 7.1 provides: lawyer
A shall not make a or misleading false communica- tion about the lawyer lawyer’s A services. communi- cation is misleading false or if it: *14 law,
(a) of fact or or misrepresentation contains a material as make the statement considered necessary a fact to omits materially misleading; not a whole (b) unjustified expectation about re- to create an likely is achieve, or or that the implies the can states lawyer sults the Mary- that violate by can achieve results means lawyer or other of Professional Conduct Lawyers’ land Rules law.... convincing
There clear and evidence is in misleading communications violation made false (b) 7.1(a) to failing disclose the limitations on by Rule attorneys requires prac- Rule 7.1 out-of-state practice. his attorney’s to Maryland law in disclose that the ticing federal that the attor- limited to the federal matter and is practice See in Maryland. practice is not authorized to ney Harris-Smith, v. Attorney Commission 356 Md. Grievance (1999) [, a of Rule (finding A.2d violation 575] 86 737 Maryland a address and gives where a business card 7.1 lawyer not not clients the is prospective does advise Maryland); Attorney Grievance in practice admitted Brown, [, A.2d 725 Commission (1999) an that failure to state that out-of- (holding ] on is not licensed to attorney state of Rule clients could be a violation 7.1 because letterhead is the receiving are from out- they representation misled that attorney). of-state above, introduced into at trial
As discussed that he was at using a of the business card copy evidence not language time trial that did contain of the of the on his as under showing required limitations fails set 7.1. business card the standard Respondent’s Rule forth in Harris-Smith because his clients not know would that he is not admitted to from business card Moreover, testimony at trial showed that even Counsel, discussions with after extensive Respondent’s agent, Epie, correspon- or his John sent either comply Farm letterhead that did not with on dence State satisfy 7.1. This requirements of Rule fails requirements from Brown because clients could have been by misled all language Respondent’s letterhead. For reasons, convincing these the Court finds clear and evidence that the business card and letterhead violated Rule 7.1.
MRPC 8.1 provides 8.1 in part: Rule applicant
An bar, for admission or reinstatement or lawyer connection with a application bar admission matter, connection with a disciplinary shall not: (a) knowingly make false statement material fact....
There is not clear and convincing evidence that Re- the 8.1(a) spondent Rule through violated his via interactions mailed correspondence with Bar Counsel because he did not knowingly make false of statements material fact. In his 3, March 2010 response letter Bar Counsel in an inquiry arising from a disciplinary complaint, Respondent Bar assured Counsel that he was aware of the on limitations his practice and that his to immigration was limited matters. attorney’s inexperience Where an or carelessness leads false representations, representations those false per not knowing are se or intentional. See Attorney Griev- Ward, 1, [, ance v. Commission 27 904 A.2d (2006). 492]
Respondent’s main throughout contention the trial was that he was not aware that his interactions with State Farm and Allstate constituted the practice of law. Bar Counsel presented no evidence to indicate that Respondent when Counsel, corresponded Bar Respondent with that the knew law, that his actions constituted present- the and ed no Respondent evidence that knew that he could not negotiate with Farm State or Allstate on representatives behalf of prior clients his interactions with Bar Counsel. Thus, even assuming arguendo that Respondent made false Counsel, statements of fact in material his letters to Bar presented evidence that convincing was no clear and there false of material fact. made those statements knowingly he Moreover, convincing is clear and evidence there not a of a knowingly made false statement material Respondent disciplinary investigation through with a fact connection Fletcher. There is clear and interactions with Mr. his a knowingly the made convincing Respondent evidence that with during meeting Fletch- Specifically, false statement Kevin Tabe er, that he did not know Respondent claimed cases. How- Ngwa Ngwese Tabe over the took before ever, proven was false when Tabe testified this assertion Respondent’s Respondent the that he knew both the May the and June 2010 incidents assistant before legal he known testified that had the occurred. Tabe and, fact, played together. the two soccer since However, convincing is clear and evidence there not fact Tabe is material relationship with Kevin is fact resolution of which will “A material fact Bankerd, King case.” the outcome somehow affect (1985). Bar A.2d Counsel [492 614] Md. knew that whether presented no evidence taking Ngwese Ngwa to Tabe’s over prior Tabe outcome of Counsel’s would have effect cases engaged into whether the investigation Moreover, Bar Counsel unauthorized law. *16 made a that the fact that presented no evidence with Tabe affected relationship about his false statement no Consequently, there is evidence investigation. their relationship a with finding that support reasons, the a For all these Court was material fact. Tabe convincing clear and evidence finds that there was not 8.1(a). Rule violated MRPC 8.4 According Rule 8.4: for lawyer misconduct to: professional
It is (a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Lawyers’ Conduct, Rules of Professional knowingly assist or induce so, another to do through another; or do so the acts of (b) commit a criminal act that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness lawyer as respects; other
(c) engage fraud, conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct prejudicial that is to the administra- tion of justice ... 8.4(b)
MRPC There is clear and convincing evidence that the Respon- 8.4(b) dent violated Rule by committing a criminal act that adversely reflects honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness because, a lawyer as above, as discussed there is clear and convincing evidence that Business, violated Occupations, 206(a)(1). §§ Professions Also, Article 10— there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Business, violated Occupations, and Professions Article 10-601(a). § 10-601(a) Section provides that “[ejxcept as provided law, otherwise a person not may practice, attempt to practice, or offer law the State unless admitted to the Bar.” above,
As discussed Respondent practiced in Mary- law land being without admitted to Maryland Bar in viola- 10-206(a)(l) 10-601(a) §§ tion of by representing and advocating on behalf of Daisy Epie Brigitte Nsan- gue/Edimo in connection with Maryland state tort claims. The Court of Appeals recognized has (a) unauthorized § of law in violation of 10-601 is a 8.4(b). violation See, of Rule e.g., Attorney Grievance Com- Shryock, mission v. [, 122-23 968 A.2d (2009) 603] (“[D]ishonesty and law, unfitness to practice both, are reflected in [Respondent’s] knowledge that he was not to practice authorized law and that there was no basis in fact or law for him to have believed that he was authorized
118 did.”); he Commission Attorney act as Grievance
to (2004) [, 422, 426] 380 Md. 846 A.2d Velasquez, (“Because ... that conduct practice unauthorized is crime reflecting as commission of crime on doubled and, it is considered practice to when respondent’s fitness licensure, his of it failed to disclose lack respondent that the fraud, misrepresen- deceit or involving constituted conduct tation.”). above,
Also, of the Rules ignorance as discussed not excuse violations of those of Professional Conduct does limita- to know the ethical Respondent expected Rules. expected his and he was to practice on the scope tions state tort law if he was not practice that he could not know [Attorney practice Maryland. to See Griev- licensed [, Awuah, [420,] 435 697 A.2d ance Commission v.] (1997) reasons, by all the Court finds For these ]. the Respondent and evidence that violated convincing clear 8.4(b) advocating on behalf by representing Rule law in being without licensed clients 8.4(c) MRPC ____[T]here convincing evidence after is clear actions constitut- Respondent his Counsel informed law, continued to work ed claim and the Epie’s Respon- Allstate regarding Daisy with dent, to State Farm Allstate or his sent letters agent, Also, practice. not the limitations his that did disclose truthfully Mr. Fletcher’s respond did not regard Respondent’s rela- investigation, particularly with constituted “con- tionship with Kevin Tabe. These actions fraud, deceit, misrepresenta- dishonesty, involving duct 8.4(c) knowingly Rule in violation of MRPC because tion” constituted the limitations on failing to disclose Similarly, and misrepresentation. deceit regard- Fletcher’s knowingly response questioning false For all these dishonesty and fraud. Tabe constituted ing reasons, convincing finds clear and evidence the Court 8.4(c) his communi- MRPC via that the violated *18 3, cations with State Farm and Allstate after March 2010 and his with interactions Fletcher. 8.4(d)
MRPC There is convincing clear and evidence the Respon- engaged dent in conduct prejudicial that is to the adminis- justice. tration of Conduct that adversely “reflects] trustworthiness, [Respondent’s] honesty, and fitness as a lawyer ... prejudicial conduct [is] the administration of justice.” Potter, Attorney Grievance Commission v. 380 (2004). 128, [, 367, Md. 844 A.2d Specifically, 381] “dishonest, deceitful, conduct an by attorney that is and 8.4(d). criminal” violates Rule Attorney Grievance Com- 505, [, mission v. Kapoor, 391 Md. 894 A.2d 518] (2006). Likewise, “to promptly, completely failure and truthfully respond to Bar Counsel’s requests for informa- 8.4(d). tion” constitutes violation of Rule Attorney Griev- Rose, [, ance Commission v. 111 892 A.2d (2006). case, 475] this there is and convincing clear evidence that the Respondent’s behavior was dishonest and deceitful he representatives because misled of State Farm and by failing Allstate to indicate the limitations on his law practice. Even after Bar Counsel told the Respondent he had to clearly indicate the limitations on his and he could not in Maryland, state tort law the Respon- dent interacted with regarding Daisy Allstate claim Epie’s sent, send, and or had his agent correspondence on his original Also, letterhead to State Farm.
conduct was criminal because he engaged the unautho- law, rized pursuant misdemeanor Maryland’s Business, §§ Occupations, & Professions Article 10-206 and Finally, Respondent 10-601. “completely failed to truthfully respond requests Bar Counsel’s for informa- tion” when he told Fletcher that he did not know Kevin May/June reasons, Tabe before 2010. For all these Court finds clear and convincing evidence that the Re- 8.4(d) spondent violated Rule by engaging conduct that is prejudicial justice. to the administration of 8.4(a)
MRPC Respon- that the convincing evidence is clear and There 8.4(a) and convinc- is clear because there Rule dent violated 8.4(b), 7.1, 8.1, 5.5, Rules he violated ing evidence (d). finds a viola- generally (c), Appeals The Court of multi- 8.4(a) has violated when tion of Rule Attorney See of Professional Conduct. other Rules ple [, 673, 710-11 Gallagher, 371 Md. Commission Grievance (“As (2002) respon- have held that we 1018] 810 A.2d Conduct, he Rules of Professional violated several dent has *19 well.”). case, 8.4(a) In this as violated MRPC necessarily that convincing and evidence found clear this Court has Con- Rules of Professional violated several has Respondent that to conclude appropriate it is consequently, and duct violated that he has convincing evidence clear and there is reasons, clear 8.4(a). by the Court finds all these For Rule Rule violated Respondent that convincing evidence within the 8.4(a) of other rules a number by violating of Professional Conduct. Maryland Rules
Conclusion October, 2011, found Wherefore, day of it is this 26th for the reasons Montgomery County, for the Circuit Court Ambe, has Jude herein, Respondent, that set forth of Professional Con- Maryland Rules following violated Moreover, that the 7.1, it is found 5.5, and 8.4. Rules duct: Rule of Professional Maryland violated has not Respondent Conduct 8.1. Fact and Findings “Exceptions in his Respondent,
The findings: Salant’s exception Judge of Law” took Conclusions (a) testimony the uncontroverted find that 1. Failure to that Epie is former assistant John and his Respondent from personal four any any fee from received neither of them (b) testimony from Kevin claims, the uncontroverted injury Bar, that neither of the Tabe, a member Esquire, requested Epie assistant John nor his former Respondent merit, lien, personal for the two fee, quantum any payment, them, paid from and he them he received injury cases (c) neither testimony that the uncontroverted nothing, and Epie, John alone nor his former assistant Respondent any injury claim any personal handled other together, manner. of Fact Findings to the exception takes Respondent
2. Epie’s specifi- “... services Respondent engaged .... that insurance past experience handling cally Epie’s because firm.” accidents with another arising claims from car of Fact exception Findings to the Respondent 3. takes Tabe, with Kevin relating Respondent’s relationship .... that did not Respondent that fail to make it clear Esquire Tabe, who took over attorney was the Esquire know Kevin con- Although Respondent cases. Ngwa Ngwese Tabe, testimony ... that he did Esquire’s that Kevin tends Ngwa attorney representing that other not know confirming Respondent could as Ngwese be viewed Tabe, Esquire attorney was the did not know that Kevin Tabe, Esquire Kevin who took over those until case[s] with- request telephoned cases, finding from those a clear could appearance draw his argument misrep- for the that such a have avoided the need resentation of fact was not material. Findings of Fact exception takes that [the] *20 had letters to Farm on Epie
fail to find that John sent State knowl- Ngwa Ngwsese Respondent’s behalf of and without Respondent investiga- was interviewed edge before tor, Sterling Mr. Fletcher. Findings to the of Fact that Respondent exception
5. takes (a) advertise, out, attempt did not seek Respondent out, legal branch or in other manner solicit work other any (b) matters, Respondent did not immigration than personally personal injury handle cases. failure to find that: Respondent exception
6. takes for the (a) admits to injury Respondent claims personal two im- Nsanguet/Edimo, existing were for handling, Epie requested assistance for minor migration clients who by correspondence non-lawyer with insurance auto accidents (b) if Epie Respon- John was not company employees, employ paralegal experience per- dent’s contract with with cases, would not have taken those injury Respondent sonal two cases.
Exceptions of Law Conclusions Respondent Exception 7. takes to the Conclusions Law Maryland Rules of Professional Respondent that violated 5.5, 7.1, Conduct and 8.4. of Law Respondent takes[exception]
8. the Conclusions 5.5(a) by Rule clients Respondent representing that violated state tort law cases while not licensed to law in Respondent Exception 9. takes to the Conclusions of Law “Respondent’s that it is that actions constituted undisputed drafted, ... (s)pecifically Respondent of law name demand letters seeking had drafted under his settle state tort that arising separate cases from four claims could ... ...” gave Daisy Epie be filed court advice to Respondent exception 10. takes to the conclusions of law actively ignored that the limitations on his Respondent practice of law. exception
11. to the conclusion of takes card did not contain of the business the limitations on his as language showing required under Rule 7.1. exception takes to the Conclusions of law 8.4(b) by committing violated Rule a crimi- adversely honesty,
nal act that reflects on his trustworthi- ness, lawyer. or fitness as a
Discussion I.
In Attorney
Ugwuonye,
Grievance Comm’n v.
(2008),
123 “[Original complete jurisdiction attorney over discipline v. proceedings” Attorney Grievance Comm’n Adams, 86, 93, (1998). 1080, 349 Md. 706 A.2d 1083 Even record, though conducting independent an review of the we accept hearing judge’s findings of fact unless are they clearly found to be erroneous. Attorney Grievance Comm’n Zdravkovich, 110, 126, (2003). 418, v. 375 Md. 825 A.2d 427 This Court gives deference to the hearing judge’s assess- ment of credibility of witnesses. Id. findings by Factual hearing judge [that the Commission has satisfied its burden of persuasion] will not be if they interfered with are founded clear and convincing Attorney evidence. Griev- 373, Monfried, 92, ance Comm’n v. 368 Md. 794 A.2d (2002). All proposed by conclusions law made however, hearing judge, subject are to de novo review O’Toole, this Court. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 595, 604, (2004). Md. 843 A.2d added). Id. at 952 A.2d at (emphasis 235-36
II. Exceptions A. Findings of Fact As Petitioner
124 had not Respondent that the judge’s finding hearing to the 8.4, this Court stated: MRPC violated witnesses, hearing of the credibility of the In its assessment or none of reject all, part, accept entitled to judge was — —or witness, that was including testimony of testimony the other witness.... by any not contradicted inferences in about the use of mysterious nothing There is com- routinely their apply Jurors fact-finding process. the experiences accumulated sense, logic, of and powers mon sets of facts. from demonstrated life to arrive at conclusions 318, 395, State, 399 554 A.2d v. 315 Md. Robinson (1989). very thing. the same Hearing judges do clearly not or finding hearing judge’s [is]
[A] erroneous — find did not hearing judge] because merely [the otherwise — inferences “permissible one or more it to draw appropriate by the evidence another drawn from might which have been Comm’n Mont- Opportunities Hous. trier of the facts.” 56, 61, 222 Md. 585 A.2d Lacey, v. 322 gomery County (1991). also, 678-79, Attorney at See Grievance 967 A.2d
Id. at (2010) 185, 205, Palmer, 9 A.3d Commission of the (“While review independent conducts an this Court fact below, judge’s findings of hearing developed record erroneous”). clearly are they unless accepted -willbe generally find failure to Judge Salant’s exception took Respondent or his Respondent received was compensation that no injury four handling personal as a result of assistant (1) However, established clearly the evidence claims. Farm on check from State a settlement received $3,222.22 on behalf in the amount January (2) Respondent deposit- Brigitte Nsanguet/Edimo, N. account, kept personal operating to either his ed the check Fur- Nsanguet/Edimo. remainder to $1,000, returned the that the thermore, indicated hearing, during $1,000 Nsanguet/Edimo him representing owed to for was $1,000 matter. Whether the in an family her compensation received as for an handling immigration claim or tort, a motor the evidence support did not that the finding Respondent received “no compensation”. exception finding took to the that Respondent
engaged Epie’s specifically services of Epie’s past because firm experience handling with another insurance claims aris- However, from car ing accidents. during deposition, Respondent testified as follows:
Q Well, [by gave, if who if you anyone, gave Counsel]: legal clients advice with regard to their tort claim? *23 Well, A [by Respondent]: in Nsanguet] case it would [the have myself been and ... Epie because like Mr. had more experience that field than I had because he had worked with Mr. Kume who is a Maryland attorney and does lot of PI cases, Injury] [Personal ... so that’s I him why asked to be the adjusters one to write to the and tell them whatever we could tell them Nsanguet on behalf of Ms. experience because he has ... that field Walter, Consistent with supra, Judge Salant was entitled to infer from testimony this that Respondent engaged John services, Epie’s in whole or in of part, Epie’s past because experience handling insurance claims.
Respondent exception took to Judge Salant’s failure to “make it Tabe, clear that Respondent did not know Kevin Esquire was the attorney [who] who took over the Ngwa and However, Ngwese cases”. at hearing, Mr. Tabe testified as follows:
Q: ... Did there come a time when Mr. Ambe contacted you about representing some of his clients?
A: Yes.
Q: All right. Explain for the Court how that came about. year. A. Last I agot call from another guy by the name Epie. John He informed me some personal injury cases, if and he asked I was interested handling those was, I I yes, cases. said then he informed me that office, from which would have been coming cases were their I the files to Epie bring Mr. office. So had Mr. John Jude’s me, correctly. if I remember my I I tried to got And once the files office [The Witness] The on the cases. insurance com- representation enter my not, that I Mr. Ambe was pany informed me could as Jude him to So I to call withdraw his already on the record. had how I into a with him got That’s conversation appearance. his appear- on the he sent a letter withdraw case. When ance, on I continued those cases. than exception this is overruled. Accordingly, to find exception Judge took Salant’s failure had sent to State Farm on behalf Epie that John letters knowledge be- Ngwa Ngwese without the Fletch- Investigator fore was interviewed letters, at “demand” one dated er. The letters issue are two Ngwese, of client and the April 2010 written behalf Ngwa. on behalf of client It is May other dated written met sent before undisputed that both letters were letters, Fletcher. Both entered into evi- with investigator following: at stated the hearing, dence *24 “THE OF AMBE & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES Counselors-At-Law) (Attorneys & Suite Georgia Avenue 340 Silver MD Spring,
Tel: 301-326-2723
Fax 301-326-2739
Dear.... has treatment completed [the Please be advised client] referenced claim. To enable connection with above injuries, claim are herein you bodily evaluate her for we [to] review, of all medical submitting your copies for bills/treat- wage lost verificiation.... ment notes and Please review the above information and inform of your us however, initial you, settlement offer. Should desire further concerning information foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact us at our earliest convenience.
Sincerely, /s/ Ambe, Jude Esq.” Both letters contained signature. On that basis, Judge Salant was entitled to draw the inference that Respondent did in fact have knowledge that the letters had been reject sent to State Farm and assertions contrary. to the argues also that Judge Salant failed to find that (Respondent) he did not personally personal handle the injury However, cases. specifically testified as fol- lows:
Q: you Did give Brigitte legal Edimo advice about her accident claim? case,
A: did, this I yes, I because would talk about her accident claim. Yes.
Q: All right. Daisy minor, And Epie was a correct? A: Correct.
Q: you Did discuss with parents her her auto accident claim. Yes,
A: I did. Q: you And did tell them you whether or not thought she had right to be compensated for damages, her her finan- cial damages?
A: We discussed the whole case based on whatever infor- they give mation us.
Q: All right. And the you got settlement that for Brigitte Edimo, did you negotiate with adjuster insurance amount of that settlement?
A: Yeah. They for, earlier think, 2,000 offered to settle I that, something like and based on her time off from work *25 that she else, missed and everything argued we and they her, give I can’t remember what the actual fee was but 30 128 dollars, 3,400, some- maybe 35 hundred about
something 3,000 that, 3,000, I dollars. plus about don’t know thing like least three of the Respondent discussed at that Given negotiated injury claims with “clients” personal other, there is little a client one settlement on behalf of handle personally [the] he “did not merit to his assertion that cases”. personal injury that Salant should have
Finally, argues Judge (1) two claims he admitted personal injury found that the (2) clients, immigration existing for handling to were it for those eases had not been he have never taken would cases. injury with Epie’s experience personal paralegal John exceptions. of these The bottom There is no merit either any law never allowed to line is that other claims of than or settle claim the State Mary- Court for the District of in the United States District Thus, injury brought claim was personal land. whether as existing client as well an on) (or not taking taking for reasons Respondent’s respect directly case are not relevant injury personal judges findings exceptions hearing Respondent’s conclusions, to some although may it be entitled consideration respect to this Court’s sanction. reasons, exceptions to the these
For all of findings of fact are overruled. hearing judge’s Exceptions B. to Conclusions Law 5.5(a)
(1) Rule Hallmon, 390, 397- v. Atty. In Griev. Comm’n (1996), this court stated that it 681 514 A.2d all encompassing to craft an always ... found it difficult has is the “practice of law.” To determine what definition of at of each case and we look the facts practice of law must “ ‘ the fair intendment within they “fall[ ] determine whether ’ ” W., 1, 8, Md. Mark 303 Application term.” re (1985) (quoting Grievance Comm. 491 A.2d (1941)). The 325, 329, A.2d Payne, 128 Conn.
129 protect public of Rule 5.5 “is to the from purpose being practice not preyed upon by competent those to law—from unethical, or incompetent, irresponsible representation.” In 638, 626, 977, 541 Application of R.G.S., re A.2d 983 (1988). achieved, by That ... is in “goal general, emphasiz the the ing person public insulation of unlicensed from the from and tribunals such as courts and certain administrative agencies.” Id.
To
an
engaged
determine whether
individual has
the
law,
of
the focus of the
should
practice
inquiry
“be on
in question
legal
the activity
required
knowledge
whether
skill in order
and
apply legal principles
precedent.”
and
to
906,
515,
910,
In re
Ill.2d
645
Discipio, 163
N.E.2d
206
(1994);
Edwins,
Ill.Dec. 654
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v.
(La.1989)
294,
(“Functionally,
540 So.2d
the practice of
law relates to
rendition of
for
the
services
others that call
for the professional judgment
lawyer.”).
of a
“Where trial
legal documents,
is not
but the
of
preparation
work
involved
advice,
interpretation,
giving
their
of
or the
legal
appli
cation of
to
legal principles
problems
any complexity,
of
is
involved, these
are
of
activities
still the
law.” Lu
kas v. Bar
Montgomery County,
442,
Ass’n
35 Md.App.
denied,
(1977)
371 A.2d
cert.
liabilities should the
handling
had
intention
the claim himself.
no
is
exception
this
overruled.
Accordingly,
(2) Rule 7.1
states,
part,
lawyer
that a
Rule 7.1
pertinent
misleading
make a
or
communication about
“shall not
false
correctly
lawyer
Judge
services”. As
Salant
lawyer’s
fed
noted,
attorneys practicing
Rule 7.1
out-of-state
requires
is
attorney’s
to disclose that
eral law
*27
is not
attorney
federal matters
that
author
limited to
Attorney
See
Grievance
ized to
practice
Harris-Smith,
72, 86,
v.
Md.
The (1) assistant, Rule told his violation of 7.1 because to the “approved” the letterhead one Epie, change John (2) Counsel, so, Epie failed to do that his and John that was limited Respondent’s practice card did state business Thus, PRACTICE”. “IMMIGRATION by person a argues that when his card is considered “as is” street, give public it is notice sufficient law. is little merit for is limited to There either of these contentions. 5.3(b) Conduct Rule states Rule of Professional
Maryland authority over the “lawyer having supervisory that a direct reasonable efforts to ensure that nonlawyer shall make obli- compatible professional conduct with the person’s is 5.3(c)(2) “a lawyer states that gations lawyer”. of the Rule a be person for conduct of such would responsible shall be violation of the Lawyers’ Rules of Professional if Conduct if engaged by lawyer lawyer ... has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its can consequences be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action”. It is clear that the Respondent knew that his letterhead needed to changed. be Although the Respondent indicated that he gave Mr. Epie non-lawyer assistant —a flash drive with the —his letterhead, new the Respondent did not take steps to ensure Epie that Mr. actually complied with his orders. The ultimate responsibility to ensure that the letterhead inwas compliance with the Rules fell on the Respondent not on his non-lawyer assistant.
The business card is also a violation of Rule 7.1. The card at issue states:
THE LAW OFFICES OF AMBE AND ASSOCIATES Counselors-at-law) (Attorneys & Practice) (Immigration Ave,
8121 Georgia Suite 340
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tele: 240 498 0285
Fax: 301 650 9122 *28 Jambe@ambelaw.com,
urww.ambelaw.com Nowhere on this card does it state that the Respondent’s practice is limited A layman law. might think that the Respondent is a Maryland attorney who concentrates in immigration matters opposed as to an attorney whose practice is limited to immigration matters. The card is some- what ambiguous and fails to requirements meet the set forth in Rule 7.1 as well as the standards set forth Harris-Smith Brown, supra. Judge Salant correctly concluded that the business card in question 7.1, violated Rule and Respondent’s exceptions are overruled.
(3) 8.4(b) Rule According 8.4(b), to Rule it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely
132 lawyer or fitness as a honesty, on the trustworthiness lawyer’s The of law is a crime. practice in other unauthorized respects. 651, Md. Velasquez, Commission 380 Attorney Grievance (2004) (“Because practice 426 unauthorized 846 A.2d a a crime ... conduct doubled as commission of is that and, fitness to reflecting respondent’s practice crime on the that the failed to disclose his respondent it is considered when fraud, licensure, involving of it constituted conduct deceit lack also, ANN., See MD. CODE. Bus. misrepresentation”). 10-606(3) (2010 Vol.) (unauthorized Repl. practice § Prof. Occ. misdemeanor). already that law is have held of a We by in the unauthorized of law Respondent engaged state tort cases without representing clients license.
Nonetheless, respondent’s distinguish- case is somewhat to, from, same time similar that of Harris- able at the yet Smith, case, hearing judge In found that that supra. in the unauthorized of law but lawyer engaged had 8.4(b). Bar overruling, failed to find a violation rule finding to the failure to make that exception judge’s Counsel’s we stated that: attempting
The of the entire record is Smith was tenor in a bankruptcy lawful manner to conduct a That to the federal district. limiting appearances her court Bar light Kennedy conclusion in [v. was mistaken A.2d County, 316 Md. Montgomery Association of (1989) 198[9], ], had a mistak- which been decided but Further, 8.4(b). not a of Rule en conclusion is violation uncontroverted evidence that there was uncontradicted and Assistant had than one occasion an Counsel more from spoken by telephone, samples obtained her to Smith card, and professional Law letterhead and of her Firm’s nothing further. Smith heard Harris-Smith, at A.2d at 575. practice only immigra- judice attempting
the case sub *29 law, mat- clients state tion but then assisted however, case, had been told ters. this 3, 2010 that his on or about March Counsel
133 matters, had to be limited to federal immigration he, supervision, and the record indicates or someone under his personal injury continued work on at least one of the cases being for several months after made aware limitation. There was a violation of the statute and at least a technical Accordingly, commission of a criminal offense. this exception is overruled.
III. Sanction purpose attorney protection The discipline is public, punishment of the not the of the erring attorney. E.g., Hill, 95, Attorney 103, Grievance v. Comm’n 398 Md. 919 A.2d 1194, (2007); Robertson, Attorney 1198 Grievance v. Comm’n 618, 642, 576, (2007); 400 Md. 929 A.2d 590 Attorney Griev Holt, 673, 682, ance 602, Comm’n v. 391 Md. 894 A.2d 607 (2006). In determining what sanction will best serve that purpose, we have determined the facts and circumstances of the misconduct to be instructive. E.g., Attorney Grievance Siskind, 41, 75, 328, (2007); Comm’n v. 401 Md. 930 A.2d 347 Mahone, 269, Attorney 257, Grievance Comm’n 398 Md. 920 (2007). 458, A.2d 465 important Also the presence are absence of mitigating prior factors and the disciplinary history attorney, of the see e.g., Attorney Grievance v. Goff, Comm’n 1, 31, (2007); 922 Md. A.2d Attorney Grievance Wingerter, Comm’n v. 929 A.2d (2006).
The argues complained the conduct of does not rise to the level of sanctions beyond reprimand. The that, disagrees Petitioner noting among other thing, “the hearing judge’s findings include conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and, therefore, deceit or misrepresentation”, repri- “a mand would not the appropriate be sanction under these circumstances”.6 sanction”, original In its suggested "recommendation Bar Counsel however, appropriate remedy, that disbarment be the this recommenda- "response”, tion is absent in their they and thus it can be inferred that original have "backed off" from their recommendation.
134 involving relatively recent cases
There
to be several
appear
in the
attorneys
engage
for
who
sanctions
appropriate
Attorney
Griev-
They
include
of law.
unauthorized
Jay Barneys, 370
Maryland v.
ance Commission
Bradford
of
Commis-
Attorney Grievance
(2002),
“... from case, different significantly however is Her barment. major The only the others. difference is that she was the attorney actually represented Mary- who never a client proceeding.... land state court
The
factor
distinguishing
second
case
Hmris-Smith,
from
is the absence here of a
over-
“federal
lay.”
overlay”
significant
The “federal
factor is
because it
provides at least some
an
plausible
why
attorney
reason
might
rights
believe that he or she is within
or her
*31
in
maintaining practice
Maryland....
a
or office
The
distinguishing
third
factor between
case and Harris-Smith is
that,
unlike Respondent, Harris-
practice
Smith endeavored to
law within
arguable juris-
her
”
dictional limits....
589-90,
In Mr. Brown entered into a law partnership with a Wilder, Mr. Virginia attorney, knowing a that Mr. Wilder was not admitted to the Bar in Maryland, and then assisted him in practicing Maryland in including inserting Mr. name Wilder’s on the firm’s letterhead and business cards without limit- ing language, permitting presenta- Mr. to make an oral Wilder tion to a Maryland body administrative on of a Mary- behalf land client affixing signature a block for Mr. Wilder on in pleadings actually filed court. Additionally, Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilder had been sanctioned by the federal court for filing suit where there evidentiary was “no basis” for so. doing Mr. $14,000 Brown had paid part as his of the sanction. In case, another Mr. Brown failed to adequately communicate client, with his made several false in petition statements a case, withdraw his in a appearance presented which he to a judge, including trial falsely stating that he had an inherent conflict of interest he Additionally, when did not. Mr. Brown had already suspended been from of law in the District of previously Columbia. He had also suspended been Maryland. in We said:
“... we find an suspension indefinite to be the appropri- ate sanction respondent’s for conduct. The number of concern, complaints before this Court are of great as is for similar by this Court suspension previous respondent’s Brown, Comm’n Misc. Attorney See Grievance conduct. (Md. (Subtitle BV) Term, slip op. Apr. No. Docket 9,1997).” indefinitely suspend- then at 725 A.2d We year. after one right reapply but with the
ed Brown to the bar In Harris-Smith attorney was not admitted maintained, to 1993 from 1987 but nonetheless Maryland Maryland. an office in attorney, Maryland along with with an office partnership into a new 1994 she entered new were attorneys this Two other Maryland. only practiced that she attorneys. proffered She Maryland Bar Coun- Maryland offices. When law from bankruptcy it was dissolved partnership, of the investigation began sel District of Columbia. an office opened Harris-Smith four com- initially her were based charges against The her clients. Later Counsel her against made plaints in the unauthorized engaged that she was complaint filed the judge trial found while The of law firm, its advertisements in the partner she was *32 in attorneys experienced that all of its were language included cases, foreclosures, employment injury personal preventing never mentioned Another advertisement bankruptcy. law and notify to attempted never The advertisements bankruptcy. limited to bank- practice was the that Harris-Smith’s public out as had held herself court found that she The trial ruptcy. not disclosed that her attorney and had Maryland a There system. in the federal bankruptcy to law was limited that in asserting in books phone also advertisements were law, in the areas “Real practiced she bankruptcy addition to letterhead Neither the firm’s Injury”. Personal Estate and advising information card contained nor her business bankruptcy. limited to her was public that that found transgressions, we above addition Maryland for the law as a screener had acted Harris-Smith referring clients and firm, interviewing prospective initially attorneys the firm. We clients to other non-bankruptcy said: in this case is that she exception federal defense
Smith’s however, bankruptcy Judge Rupp, cases. “pinpointed” public out as practicing found that Smith held herself analyzed that to her were law The matters came generally. in the District her to determine whether action by cause of action. bankruptcy proper court was initially analyzed matters that came to her ... Smith .When practicing Maryland, out as holding after herself limiting legal advise clients that she was her Smith did not bankrupt- matters that were to be representation specific cy proceedings.
practice. in to certain practices respect to sub-standard upheld, were as prior Brown had a Among things, handle. other cases she did conduct in improper had sanctioned twice for suspension, been Virginia an actively knowingly had assisted cases and Barneys actually in had en- attorney to practice Maryland in cases in trial courts tered his five appearance application Maryland for to the beginning process while bar, made actual to a bail bonds- misrepresentations had any type of a client and had not included person on behalf his or language any limitation advertisement papers. solicitation in are not transgressions the instant case in transgressions in nature as the the above cases.
as severe attorney specifically who never newly practicing He was a matters. It is uncontradict any Maryland solicited clients on in a settlement that his various contacts with insurers ed sought clients immigration context with his who originated various insurers. He never communicating assistance with Maryland court case and never appearance any entered his attorney doing so. He did not screen any assisted other attorneys, and while on one occasion he cases for check, from a settlement it is uncontradicted retained $1000 respect him from that client in that it sum owed represented prior being He has no record of to an matter. are no clients that he failed allegations There sanctioned. handled their cases or their inadequately to communicate or fact, complaints by any no money. allegations there are to the attention of the Court. brought clients that have been deceitfully he acted allegation directly There no court. clients or giving conduct rise to misconduct
The issue of criminal charge practicing of the that Ambe was solely arose out uphold to do so this state. While we without a license technically regard in that because he was findings trial court’s in Harris-Smith correct, are mindful of what we said we conduct as judge categorize the trial failed to similar where
139
nature,
exceptions
in
and Bar Counsel filed
being criminal
finding.
make such a
We said:
hearing judge’s
failure to
finding that Smith
excepts
Judge Rupp’s
Bar
Counsel
(“It
8.4(b)
for
professional
Rule
is
misconduct
did not violate
adversely on
a criminal act that reflects
lawyer
a
to commit
lawyer
a
trustworthiness or fitness as
lawyer’s honesty,
8.4(b)
argues
that Rule
respects.”)
in other
Counsel
10-606, it is a
under BOP Section
was violated because
to violate BOP Section 10-601.
misdemeanor
finding
clearly
is not
erroneous. The tenor
Judge Rupp’s
attempting
is that
to conduct
the entire record
Smith
limiting
in
her
bankruptcy practice
by
a
a lawful manner
court
to the federal district. That was a
appearances
...
a
is not a
mistaken conclusion
but mistaken conclusion
8.4(b)....
violation of Rule
Md. at
We consider of our sanction. fashioning immi reprimanded attorney primarily practiced We an who Edib, law in our recent case of He was found gration supra.7 to have failed to surrender to a former client and papers properly opined “failed to communicate with his client”. We appropriate as to the sanction:
Thus, the first factor we consider is the nature of the ethical duty Although Respondent’s breached.... behavior commendable, here is not duty the ethical to surrender upon representation documents termination of is not as important protecting the as the misconduct in public Fallin, [Attorney Grievance Comm’n Md. v.] [371 (2002) implicated lawyer’s provide A.2d 791 which a duty ] competent honest and representation. consider next lawyer’s
We
mental state of mind
that,
regarding the misconduct.... Ugwuonye made clear
sanction,
should
fashioning
we
consider whether Re-
place
transgressions
Virginia
7. Most of the
in that case took
where
Edib was not licensed to
law.
Although
may
dishonest motives.
Edib
spondent harbored
so
intentionally,
documents
he did not do with
have withheld
Thus,
regards
or deceitful motive as
client.
dishonest
appropriate.
less severe sanction is
Ruddy8
is the extent of actual or
The third factor under
lawyer.
Bar Counsel does
potential injury
caused
failure
surrender documents
allege
not
injury to Ms. Kismir....
any specific
caused
*35
if
any mitigat-
The
factor
consider is
there are
fourth
we
or
circumstances....
ing
aggravating
719-722,
The situation
(in
licensed in 2009 New
inexperienced attorney9 who became
in
York),
lawyering
any
with
any prior experience
and without
solely
dedicated
to the
jurisdiction,
open practice
wanted to
He
in trouble when he
immigration
got
of
law.
clients in areas of the law he
attempted
to assist
in this state. There is absolute-
permitted
was not
to solicit clients for
ly
attempting
no evidence that he
in
law.
Maryland
matters
representation
5.5(a)
clients in
by representing
did violate Rule
to practice
tort law matters while not licensed
Maryland state
indicated,
But,
it does not
in
as we have
in
actively
any
respect
solicited
clients
appear he
Harris-Smith,
the case Harris-Smith. See
in
issues as was
75-76,
at
also note that the
Md. at
737 A.2d
575. We
stemmed more from lack of
Rule 7.1 violations
and,
non-lawyer
trust
perhaps, misplaced
supervision
to circumvent rules
attempt
than from
deliberate
assistant
Furthermore,
Judge
we note that
conduct.
professional
Lastly,
of Rule 8.1.
because
did not find a violation
Salant
(2009).
Attorney
Ruddy, 411
IT IS SO ORDERED. RESPONDENT SHALL PAY COURT, ALL TAXED BY COSTS AS THIS INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS, THE COST OF PURSUANT TO MARY- 16-761, LAND RULE FOR WHICH JUDGMENT SUM IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEV- ANCE COMMISSION AGAINST JUDE AMBE. BARBERA, JJ.,
HARRELL and concur and dissent. HARRELL, J., concurring and dissenting, which BARBERA, J., joins.
I agree with the Majority opinion’s analysis disposition of Respondent’s however, (most exceptions; I disagree re- spectfully) with Majority opinion’s analysis of appro- *36 priate sanction. I impose would a suspension of 30 days.
In its search for consistency in imposition of sanctions through cases, recourse to analogous the Majority opinion distinguishes persuasively the facts and in violations rule/code Ambe’s in case from those Attorney Grievance Commission v.
Barneys,
(2002);
370 Md.
Ambe’s situation shares with Harris-Smith major con- textual attribute of a lawyer with an office Maryland, although not admitted Maryland, practicing law in Mary- land and using the “federal overlay” (claiming to maintain in an effort to make obscure the practice) a federal
solely
Harris-Smith,
purported
respondent
misconduct.
Maryland
law from
exclusively bankruptcy
her
office.
Here,
claimed
at
A.2d at 568.
Ambe
immigration law from his
office.
only
Maryland
Harris-Smith
or was silent
attorney
misrepresented
The
advertisements,
cards
stationery,
firm
and business
as
on law
from
ability
limitation on her
her
to the
75-77,
at
office.
There is
with this
explained by mitigating
be
factors be-
treatment cannot
case,
find, by
in either
not
a
hearing judge,
cause the
did
evidence,
It is
any mitigating
plain-
factors.
preponderance
Majority
incorrect for the
ly
legally
opinion
erroneous and
Harris-Smith
“contained more serious
here to claim
Maj.
present
those
in the
case.”
perceive
infractions than
we
is
38
at
There
no rational basis
op.
simply
at
A.3d
leniently
more
than we did Ms. Harris-Smith.
sanction Ambe
Attorney
from
air
pluck
Majority opinion appears
The
Edib,
Commission v.
Md.
957
Grievance
A.3d
(2010),
reprimand
a
is appropri-
to bolster its conclusion that
only
ate
at
I suspend would Ambe for days. Judge BARBERA has authorized me to joins state she opinion. this
STATE of Term, Sept.
No. 2010. of Appeals Maryland. Court
Feb.
correctly notes
its “Response
Respon-
dent’s
Exceptions
Findings
of Fact and Conclusion of
Law”:
Four of Respondent’s six exceptions are
on hearing
based
Judge’s failure to make some specific findings. Exceptions
1, 4, 5 and 6.
exception
Another
perceived
due to the
failure to make it clear
not
did
know that
Tabe, Esquire
Kevin
attorney
was the
who took over the
Ngwa
Ngwese
cases. Exceptions, And one exception
was to the hearing Judge’s
...
finding
engaged John Epie’s
specifically
services
because of Epie’s
past experience handling insurance claims
from
arising
car
accidents with another firm.
Walter,
In Attorney
Grievance
Commission
(2009),