*1 Conclusion is denied the that, if drunk driver suspected even holdWe whether to take deciding before to consult counsel opportunity consent, se per administrative implied test under the a breath license to the administrative law, subject driver remains a test refusal or assigns to the statute suspension properly upheld the ALJ Accordingly, test result. particular Deering’s suspension. Ms. County
Judgment Court Somerset Circuit Directions Remanded to that Court with Reversed. Case Judge Law Presid- the Administrative the Decision of Affirm Hearing. Suspension Respondent’s ing Costs License over by Respondent. be Paid A.3d 512 MARYLAND OF COMMISSION
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE v. NARASIMHAN.
Sudha Term, 77, Sept. 2012. Docket AG No. Misc. Maryland. Appeals of Court 23,May *3 (Glenn Lawless, Lydia E. Assistant Bar Counsel M. Gross- man, Counsel, Attorney of Mary- Bar Commission Grievance land), for Petitioner. (of Kramer, Kramer & Esquire Connolly,
Irwin R. Reisters- MD), town, Respondent. BARBERA,
Argued C.J., HARRELL, before: BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD and WATTS, JJ.
WATTS, J.
This attorney discipline proceeding concerns a Maryland (1) who: lawyer legal misrepresented experience on her job résumé and a proposal gain employment and appear (2) client; potential attractive to a practice established a law specific field verifying without his (3) field; expertise experience provided incompe- (4) representation; tent failed to promptly, adequately, fully respond to and inform a client of the client’s case status and options. available (“Narasimhan”),
Sudha Narasimhan Respondent, a member of the Bar of Maryland, was retained by the District of (“the MPD”) Columbia Metropolitan Department Police permanent secure a residency for its employee, Dr. Laurie (“Dr. Samuel”), Samuel a Canadian citizen whom the MPD hired project had as a specialist oversee a new program. complaint Samuel filed a against Narasimhan with the (“the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland Commis- sion”), Petitioner.
On Court, December in this Bar Counsel filed a “Petition for Disciplinary Remedial Action” against Nara- simhan, charging her with violating Maryland Lawyers’ Rules (“MLRPC”) of Professional Conduct (Competence), 1.1 1.3 (Communication (Communica- (Diligence), 1.4 Generally), 7.1 *4 8.4(a) Services), tions Concerning Lawyer’s a (Violating 8.4(c) MLRPC), Fraud, (Dishonesty, Deceit or Misrepresenta- 8.4(d) (Conduct tion), and Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice). 9, 2013, January On we referred this attorney (“the discipline proceeding to the Honorable Eric M. Johnson hearing judge”) of the Circuit for Court Montgomery County (“the court”). 3, 4, 5, 6, 2013, circuit On June and hearing judge hearing. conducted a July On judge filed this Court findings fact and conclusions of 1.1, 1.3,
law, that Narasimhan violated MLRPC concluding 8.4(d). 1.4(a) 7.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), (b), and 2014, 10, For the below argument. March we heard oral On reasons, practice from the of law Narasimhan suspend we Maryland sixty days. for Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact
I. facts, found the hearing judge following In his opinion, which we summarize. 2007, 11, admitted
On June Court Narasimhan half, a year Bar of For the next Narasimhan Maryland. a as a jobs injury firm and temporary personal took January document review. In attorney completing contract Esquire met Edmundo Rogers, Gordon Craig’s an on the (“Rogers”) through advertisement website immigra- an Rogers experienced List. that he was represented years. had been law for sixteen practicing tion who Immi- Eventually, Rogers Narasimhan and established (“ILG”) executing gration Group by Law Joint Venture (“the Agree- Under the Agreement”). Master Agreement ment, responsible was to be for “primarily office, fi- development, conduct of control of business nances, law[,]” Rogers provide was to practice [and the] expertise” and to research issues legal “legal “advice and practice.” arise in the conduct of the law Under will share equally were to Agreement, Narasimhan profits. ILG’s to assist sought immigration attorney the MPD Samuel, securing residency employee, for its Dr. permanent Residency EB-2
through completion Permanent Samuel, a in the Canadian citizen who was process. to a work visa would not lead pursuant United States had the MPD a residency, by project been hired permanent program. a new Novem- specialist overseeing tasked with On ILG, forming three months after Narasim- only ber han, ILG, request behalf answered MPD’s submitting seeking representation for Dr. Samuel proposal *5 résumé, Request for and Quotation, Proposal, Rogers’s résumé.
In the that she was Proposal, Narasimhan stated “well- in, of[,] good knowledge immigration versed” and had “a résumé, In her repre- laws.” Narasimhan stated that she had “immigration immigration sented clients documentary pro- litigation” Family and had petitions cesses “handled and Citizenship though, applications.” Significantly, (1) “documentary had never: clients in the immi- represented (2) gration processes”; represented immigration clients (3) litigation; Family “handled petitions Citizenship Thus, contained applications.” Narasimhan’s résumé several misrepresentations her legal experience. about
The MPD to in establishing permanent chose ILG assist residency for experience Dr. Samuel based on Rogers’s ability Narasimhan’s local services as a member provide $2,800 Bar of Maryland. ILG was to be a total of paid for representation, 20, was to on which commence November primary 2009. ILG’s liaison at the MPD was Diane Haines (“Haines”), Resources; Walton the MPD’s Director of Human Haines authorized Narasimhan to with Dr. speak Samuel the representation. about
Shortly ILG, after the MPD selected Narasimhan traveled India, 3, 2009, where she remained from December until 31, January 2010.1 “largely Narasimhan was unavailable” during the time that she was in India asked Rogers on representation “take lead” out while she was of the country. held;
On December a conference call Nara- did not participate simhan call. conference judge determined that the December conference call eventually “would to be prove essential.” Narasimhan did not hearing judge shortly 1. The stated Nai'asimhan left for India after commenced, representation on December 2010. It is clear that was a typographical error and that Narasimhan left for India on December call request the MPD’s a second conference respond to 21, 2009. December *6 20, 2010, advised MPD January
On Narasimhan ready to file “Form 9089”2 online “next week.” ILG was online, however, gave failed to file Form 9089 and 1, 2010, and February for the explanation no failure. Between Narasimhan, 15, 2010, Rogers, pre- and Dr. March Samuel 28, of Form 9089. On March pared multiple paper drafts 2010, and incorrect version incomplete Narasimhan mailed (“the DOL”). On Department of Form 9089 to of Labor 2, 2010, MPD Narasimhan submitted an invoice to the April 2010, $1,800 27, filing May for Form 9089. On or about of paid of District the invoice.3 the Government Columbia 2010, 15, and On Dr. Samuel e-mailed Narasimhan April Rogers questions of the labor certification concerning a series available as her work visa process requested options, to Dr. January replied would 2011. Narasimhan expire e-mail, Rogers provide her that would assuring Samuel’s of any Narasimhan did not questions. answers to her answer Rogers respond Dr. instead asked questions, Samuel’s but 26, 2010, April telephoned “ASAP.” On about Samuel had not stating Narasimhan and left a voicemail she any questions. received substantive answers to her Narasim- due to delay han thereafter advised Dr. Samuel that the was 2, other Rogers’s assignments. May travel schedule and On 2010, e- provided partial Dr. Samuel’s Rogers response mail. 2010, 3, May dated the DOL advised the MPD letter
that it certification of Form 9089. Almost all the denying was DOL the result reasons for denial were of Narasim- (1) the MPD the re- adequately han’s failure to: inform of Certification, 9089, Application Employment Form 2. for Permanent Department part permanent of must be filed with Labor as process. residency application Although judge paid invoice on or 3. stated that was 2009, 27, typographical May about it clear that this was a error paid May that the about invoice on or (2) quirements process; the recruitment obtain the neces- (3) sary 9089; information to Form complete file the correct version of Form 9089 with the information she had if obtained. Even Narasimhan had mailed the correct version
of Form the DOL still would have denied certification because substantial omissions and misinformation.
On May met with Dr. Samuel and Haines discuss the denial letter and Dr. options. Samuel’s At the meeting, Narasimhan advised the that a MPD corrected Form 9089 could be filed with the DOL. 12, 2010, Narasimhan, May time, On for the first filed Form 9141, requesting a prevailing wage determination. The DOL requires to, that Form 9141 completed of, be prior part and as the submission of Form 9089. On May at the request MPD, Dr. Samuel and the Narasimhan submitted a *7 handwritten Form 9089 that Dr. completed. Samuel had On 3, 2010, June Narasimhan filed a typewritten Form 9089 with the to “clarify DOL any illegible section or portions of the 8, handwritten 2010, document.” On June Narasimhan mailed a letter to the requesting 3, DOL May 2010, review of the 21, denial 2010, certification. On June Narasimhan mailed another letter to the DOL regarding the refiled Form 9089 and request for review. 15, 2010,
On June 14, 2010, and July Haines and Dr. Samuel, respectively, requested information from ILG about obtaining one-year a extension to Dr. Samuel’s current work visa. Neither Haines nor Dr. Samuel received a response from Narasimhan with information regarding an extension of Dr. Samuel’s current work visa.
In June the MPD received a second invoice from ILG. time, At that the MPD advised Narasimhan that it would not pay for additional work related to refiling the of Form 9089 that resulted from her errors and omissions. In response, Narasimhan submitted a modified invoice. July
On Dr. Samuel requested and Haines conference call with Narasimhan and Rogers to receive an update on the status of the case and to discuss the appeals occurred, call never requested The conference
process. the provided neither Dr. Samuel nor the MPD was with concerning process. On requested appeals information 20, 2010, the sent an ILG’s July terminating MPD e-mail representation. again
In the DOL denied Samuel’s September Board of Labor certification. On November denial of the certification. Appeals Certification affirmed L. called hearing judge, Before the Commission Michael (“Kabik”) Kabik, immigration as an law. Esquire expert professional with cer- degree Kabik a reasonable opined, tainty, necessary required lacked the that Narasimhan skill, thoroughness, repre- legal knowledge, preparation opined sent Kabik further that the MPD was unable the MPD. regarding permanent to make informed decisions residen- cy process adequately explain due to Narasimhan’s failure to residency process. hearing The representation and judge opinions. credited Kabik’s Hearing Adduced
II. Evidence following The evidence was adduced at of June 3-6, 2013. into Narasimhan’s résumé were admitted Proposal Narasimhan described Proposal,
evidence.4 herself [myself, I well-versed and “Being immigrant am] follows: immigration of the in this good knowledge laws ha[ve] résumé, job In her under country[.]”5 description *8 hearing, providing At additional back- 4. information about her Thus, ground, August that she was born 1975. Narasimhan testified complaint filed in was at the time the December Narasimhan prior thirty-six years old. testified that to law school she Narasimhan degree” a “diploma of and had obtained a "bachelor’s commerce computer application systems[.]” Narasimhan testified that she had "webmaster,” editing a programming and worked in database organization. prior law Narasimhan testified website for manager of also as the a law firm. school she had served office During proposal process, Narasimhan communicated with a con- 5. Contracting specialist of Office of & tract from the District Columbia ILG, Narasimhan stated that she had represented “Immigra- tion in documentary immigration processes litiga- clients and “Family petitions tion” and had handled and Citizenship appli- Specifically, job cations.” Narasimhan’s description ILG appeared on her résumé as follows:
EXPERIENCE (A
THE Venture), IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP Joint Alexandria, VA
Attorney/Joint Venturer, July 2009—Present Representation of Immigration documentary clients im migration processes litigation. Handled Family peti tions and Citizenship applications.[6] Before hearing judge, job Narasimhan testified that the description under stating ILG of “Representation immigration clients, and documentary immigration processes litigation” was not intended to job describe her experience, but instead “was the description it [ILG] what was formed to do” and was meant to a prospective be statement the work she anticipated to complete. ILG When asked whether she in- anyone formed at the MPD that her “intention with that first sentence on p[ro]spective [her] r[é]sum[é] was and [] didn’t any had[,]” reflect actual experience that [she] answered that she they alreadyf.]” “assumed knew that,
Narasimhan testified at the time she submitted her MPD, résumé to the ILG had not any handled matters that had resulted in litigation. Narasimhan admitted that there is no thing such aas “Citizenship application” as stated on her résumé, and that in layman “[w]hat [she] meant terms is basically an Application N-400 for Naturalization.” Narasim-
Procurement. In an e-mail dated November specialist advised the contract as follows: The named as DC contact is knowledge ME. I have Immigration couple law and Family petitions have worked on a Citizenship applications.... principal point g[overnment] of contact with the will be ME. Thereafter, legal positions Narasimhan listed other which she had job held position. and described duties for each *9 Applications had handled two only han testified she Naturalization, 2008, before in 2007 and one both she one had why experi- she listed that she formed ILG. When asked job description “Citizenship applications” with under ence ILG, immigration Narasimhan stated: “Because it was it intent was to experience, my was related and experience, my experience limited immigration communicate nature Narasimhan layman’s basically.” explained terms were Applications completed two for Naturalization she had friends, compensa- for her and that she received done never individuals, work, not retained tion for her with any government agency never entered her appearance on her As the statement applications. related “Family that she handled petitions,” résumé had completed only family petition that she one admitted had typo.” on her résumé “was a plural “petitions” that the word family that the that she listed petition Narasimhan admitted and her actually prepared by Rogers, on her résumé was was clerical. assistance 30, 2009, ILG’s representation
On November after commenced, Narasimhan sent an e-mail to Haines out- MPD steps.” the “labor Narasimhan’s e-mail lining certification sent a to Narasim- Rogers, reply was forwarded who e-mail han, I stating: good “This is Well done. like [Narasimhan]. your prompt response and dedication to customer service.” into These two e-mails admitted evidence. were call in which As to December conference participate, hearing judge Narasimhan did not admitted Haines, an exchange among Rogers, into evidence of e-mails 8, Samuel, 2009, ranging Dr. from December 8, In an December e-mail dated December through EB-2 Rogers provided Haines with brief outline of the classification and “some neces- permanent residency requested information” discussed the December sary during to be call, including professional conference Samuel’s job current background description. academic and her Nara- day, e-mail. The Haines copied following simhan was on the Narasimhan, Samuel, and Dr. and advised Rogers, e-mailed sending requested by Rogers, that she would be documents *10 job of a including description, copy proposed advertisement placed newspaper, to be a local and a statement of work 10, 2009, Dr. outlining Samuel’s duties. On December Nara- responded join simhan that she would be unable to the confer- call, Rogers ence but stated that would share “both his and my thoughts[.]”
The hearing judge admitted into evidence an e-mail sent occurred, Haines after the conference call memorializing the e-mail, discussed topics during the call. Haines wrote (1) that, other among things: Rogers stated he would “review employment by prior ads submitted clients to see if the (2) sufficient”; employment ad sent [that MPD] [him] the parties had “discussed the interview process whether [the can share the names of who lor applicants apply MPD] (3) jobs”; 9089; already completed Samuel had Form (4) Dr. Samuel would send information and documents for review.
The hearing judge admitted into May evidence a letter, in which the DOL advised the MPD that it was denying certification of Form and provided following reasons (1) for the denial: six different items were incomplete on the application, including identify boxes to the occupation title and (2) prevailing wage; Form 9089 indicated that no notice filing for a permanent employment certification application posted in a conspicuous location place at the of employ- (3) ment for ten days; business the newspaper advertise- ment placed by the MPD placed was not on a Sunday.
The hearing judge admitted into a February evidence 2012, letter, in which replied to Bar Counsel’s request response to Dr. Samuel’s complaint by denying any violation of the MLRPC and stating following:
Throughout I period MPD, represented I consulted repeatedly order to my [ ] check conclusions, documents, obtain his review of the and the like, before I communicated advice to the MPD. for legal ILG received the contract day same On the
[ ] MPD, I of the sent a detailed e[-]mail services from the process MPD[.] Labor certification I, worked with Dr. Samuel conjunction Rogers, with [ ] [ ] cycles[.] Form 9089 in four review the initial complete
III. of Review Standard reviews for proceeding, Court attorney discipline In an fact, and reviews judge’s findings of error the clear conclusions of law. See hearing judge’s without deference (“The 16-759(b)(l) de shall review Appeals R. Court Md. law.”); R. 16- conclusions of Md. judge’s the circuit court novo *11 (“The 759(b)(2)(B) to the give regard opportu- shall due Court credibility of wit- to assess the nity hearing judge of the Fader, v. 431 nesses.”); Attorney Grievance Comm’n see also (2013). 395, 426-27, 36-37 Md. 66 A.3d Discussion IV. Exceptions
A. judge’s exceptions hearing filed no The Commission fact conclusions of law. findings and and tak- Exceptions” filed “Recommendations hearing findings of fact and certain ing exception 1.4(a) 1.3, and violated MLRPC judge’s conclusions she 8.4(c) (d). reasons, (b), 7.1, For the below we determine that the exceptions, Narasimhan’s overrule erroneous, clearly uphold findings of fact are judge’s conclusions of law. hearing judge’s all of the MLRPC B. Violations (Competence) 1.1 MLRPC to a representation provide competent “A shall lawyer requires legal knowl- Competent representation client. neces- skill, reasonably thoroughness preparation edge, “Compliance MLRPC 1.1. representation.” for the sary 651 requires knowing more than what to do. It [MLRPC 1.1] requires applying knowledge problem.... to the client’s ‘Evidence of a failure to apply requisite thoroughness a preparation representing client is sufficient alone and/or ” support a violation of 1.1.’ Attorney Grievance [MLRPC] McCulloch, 388, 397-98, Comm’n v. 404 Md. 946 A.2d (2008) Guida, 1015 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 33, 54, (2006)); 391 Md. 891 A.2d Attorney see also Grievance Brady, Comm’n v. Md. 30 A.3d (2011) (“The of a finding violation MLRPC does [of 1.1] not depend upon showing lacked the Rather, requisite legal knowledge. it can be established evidence that the attorney was not sufficiently thorough or (Citations omitted)). prepared.”
Comment [2] MLRPC 1.1 recognizes, however, that a lawyer need not in practice have been for years compe- to be matter; tent to handle a legal specifically, pro- Comment [2] vides:
A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience legal to handle problems type of a with which the lawyer is unfamiliar. A newly admitted lawyer can be as competent as a practitioner with long experience. Some important skills, legal such as analysis of precedent, the evaluation of legal evidence and drafting, required are in all legal problems. Perhaps the most legal fundamental skill consists of determining what legal problems kind of involve, situation may a skill necessarily any transcends *12 particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate in representation a wholly novel field through necessary study. Competent representation can also be provided through the association of lawyer a of established competence in the field in question.
This lawyers Court has cautioned undertaking legal in work an unfamiliar field to “take careful thought as to their compe- tence to in practice ‘specialty’ Attorney areas[.]” Grievance Kendrick, Comm’n v. 403 Md. 943 A.2d (2008) (citation omitted). quotation internal marks Where “an attorney ‘plunges into a field in which he or she is not that demon- makes mistakes consequence a and as
competent, be discipline demands that incompetence, [MLRPC] strate ” omitted). (citation Id. at at 1187-88 943 A.2d imposed[ J Here, the hear convincing supports evidence clear 1.1. violated MLRPC conclusion that Narasimhan judge’s ing necessary experience lacked the that Narasimhan It is evident to of, procedure law and in, immigration knowledge time she was retained. the MPD at the represent competently to prior a months Rogers, only few forming ILG Before ILG, in had not worked retaining Narasimhan the MPD’s discrete law; was limited to two experience immigration pro for friends and performed naturalization applications family petition. a to clerical assistance viding by her was demonstrated competence lack of Narasimhan’s of Form 9089 to DOL. incomplete of an version submission for denial that one of the reasons explained The DOL incomplete; that the form was of Form 9089 was certification ie., or blank on incomplete items left there were six different title and form, identify occupation to including boxes that Nara judge determined wage. hearing prevailing to com necessary information to obtain the simhan’s failure denial of certifica directly led to the DOL’s Form 9089 plete hearing supports adduced tion. The evidence lack of that Narasimhan’s record demonstrates finding. The not because she to the denial of certification competence led and file necessary expertise complete only lacked to submit form, sufficiently prepared but also was errors, failed Compounding form. completed determination, wage requesting prevailing to file Form the DOL. required Form submitting prior competent representation can attorney provide Although compe- “of established with an through association [2], 1.1 cmt. such MLRPC question[,]” tence the field any aside issue as begin, setting To not the case here. thereof, as the or lack competence, Narasimhan’s Rog- concluded, failed to ascertain whether judge law. As was, fact, immigration in the field of competent ers argument, at oral acknowledged counsel Narasimhan’s *13 record that of “vetting” Rogers reveals Narasimhan’s consist- solely following: meeting Rogers; verifying ed of the with good standing that was a of of Bar of Rogers member Arkansas; Rogers public assisting during seminars Thus, immigration Rog- law. Narasimhan failed to examine verify ers’s or to his qualifications qualifications and claims through expertise any third party.7 event, it any regardless Rogers’s qualifications,
evident that Narasimhan accepted responsibility for representation. MPD’s In the ILG Narasimhan Agreement, agreed ... “primarily responsible to be for the practice law.” Narasimhan during proposal advised MPD process she—not Rogers that named be —would as the District of contact “principal Columbia and the point contact the” government. During Bar investi- Counsel’s gation complaint, of Dr. Samuel’s responded, Narasimhan writing, she “represented that had Narasimhan— MPD[.]” Also, not Rogers the Form 9089. the record —submitted demonstrates that the initial communication after MPD retained ILG Narasimhan, came from an who e-mailed Haines outline of the “labor steps.”8 certification circumstances,
Given the above difficulty we have no Narasimhan, that concluding not was Rogers, responsible such, As representing MPD. required, bright-line 7. We need not set qualify forth a rule as to what would as properly ascertaining attorney’s competence,” “established each case, fact-specific. say, case is Needless to in this Narasimhan took verify Rogers’s espoused qualifications. little action Interestingly, Rogers responded concerning to Narasimhan her e-mail [Narasimhan], good your to Ilaines: “This is prompt done. I like Well response agree and dedication to customer We service.” with Bar response Counsel that this leads to the conclusion provided steps” the outline of the "labor certification without consult- ing Rogers. Further, testimony review of Haines's reveals that when asked Bar Rogers, Counsel whether the contract was awarded to Haines ILG, Rogers. testified that MPD’s contract was awarded to Agreement Rogers part- equal ILG stated that Narasimhan and were And, a testimony ners. review of Haines’s reveals that she at no time understanding testified it was was "lead counsel.” *14 MLRPC, competent representation to utiliz-
under provide the skill, ing legal knowledge, thoroughness preparation “the 1.1. necessary representation.” the for MLRPC reasonably that Narasimhan failed hearing judge correctly concluded that, at argument, to do so. accurate is this conclusion oral So violation MLRPC Narasimhan’s counsel conceded that the because, the did not ultimately, 1.1 “is client established had quality representation [Narasimhan] receive the reasons, the conclude For above we hoped for intended.” clear by of MLRPC 1.1 has been established that the violation convincing evidence.9 (Diligence) 1.3 MLRPC judge’s to the determina excepts hearing Narasimhan 1.3, and contends that she tion that she violated MLRPC diligently to communications from responded promptly and “re Narasimhan asserts that she Haines and Samuel. facilitating to sponded inquiries by all communica promptly colleague[, Rogers].” tion with her more experienced diligence prompt- “A shall act with reasonable lawyer For example, ness a client.” MLRPC 1.3. representing by 1.3 to a client failing keep violates MLRPC by respond to the of the case and to failing informed as status v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n the inquiries. to client’s See Park, (2012) (“[The 180, 192, 1153, 1160 46 A.3d 427 Md. the status lawyer’s failure to informed to keep [clients] implications holding young posits "fear[s] 9. The Dissent that it context, accountable, negligence or lawyers disciplinary for the in the experienced lawyers supervise who them.” Dissent inattention of more (footnote omitted) Op. (emphasis original). at A.3d at 537 5.2(a) lawyer by explicitly provides that is bound "[a] MLRPC notwithstanding lawyer direction of acted [MLRPC] addition, recently “[E]very person.” In this Court reiterated: another Attorney lawyer presumed and abide the MLRPC.” to know (2013) Davy, v. 435 Md. 80 A.3d Grievance Comm’n omitted). (citation attorney is quotation marks Each and internal responsible compliance MLRPC. ensuring his or her own with the case, played Rogers’s in the the extent that conduct a role to violation, determining appropri- considered in such a fact could be applications and his to respond failure [clients’] (Citation omitted)). inquiries both violate MLRPC 1.3.” Here, clear and convincing evidence supports judge’s conclusion Narasimhan 1.3. violated MLRPC The record unequivocally establishes that Narasimhan failed respond communicate and Dr. Haines Samu- and/or el on several occasions about related important matters To representation. begin, MPD’s failed to partic- ipate Later, in the first conference call on December after the DOL of Form denied certification both Haines and Dr. from requested Samuel information ILG about obtain- ing a one-year extension to Dr. visa. Samuel’s work Neither nor Rogers provided response to Haines Dr. *15 Samuel regarding requested the information. Haines and requested Samuel a conference call to on update receive the of the to process. status case and discuss the appeals requested call conference did not take and place, neither nor Rogers provided Narasimhan the requested information the concerning appeals process. Less than one week the after failed attempt to obtain update, information and a status the MPD Thus, terminated representation. ILG’s there were multiple occasions on which Narasimhan to respond failed information, all to requests for she provide also failed to requested update. status As to claim she Narasimhan’s that responded by facilitating Rogers, communication with Nara- accepted simhan primary responsibility for representing the MPD; such, as it upon was incumbent Narasimhan to provide the requested Rogers information herself to that ensure responded circumstances, full. Under these we have no difficulty concluding that Narasimhan’s violation of MLRPC 1.3 is supported by and convincing clear evidence. (Communication Generally)
MLRPC 1.4 excepts the judge’s determination that 1.4(a), she violated MLRPC that main- contends she tained communication with Haines Dr. Samuel throughout MPD, representation ILG’s during the time including the she was in India. excepts the specifically sanction,
ate a but would not affect whether or not Narasimhan violated particular MLRPC. unavail- “largely of fact she
hearing judge’s finding that she argues her to India. Narasimhan during trip able” 1.4(b), “provided virtually Rogers not violate MLRPC did MPD[,]” and that the the advice rendered legal all of testimony as to excluding erred in hearing judge the MPD. which advised matters about 1.4 as follows: provides MLRPC (a) A shall: lawyer
(1) any or circum- inform the client decision promptly consent, to which the client’s informed respect stance with Rules; 1.0(f), these required Rule defined (2) reasonably informed about status keep the client matter; of the
(3) for infor- requests with reasonable promptly comply mation; and
(4) any client about relevant limitation consult lawyer knows that conduct when lawyer’s by the permitted [MLRPC] expects client assistance law. or other
(b) reasonably matter to the extent explain A shall lawyer to make informed decisions permit client necessary regarding representation.
Comment [5] to MLRPC 1.4 explains “[t]he client should in deci- participate intelligently information to have sufficient objectives representation of the concerning the sions *16 pursued.... Adequacy are to be by they which means on of advice or the kind depends part communication assistance that involved.”
Here, supports evidence convincing clear 1.4(a). MLRPC that Narasimhan violated judge’s conclusion informed status keep failed to the MPD about Narasimhan multiple on respond promptly, and failed to of the matter information, had occasions, though even she requests to for of contact” “principal point the MPD that she was advised contact[.]” “named as DC [the] and would be to on respond requests to made Glaringly, Narasimhan failed Samuel, 14, 15, 2010, 2010, by Haines July June respectively, requesting obtaining information about one- a year to Dr. Specifical- extension Samuel’s current work visa. 15, 2010, on ly, June Haines sent letter to at ILG’s Rogers Maryland address raising concerns about the DOL’s denial of certification and Narasimhan’s performance, work and re- questing an itemization of work to filing related the second Form 15, 9089. Haines testified response that June 2010, letter, invoice, she received an which sent e-mail Haines, from Narasimhan to for charging expenses related to filing the second Form 9089. Haines testified that she did an get 15, 2010, response actual to the June for except letter an invoice. Consistent testimony, with Haines’s the record does not demonstrate that either Narasimhan Rogers re- sponded And, 14, and addressed Haines’s concerns. on July 2010, Dr. Samuel sent an e-mail to Rogers and Narasimhan (1) requesting: 16, conference call take on place July Haines; (2) that certain information be provid- ed, including case, an on update possibility appeal, process and the for applying of Dr. extension Samuel’s work visa. Narasimhan e-mailed Haines and Dr. Samuel advising Rogers was out country of the and she would need to if “see July 16, 2010; [he was] available talk” on provided Narasimhan no information concerning possibili- ty of an appeal, process of obtaining an extension of the visa, work anor update the case. Tellingly, less than one later, 20, 2010, week on July the MPD terminated ILG’s representation.
Although
specifically
excepts to the hearing
judge’s finding
“largely
that she was
unavailable” while in
India,
(1)
the record
following:
demonstrates the
to participate
failed
call,
the December
conference
during which critical information —such as employment adver-
tisements,
Samuel,
information needed from Dr.
and the inter-
(2)
process
discussed;10
view
Narasimhan failed to re-
—was
an e-mail
dated November
Narasimhan advised
country
she would be out oi' the
from
January
December
2009 to
17, 2010. This
only Rogers.
only
e-mail was sent
support
*17
call on
for a second conference
request
to the MPD’s
spond
(3)
21, 2009;
the
on
although advising
MPD
December
online
20, 2010,
ready
Form 9089 would be
file
January
form online and
week,”
to file the
Narasimhan failed
“next
Thus,
record
for the failure.
the
provided
explanation
no
India,
she failed to
that,
Narasimhan was
establishes
while
promised work.
complete
with
MPD and to
communicate
the
role
addressing
lawyer’s
of case law
There is a dearth
1.4(b).
Grievance
Attorney
MLRPC
See
counselor under
(2012)
976,
Rand,
674, 716,
Md.
57 A.3d
Comm’n v.
(“Rand’s
1.4
exception
application
[MLRPC]
implicates
counseling
knowledge,
a client. To our
process
lawyer
the role of a
as counselor.”
foray
our first
into
omitted)).
Rand,
716-17,
In
id. at
57 A.3d
break
(Paragraph
1001,
hearing judge
determined
although
at
1.4(b),
concluded that “the
attorney had violated MLRPC
we
as a
viewing counseling
client]
in not
hearing judge
[the
erred
period
over a
time.” We observed
process, which occurred
“take into account
the entire
analysis
that our
needed to
trip
having
is Narasimhan’s own
informed Haines of
Narasimhan
testimony
hearing.
testified before the
at the
awarded,
that,
point
she
judge
before the contract was
some other
spoke
during
a conference call and
that she
Haines
believed
going
family wedding in
she was
to India "for a
advised Haines that
January.” Specifically, Narasimhan testified:
month of December
basically
family
going
I
[Haines]
I
tell
that was
"I believe
did
January.”
findings
In the
wedding in the month on December and
however,
fact,
hearing judge did not find that Narasimhan told
country
through
be
of the
from December 2009
Haines she would
out
10, 2009,
January
call,
morning
2010. As of the
of the scheduled December
participate
anticipated
would
in the call.
it was
that Narasimhan
2009,
Indeed,
10,
morning
only
it was
on the
of the December
confer-
Haines,
call,
Rogers,
e-mailed
and Dr. Samuel
ence
informing
join
she would be unable to
from India
them that
call.
conference
Narasimhan,
Haines advised
e-mail dated December
speak again
Rogers,
they
and Dr. Samuel that
were "scheduled to
on
Despite
2:00.” The
call did not occur.
December 21 at
conference
expected
being
to occur
aware that the MPD
a second conference call
21, 2009,
respect to
no action with
December
Narasimhan took
January
when
forwarded an
until
she
December
call
Haines,
Rogers,
indicating
that she was
e-mail to
Samuel
proceed.
inquiring
call
how to
aware the
did
occur
*18
interaction between
attorney]
[the
client] and the
[the
Id.
717,
that
information
was
at
communicated[.]”
at
A.3d
on
guiding principle,
Based
we
held
there
convincing
not clear and
attorney
evidence that the
violated
1.4(b),
attorney explained
MLRPC
as the
of
consequences
the
failing to take a particular action at the time of the initial
client,
meeting
the
and explained:
with
“To
out
parse
what
counsel,
attorney counsels or fails to
as to
of
consequences
act,
a
failure
at
meeting,
client’s
to
each
without consideration
had
what
been counseled at earlier meetings, is to tread a
dangerous path when
willful
Id.
addressing
violations.”
718,
The facts and circumstances of Rand are distinct from those Indeed, the instant case. we know of Maryland no case presenting circumstances to similar those presented here— i.e., a has judge determined that an attorney failed provide accurate information advice a client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make decisions, informed but the colleague contends that a provided allegedly adequate information and advice to the Nonetheless, client. we convincing conclude clear and supports evidence hearing judge’s conclusion that Nara- 1.4(b). simhan violated MLRPC Rand,,
Here, following guiding principle of we review entire interaction MPD, between and the ILG and the infor- conveyed mation by Narasimhan and Rogers. MPD retained ILG to handle the matter Dr. permanent Samuel’s process. 30, residency 2009, shortly On November after representation commenced, Narasimhan sent Haines an e-mail detailing “labor certification steps.” On December 2009, Rogers e-mailed Haines a brief outline of EB-2 permanent residency During classification. the December call, conference Rogers discussed process Haines and It clear Samuel. is not whether the informa- conveyed tion Rogers Narasimhan and was accurate complete. advisements, After initial Dr. Samuel requested additional information about the process labor certification her options, as her work visa would in a expire matter of any Dr. did not answer Significantly,
months. Rogers respond. but instead asked questions, Samuel’s a only partial eventually provided he responded, When Later, requested and Dr. Haines Samuel both response. to Dr. obtaining one-year extension Samu- information about the DOL denied certification work visa. After el’s current occasions, Dr. Samuel Haines and separate Form call to information and conference requested additional the appeals on the case to discuss update receive an responded nor Rogers Tellingly, neither process. and the conference for additional information requests *19 for additional information requests occur. The call did not residency to and the lack permanent alternatives and available demonstrate that neither response of an adequate complete the with accurate and Rogers provided MPD nor the to make sufficient to MPD information and advice enable informed decisions. virtual- argues Rogers “provided
Although MPD[,]” to the it legal all of the advice rendered ly outline to the initial undisputed provided that Narasimhan steps” accepted and that she Haines of the “labor certification through both the representation, for the MPD’s responsibility (in primarily responsi- to be Agreement agreed which she ILG law) statements of and her own initial practice for the ble (in attorney advised she was the the which she to MPD of “principal point contact” and the “named as DC [the] contact”). attorney responsible Narasimhan was the Because of con- representation principal point for the MPD’s the MPD, Form for and as the who submitted tact the Narasimhan, Rogers, it upon was incumbent accurate informa- fully the MPD was advised with ensure that tion.11 that, "[according hearing judge specifically found ILG’s
11. The attorney primarily respon- agreement, as the [Narasimhan] named ” 'practice the of the Joint Venture.' for the of law’ and for 'clients sible finding. Agreement hearing judge’s Sec- confirms the A review of the Agreement, concerning the division of labor tion of the ILG 5.01 Revealingly, argument when asked at oral whether the established, violations of MLRPC 1.3 and 1.4 were Narasim- “I they han’s counsel do are stated: believe established one sense, representa- ... I In the the quality do. sense that of wasn’t argued tion there.” Narasimhan’s counsel nevertheless “was very responsive that Narasimhan to client communica- however, readily apparent, It is many tions.” that on occa- sions Narasimhan failed to promptly respond to communica- MPD, reasonably tions from MPD keep informed case, of the to provide about status information Rogers's between Narasimhan outlined Narasimhan’s responsibilities as follows: agree position The Parties is in a [Narasimhan] better to conduct daily management of the Joint Venture. shall [Narasimhan] be office, primarily responsible for develop- the conduct business ment, finances, practice control of the this law under Joint and, Agreement making appearances Venture of court for the subject Joint Ventures and clients of the Joint Venture Agreement. terms of this [Narasimhan] shall use her best efforts to Venture, obtain[] clients for Joint clients in the retain[] Joint Venture, law, practice except and conduct her case of separate agreements with [Narasimhan]'s outside counsel and/or independent attorneys, part Joint Venture. hereby acknowledge [Rogers] experience, The Parties has the and, legal knowledge the business acumen in the Joint Venture. [Rogers] primarily responsible providing shall be advice and *20 legal expertise [Rogers] the primarily to Joint be Venture. shall also responsible legal for research of issues that the will arise in conduct shall, practice of the law [Rogers] within the Joint Venture. as permit, appearances circumstances make court for the clients of the Joint Venture. added). (Emphasis Agreement, In addition to the Narasimhan’s own support hearing judge’s finding conduct and statements the that she primarily responsible practice represen- was for of During law. tation, Rogers During Narasimhan —not Form 9089. Bar —submitted investigation complaint, Counsel’s of Dr. Samuel's Narasimhan re- sponded, writing, among things, "represented other that she had quotation specifically Rogers MPD[.]” The above states that was to "be primarily responsible providing legal expertise for advice and to the found, i.e., hearing judge Joint Venture” and that is what the that responsible rendering joint was for advice to the venture— responsible primarily practice ILG—and for the law. responsible Because we repre- determine that Narasimhan was MPD, hearing judge sentation of the we do not address whether make decisions during for the MPD to informed necessary words, are satisfied that In other we representation. (b) 1.4(a) established of MLRPC have been violations convincing evidence. clear and (Communications Lawyer’s Concerning a MLRPC 7.1 8.4(c) Services) Fraud, (Dishonesty, & MLRPC Misrepresentation) Deceit or determina hearing judge’s excepts 8.4(c), and contends that she violated MLRPC 7.1 tion to claim in her résumé have extensive she did not that she immigration law. Narasimhan asserts experience misrepresent her credentials or otherwise did not fabricate gaining employment. the intent of legal experience Narasimhan, the inaccuracies in her résumé According to of ‘puff not even rise to the level were immaterial “do ” ing.’ part: in relevant provides, MLRPC 7.1 communica- lawyer misleading A shall not make a false or A communi- lawyer lawyer’s tion or the services. about if misleading cation is or it: false (a) law, or or misrepresentation a material of fact contains make necessary omits a fact to the statement considered misleading!)] materially a whole not something is such nature Something that is “material” “[o]f affect a decision- knowledge person’s item would essential!)]” Dictionary Black’s making; significant; Law ed.2004). (8th contracts, misrepresenta- In the context “[a] if it to induce a reasonable likely tion is material would be assent, if maker his knows her] manifest person [or it to induce the do so.” likely recipient would be (1981). (Second) 162(2) § In the of Contracts Restatement (a) torts, if a “matter material reasonable context its or nonexis- importance attach existence [person] would *21 testimony concerning excluding which in the matters on erred Rogers advised the MPD.
663 tence in determining his [or choice of action in the her] (b) in question; transaction or the maker of the representation knows or has reason to know that its recipient regards or is likely to regard the matter as in important determining his [or action, choice of although a [person] her] reasonable would not (Second) 538(2) regard (1977). so it.” § Restatement of Torts In attorney grievance proceedings, violations of MLRPC 7.1 may occur where an attorney pertinent omits information from cards, his or her or letterhead business or otherwise fails to advise clients attorney that the is not practice licensed to law See, in Maryland. e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Alsaf- 1, 5-7, (2003) (We ty, 1213, 1216-17 379 Md. 838 A.2d held that York attorney New violated MLRPC 7.1 by distributing, at locations, various public business cards failed to indicate the attorney’s practice courts, was limited to federal otherwise gave impression that the attorney was licensed in practice Maryland.); law Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harris-Smith, 72, 86-87, (1999) 356 567, Md. 737 A.2d 575 (We held attorney that an violated MLRPC 7.1 generally failing prospective “advise clients that she was not admitted in practice Maryland and card, from her use of [a business] ... gave] the Maryland [which ] address of attorney]’s [ [the office and thereby indicate[d] she a Maryland [was] lawyer.”); Attorney Brown, Grievance v. Comm’n 353 Md. (1999) (We 725 A.2d held that a Maryland attorney violated MLRPC 7.1 by using letterhead in- which cluded attorney’s another name as co-counsel without indicat- ing that the other was not practice licensed to law Maryland.). 8.4(c) provides:
MLRPC “It professional misconduct for a ... lawyer to engage fraud, conduct involving dishonesty, deceit misrepresentation!.]” Recently, Attorney Griev- Dore, ance 685, 707-08, Comm’n v. Md. 73 A.3d (2013), we stated dishonesty “that misrepresentation un- 8.4(c) der [MLRPC] have no requirement of intent to deceive.” Dore, id. 73 A.3d at we explained that “there is a distinction between fraud and hand, deceit on the one
664 hand[,]” on the other stat- and
dishonesty misrepresentation ing: Reinhardt,
In Attorney Commission v. Grievance for exam- only if that an intent to deceive is relevant ple, we stated Bar alleges Bar fraud or deceit: that “assuming Counsel in alleged attorney engaged that an fraudulent Counsel conduct, attorney’s specific evidence to an intent [to as in be relevant and considered as- properly would deceive] 8.4(c) was violated.” Md. sessing whether 391 [MLRPC] (2006). 221, 533, we 209, contrary, 892 A.2d 540 To not a “specific necessary clear that intent is made 222, Id. ingredient dishonesty or misrepresentation.” 892 at 540.... A.2d Siskind, Attorney Commission v. Grievance
In this Court relied on Reinhardt and made clear that there is a distinc- Md. “pure tion between acts” “false statements.” 401 (2007). for explained 930 A.2d 345 We that deceitful,” alleged “specific to “fraudulent or a “acts” be to to typically necessary proven is be demonstrate intent fact.” Id. To in that conduct in was fraudulent question contrary, alleged “false statements” be dishonest or “there no additional intent ele- misrepresentation, is otherwise, Id. ment, prove.” Accordingly, specific 8.4(c), long the context of so an [MLRPC] statement, necessarily engages makes a false he knowingly misrepresentation. conduct No intent to de- involving also v. Attorney See Grievance Comm’n necessary. is ceive Whitehead, (2008). 950 A.2d Md. (First in original). alteration
Here, convincing supports clear and evidence judge’s 7.1 and conclusion that violated MLRPC 8.4(c) submitting the MPD a proposal résumé immi- multiple misrepresentations concerning contained her gration experience. law The on Narasim- misrepresentations exaggerations. han’s were minor or slight résumé not misrepresentations record demonstrates were amply material and that certain misrepresentations statements were It wholly undisputed résumé fabricated. job proposal on Narasimhan’s résumé and statements immigration experience. as to her law At were accurate “[tjhere admitted that argument, oral Narasimhan’s counsel In proposal were submitted to the misstatementsL.]” MPD, “Being Narasimhan described herself as follows: immigrant [my]self, good well-versed [I am] ha[ve] of the laws in this knowledge immigration country[.]” résumé, Narasimhan described her with ILG as an position Im- “Attorney/Joint “Representation Venturer” as follows: migration documentary immigration clients in processes *23 litigation. Family petitions Citizenship applica- Handled and tions.” descriptions accurately
These were false and did not de- immigration experience. scribe Narasimhan’s law Before the hearing judge, job Narasimhan testified that the description clients, stating under and “Representation immigration ILG documentary immigration processes litigation” was not ILG, job experience description her with but rather “was the and what it was framed to do” and was [ILG] meant be prospective anticipated statement the work that she ILG complete. would When asked whether she had informed anyone at the MPD that her “intention with that first sentence was p[ro]spective any [her] r[é]sum[é] didn’t reflect [ ] had[,]” experience actual Narasimhan answered that [she] she they already[.]” “assumed knew Narasimhan admitted that, MPD, at the time she submitted her résumé to the ILG any had not had matters that resulted in litigation.
As to the statement on the résumé—“Handled Family peti- tions and Citizenship applications” conceded —Narasimhan thing there is no such as a “Citizenship application,” and layman that what she “meant in basically terms is an N-400 for Application hearing, Naturalization.” At the acknowledged that she had handled two for only Applications Naturalization, one 2007 and one in both before she i.e., formed Rogers; ILG with it was not accurate as she had stated that she handled “Citizenship applications” while with Moreover, ILG. Applications two for Naturalization that Narasimhan had completed were done in a non-professional friends, never applications completed
setting —she work, was not retained for her compensation received any gov- individuals, appearance her with and never entered why asked applications. When agency related ernment “Citizenship applica- with experience had she listed that she ILG, Narasimhan’s job description her tions” under “[bjecause it immigration experience, it was explanation was to communicate intent experience, [her] was related layman’s immigration experience limited nature of [her] falsity highlighted Ironically, explanation terms[.]” wherein she described proposal in the Narasimhan’s statement of[,] in, good knowledge “a having as “well-versed” herself had to the statement that she As immigration laws[.]” admitted that she “Family petitions,” Narasimhan handled that the family petition and offered only one completed had acknowl- typo.” “petitions” word “was plural actually she referenced was family petition edged that her assistance was her —and prepared by Rogers—not clerical, legal. Narasim-
Thus, correctly concluded that hearing judge misrepresentations. contained proposal han’s résumé and the in the résumé and Narasimhan’s misrepresentations and made immigration experience, law proposal concerned *24 knowl- experience she had much more and though it seem as actually law than she had the time edge immigration of of the MPD. representation she undertook descrip- contention that the flatly reject Narasimhan’s We law on her résumé reflected immigration experience tion of immigration clients. Review- practice representing ILG’s whole, descrip- it is that the apparent the document as a ing and not to ILG’s experience to Narasimhan’s pertained tion to list Tellingly, purports mission. the résumé practice “Experience” ILG’s Narasimhan’s “Education” —not “Experience” under is Nar- position The first listed practice. Directly “Attorney/Joint role as Venturer” ILG. asimhan’s of Im- description: “Representation appears beneath that documentary immigration processes in migration clients Citizenship applica- Family petitions Handled litigation. Thereafter, previous legal positions tions.” Narasimhan’s job corresponding job descriptions descrip- are listed. The for the utilize the previous legal positions past tions other etc.). (ie., “Conducted[,]” “drafted!,]” Put “prepared[,]” tense in we find no merit Narasimhan’s contention that the simply,
résumé contained information ILG’s practice. about materiality
Narasimhan raises an issue as to the of the many misrepresentations. Although the term “material” has in not been discussed the context of a violation of explicitly 7.1, MLRPC it is evident that a “material” misrepresentation is one the item knowledge “[o]f such nature would a person’s decision-making[.]” Dictionary affect Black’s Law (8th ed.2004). Materiality gauged objectively, not sub- jectively, meaning person that a court utilizes a reasonable (Second) in evaluating materiality. standard See Restatement 162(2) (1981) (“A § of Contracts misrepresentation is material if it is likely person induce a reasonable to manifest his [or (Second) assent[.]”); 538(2)(a) § her] Restatement of Torts (1977) (A fact “is material if [personl [ ] reasonable would attach importance its existence or nonexistence determin- ing his [or choice action the transaction in ques- her] tion[.]”).
Here, we have no difficulty concluding
misrepresen-
that the
tations contained in the
proposal,
résumé and
purporting
describe Narasimhan’s experience
familiarity
with and
of im-
law,
migration
were material because a
person
reasonable
would have viewed the
experience
claimed
and familiarity as
important
to a decision as to whether to retain ILG. Stated
otherwise,
may
the MPD
if
have retained ILG it had
known that
essentially
had no immigration law
experience whatsoever. Even if the MPD had hired ILG
based, in large
testified,
part,
Rogers’s
as Haines
experi-
expertise,
ence and
necessarily rely
and did not
on the state-
ments
the résumé and proposal purporting to outline Nara-
immigration
simhan’s
law experience, actual reliance on the
*25
misrepresentations
is not
requirement
a
violation
8.4(c).
MLRPC 7.1 or
Reliance and materiality are two
concepts,
distinct
as something can be material
not
but
relied
of a
ie.,
knowledge
could view
person
a reasonable
upon,
but not
decision-making process,
in the
important
matter as
case,
In
it
of the matter.
rely
knowledge
explicitly
upon
misrepresentations
that Narasimhan’s
readily apparent
is
attractive
appear
make her credentials
were made to
and were material.
employment,
to gain
MPD and
hearing
out that the
correctly points
Although Narasimhan
defraud or
purposely
not set out to
she did
judge determined
MPD,
to find a
required
no intent to deceive
deceive the
8.4(c).
plain language
of MLRPC 7.1
violation
misrepresentation
that a
be
require
7.1 does not
MLRPC
7.1
For a violation of MLRPC
an intent to deceive.
made with
“a
established,
only
need
contain
a false communication
to be
7.1(a).
MLRPC
of fact or
misrepresentation
law[.]”
material
above,
in the résumé and
the misrepresentations
As discussed
Nara-
misrepresentations concerning
were material
proposal
Similarly,
experience.
pursuant
law
immigration
simhan’s
“that
8.4(c),
explicitly
dishonesty
stated
MLRPC
we have
8.4(c)
requirement
have no
under
misrepresentation
[MLRPC]
707-08,
Dore,
at 174.
669 8.4(d) (Conduct Prejudicial MLRPC to Justice) the Administration of excepts hearing judge’s determination 8.4(d) that she violated MLRPC contends she did not in engage prejudicial conduct that was to the administration of justice. fully cooperated Narasimhan maintains that she Bar investigation truthfully Counsel’s testified before the hearing judge. professional
“It is
misconduct for
...
lawyer
engage
a
conduct that is prejudicial
justice[.]”
to the administration of
8.4(d).
MLRPC
“In general,
lawyer] violates
a[
[MLRPC]
8.4(d) when
or
impacts
his
her conduct
negatively
public’s
perception
efficacy
Dore,
or
of the courts
legal
profession.”
(citation
violated evidence.12 MLRPC) 8.4(a) (Violating
MLRPC
violate or
lawyer
for a
to[ ]
misconduct
“It
professional
induce
[MLRPC],
assist or
knowingly
to violate the
attempt
acts of
so,
through
another[.]”
so
or do
another
do
1.4(a)
1.1, 1.3,
8.4(a).
MLRPC
Narasimhan violated
MLRPC
8.4(d).
clear and convinc-
7.1, 8.4(c),
Accordingly,
(b),
*27
judge’s conclusion
the
supports
evidence
ing
8.4(a).
violated MLRPC
Narasimhan
C. Sanction
indefinitely
that this Court
recommends
Bar Counsel
in Maryland.
of law
practice
from the
Narasimhan
suspend
requests
reprimand.
717,
180,
Dore,
A.3d at
we stated:
73
In
433 Md.
sanctions,
the
punish
is not to
goal
our
impose
we
When
public’s
and the
public
the
protect
rather
[lawyer], but
other
to deter
legal profession [and]
in the
confidence
goal,
To achieve this
violating
[MLRPC].
from
lawyers
the nature and
commensurate with
the sanction should be
which it
and the intent with
of the misconduct
gravity
sanction, we
determining
appropriate
In
committed.
Association’s Standards
American Bar
often refer to the
Sanctions,
nature of
focus on the
which
Lawyer
Imposing
state,
violated,
lawyer’s
mental
duty
the ethical
injury
by
caused
potential
the actual or
extent of
proposition
"In
following general
of law:
for the
12. We reference Dore
8.4(d)
his or her conduct
lawyer]
when
general,
[MLRPC]
violates
a[
efficacy
the courts or
public’s perception or
impacts negatively the
Dore,
696,
(citation and
(Second (citations in original) alteration and internal quotation omitted). marks violated,
Concerning duty nature the ethical Narasim- 1.1, 8.4(d) 1.3, 1.4, 7.1, 8.4(c), han violated MLRPC by failing MPD, to competently diligently represent by failing to promptly fully respond MPD, to and advise making misrepresentations in her job résumé and as to her proposal immigration experience. law As to Nara- mind, simhan’s state of although Narasimhan did not set out purposely case, mishandle the MPD’s her inexperience and incompetence got the best of her. As to poten- the actual or injury tial caused, that Narasimhan’s misconduct Narasim- han’s misconduct negatively impacted the MPD’s and the public’s perception legal profession, and ultimately deny caused the DOL to certification of Dr. perma- Samuel’s nent residency application.
In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Davy, 435 Md. (2013), 80 A.3d 342-43 we stated: *28 (a) Aggravating factors include: prior disciplinary of- (b) fenses; (c) motive; dishonest or selfish pattern of mis- (d) conduct; (e) offenses; multiple bad faith obstruction of the [attorney] disciplinary proceeding[ by intentionally ] fail- ing to comply (f) or [Commission]; rules orders of the evidence, statements, submission of false false or other deceptive practices during [attorney] the disciplinary proceeding]; (g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of (h) conduct; (i) victim; vulnerability of the substantial expe- in practice law; rience the of (j) [and] indifference to making restitution.
(Some (citation in alterations original) and paragraph breaks omitted).
We note that the hearing judge did not any find aggravating factors. independent review, On we discern the aggravating factor that Narasimhan violated several MLRPC ie., MPD,
in of she committed representation multiple offenses. factors: following mitigating
The constitute ( n ) record; (b) a a of prior disciplinary absence of absence (c) motive; prob- or emotional personal dishonest or selfish lems; (d) make or to timely good faith efforts to restitution (e) misconduct; full of free disclo- rectify consequences and cooperative or attitude toward sure [the Commission] (f) ]; discipline] proceeding[ inexperience [the (h) law; practice (g) reputation; physical character or (i) in- chemical disability dependency mental or disability; (1) drug or when: is medical cluding alcoholism abuse there [lawyer] depen- affected a chemical evidence that is (2) or dency disability; the chemical dependency or mental (3) misconduct; [lawyer’s mental caused disability disability or dependency from the chemical mental recovery a by meaningful period sustained demonstrated (4) rehabilitation; arrested the recovery successful unlikely; that misconduct is misconduct and recurrence of (k) ]; (j) attorney] disciplinary proceeding[ delay [the (l) sanctions; remorse; imposition penalties of other (m) prior remoteness offenses. [and] (some 712-13, Davy, Md. at at 344 alterations A.3d (citation omitted). original) paragraph breaks label judge specifically did Although hearing factors, following finding, mitigating judge stated: find is not a of fraud. does this case Court actions, about, not set in her did conduct
[Narasimhan] defrauding her clients. The Court with the intention ease made young attorney finds to be a where *29 for the misrepresentations purpose gaining mistakes and [Narasimhan], unfortunately, took a case with employment. yet with an competent issues that she was handle had not vetted. attorney experience thoroughly whose she agree We with the hearing judge, and are persuaded of at least two mitigating factors —Narasimharis inexperience and the absence of a prior disciplinary record.
In Attorney Ward, 1, Grievance 37-39, Comm’n v. 394 Md. 477, (2006), 904 A.2d 499-500 where an attorney violated 8.4(d) 1.5, 5.3(a), MLRPC in his representation of one 8.4(d) 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, client and violated MLRPC in his representation client, of another the attorney’s where “misconduct inexperience, result of incompetency, and inability schedule!,]” balance his work we indefinitely suspended attorney right apply reinstate- (Footnote omitted). sixty ment after days. We noted that there were no “cases on directly point” as to the appropriate sanction for attorney’s misconduct, and stated:
We have found cases which involved violations upon based neglect, misconduct, carelessness and unintentional but also involved more egregious violations of the M[L]RPC. cases, those this Court imposed sanctions, has various rang- ing from public reprimand to suspension indefinite depend- ing factors, on several such as previous actions, disciplinary inexperience, or lack of intent. 33, (citations omitted).
Id. at
Conversely, Ward, a case discussed in Attorney Griev- Jaseb, ance Comm’n v. 468, 479, 482, 364 Md. 773 A.2d 516, 517, (2001), we issued a reprimand where an 5.3(b) (one attorney violated MLRPC charges five brought her) against by failing to adequately supervise her law clerk. In the case, course of a bankruptcy prepared bankruptcy petition behalf of her client and directed her law clerk to file it in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Id.
674 477, at failed
at
773 A.2d
523.
law clerk
to file
477,
matter,
A.2d at
In a different
petition.
Id. at
773
representations
made
of fact and law
attorney
inaccurate
counsel, although
to the trial court and
opposing
were
judge
representations
that the
not “inten-
determined
474-75,
at
misleading” or fraudulent.
Id. at
773 A.2d
tionally
Jaseb,
526,
482,
in determining
In
id. at
In v. 400 251- Attorney Floyd, Grievance Comm’n Md. (2007), A.2d 74 an violated attorney where 8.4(c) to in by submitting employer her a letter MLRPC a her support petition higher salary penned by of her for surname, husband, did who not share same and failed attorney and where omitted her relationship, disclose the résumé, from her previous with her husband we employment ninety In so we suspended attorney days. ordering, explained: dishonesty; vio- attorneyj’s
[The misconduct reflected she 8.4(c) by intentionally concealing the nature [MLRPC] lated relationship of from the [employer] her with [her husband] her order to during employment application process Moreover, it troubling obtain a find higher salary. we attorney] any omitted from her reference [the résumé her before and he employment [her she husband] Columbia, although non-legal relocated District also, to this time included. employment prior We however, ... In this any mitigating factors[.] consider case, attorney] record, no prior disciplinary has [the part instant violation is not misconduct. pattern Additionally, acknowledged she error. 258-59,
Id. at
at 74.
A.2d
case, Narasimhan,
an
li-
who had been
just over
and a
years
censed for
two
half
the time
commenced,
representation at issue
and who had little to no
law,
experience
immigration
sought to obtain the MPD as a
client by submitting
proposal
a résumé and
which misrepre-
legal experience.
sented her
Such misconduct
reflected
ILG,
degree
dishonesty. Once the MPD retained
Narasim-
during
representation
han’s misconduct
incom-
included
petence
handling
hand,
the matter at
inability
or failure
accurately
client,
and fully provide information to the
*31
the failure to
attorney
associate with an
who was
competent
Ward,
499-500,
the field. As in
IT ORDERED; IS SO RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS TAXED BY AS THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING ALL TRANSCRIPTS, COSTS OF PURSUANT 16-761(B), TO MARYLAND RULE FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT ENTERED IS IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST SUDHA NARASIMHAN. McDONALD, JJ.,
ADKINS and concur and dissent. ADKINS, J., Concurring and Dissenting, in which McDonald, j., joins.
I write separately only not I disagree because with the holding case, but, sanction in this below, as I explain because Majority opinion has worrisome implications for Majority’s conclusion I with disagree
legal practitioners. 8.4(d). I am 1.4 and doubt- violated MLRPC Respondent Furthermore, I although 1.1. MLRPC ful that she violated violated Respondent conclusion that Majority’s agree with 8.4(a) 8.4(c), 1.3, 7.1, severity I with the disagree MLRPC violations, appropriate sanction. consequently, of the in this case in the conduct It is that we evaluate important said: hearing judge As the context. not a case of fraud. The find that this is
The Court does actions, about, in her conduct and did not set Respondent her clients. The Court defrauding with the intention made young a case where finds this be purpose gaining for the misrepresentations mistakes and employment. I which Majority opinion of the significant aspect
A follows: theme recurring expressed stems from its disagree Narasimhan, concluding difficulty “we have no representing MPD. As responsible for Rogers, was MLRPC, pro- such, required, under utilizing legal knowledge, ‘the representation competent vide necessary for skill, reasonably thoroughness preparation *32 ” 653-54, 92 at 521. Maj. A.3d Op. representation.’ added). on this assessment Majority The relied (Emphasis of the its conclusions about several justify times to several Yet, violated, sanction. proper that and the Rules were Rather, they found that not find this. he hearing judge did Respon- and the Rogers’ expertise based on Mr. “were hired Bar Maryland local service as a ability provide dent’s member.” facts, examined, the Ma-
Indeed, support when do not understanding expressed The client’s was jority’s thesis.1 Agreement Venture understanding is consistent with the Joint 1. This Rogers Rogers, clearly that which set forth Narasimhan and between words, In its was lead counsel. [Rogers] experience, hereby acknowledge that has the Parties The and, Venture. legal knowledge the business acumen in Joint providing primarily responsible for advice and [Rogers] shall be primarily shall also be legal expertise [He] the Joint Venture. Haines, agreed of Human Resources who that MPD Director Mr. Immigration Group upon MPD “hired the Law based A Rogers’s lawyer not that of Ms. expertise, Narasimhan[.]” herself, had “less than three months Respondent Haines knew experience.” She confirmed that the immigration practice forward” without Rogers MPD “could not have moved “felt comfortable that he would meet our need and so we him.” was convinced from the be- selected Director Haines experience “alone sufficient ginning Respondent [lacked] to do this.” confirmed that would serve as “lead She “go- counsel” and Narasimhan would a “local liaison” or be Rogers.” between between ourselves and Mr. She understood “in constant with Respondent would be contact Mr. Rogers[,]” and that “he would look at she everything before basically directing it to us and that he ... would her— sent be directing her activities.”2 with understanding, Rogers
Consistent the MPD’s call, phone during December conference of a Respondent planned trip was absent because outside the country.3 Haines also recalled that there few were “a emails responsible legal for research of issues that will arise in conduct practice of the law within the Joint Venture. (Division Labor) added). Agreement (Emphasis
Joint Venture 5.01 participate hiring expressed 2. Dr. Samuel did not in the of ILG. She but, asked, opinion Respondent lawyer” was “their when had no particular opinion. basis for this procurement legal provided by MPD issued the contract for services 3. Respondent trip ILG on November had scheduled a to India January between December 2009 and and informed Haines right Designating of this Respondent’s trip after the bid was awarded. communicate, Rogers, recognized to India as a failure to when partner immigration expertise, participated senior in the first occurring during Respondent’s conference call trip, on December simply required attorneys participate unfair. It is not that two in each meeting. Majority charges client also that Narasimhan failed to *33 respond request to the MPD’s for a second conference on Decem- call ber 2009. The facts as shown e-mails in the record are that Rogers up talking set a second conference call for December 21 when during Respon- with the client the December 2009 conference call. kepi by reading dent abreast of discussions in that call e-mails summarizing meeting, Rogers. Haines wrote and she sent e-mails to that during and MPD Respondent forth” between back and “to be Respondent appeared agreed Haines also trip. about difficul- When asked service[.]” dedicated to customer replied, Haines Respondent, in communicating ties was, we had when there was problem real only very getting it difficult together, for us all to talk was need conflicts that Mr. either because of parties together, had, but it was—on or conflicts that Sudha4 Rogers had for us to meet important where it was least two occasions That’s days get than a few it done. it took more quickly, I, aware of. was only thing personally, get them explaining “trying amplified by Haines ... call was phone problematic, for a conference together Sudha, Dr. Samuel and a lot of interaction between there was they when any problem I that there was perceive didn’t with each other.” actually interacting were by Respondent, especially A defense offered primary that, alone did not although she incompetency charge, to undertake knowledge experience have sufficient necessary permanent to secure immigration work legal Samuel, the work in only she undertook residence for who, believed, had Rogers, she conjunction partner, with her Majority in law. The experience immigration years saying: defense rejects Respondent’s competent representation can Although attorney provide an compe- “of established through association with [2], cmt. such field in MLRPC 1.1 question[,]” tence begin, setting any To aside issue was not the case here. thereof, or lack as the competence, to Narasimhan’s concluded, whether Narasimhan failed ascertain judge was, fact, immigration the field of competent law. conflicting testimony whether the December contains over
The record
findings
hearing judge
no
place, and the
made
21 conference call took
point.
usually
Re-
testimony,
and Dr. Samuel
referred to
In their
Haines
name,
spondent by
Sudha.
her first
*34
Majority opines
at 520. The
Maj. Op. at
92 A.3d
Rogers’s qualifications
should have examined
Respondent
party,
verify-
with some third
and that
expertise by checking
did,
Maj.
as
not sufficient.5
ing
membership,
his Bar
she
was
view,
686-88,
up
sets
an
Op.
my
MLRPC 7.1 Services) Lawyer’s made minor Respondent misrepresentations I agree in the resume she submitted to experience about her *35 (MPD), Department thereby violating Police Metropolitan 8.4(c). truthfully she told the MPD Although MLRPC 7.1 and in the practitioner had less than three months as a she field, the MPD purport qualified and did not to be handle own, she did exaggerate slightly work for Dr. Samuel on her experience. of her This is a violation which specifics earlier, I As indicated neither discipline appropriate. some client, MPD, experience considered her Respondent nor the Immigration Group material in the decision to hire the Law be (“ILG”) hand, at a factor to immigration for the law work significant weight. which we should accord (Competence) MLRPC 1.1 24, 2010, Employer’s Appli- filed the Respondent On March Employment posi- cation for Permanent Certification for the This, as Form 9089. “Project Specialist,” tion of known to obtain a apparently, step required is the first Green Card. Labor, Foreign Office of May Department On (DOL) certification, indicating Labor denied the Certification in that incomplete provide that the Form 9089 was it failed to Determination, Prevailing Wage information known as the Clearly, this contained among things. filing significant other who worked on the by Respondent, errors both filing together. expert, immigration practition- Petitioner’s er, lack of expounded length Respondent’s expertise, about care, testimony that was and failure to meet the standard accepted by hearing judge.7 generally by significant aspect explained 7. A of the deficiencies in Form mailing rough Respondent, her mistake in an earlier was caused 9089 to the DOL. This submitted Form 9089 omitted draft of Form through significant required complete F-2 F- information as sections
681 her error Yet, efforts to correct promptly made Respondent and, Prevailing secured a new guidance Rogers, under of the division appropriate Determination from the Wage days. 30 DOL, form within less than complete and filed a more ruling,8 in the DOL’s November acknowledged As second submittal. De- completed all this deficiencies were denied the labor certifi- again the DOL spite compliance, 656.17(a) cation, provided grounds C.F.R. explained: will denied.” DOL applications be “[incomplete back- designed to eliminate exacting process, “PERM is an and to government, and the applicants and-forth between in order to better efficiency dialogue over favor administrative overall, available given the resources public serve the interest program.” to administer the doubt, “in head” in was, over her without
Respondent, permanent to secure appropriate steps to take the trying But, in for and bidding status for Samuel. residence work, Rogers’s in reliance on she did so undertaking the guidance.9 was under his and her work years experience, *36 by 9089 version of Form sending incomplete admitted She fingertips complete at her a more mistake when she had because, as its significant to be a error proved This version. said, reject that are policy filings the DOL is to denial memo expert Petitioner’s allowing amendment. incomplete, without errors, although the evidence does also delineated other by into computer these were entered reveal whether entries on the form. as both made Rogers Respondent, and e-mail exhibits show Respondent’s testimony Both Respondent. having provided despite information to MPD draft, Respon- complete current which Those sections were on the most dent failed to send. Appeals, ruling of Alien Certification 8. This was made the Board Certifying by the initial denial of labor certification which affirmed the Officer. exemplified May e-mail in which This reliance is in a 2010 requests Rogers supply Respondent emphatically her with an instruc- sufficiently completing a Form 9089 submission to the tion sheet for DOL. 682 filings approved by Rogers.
both Form 9089 were read and testify, did not and record does not reveal whether charged any he was with violations in or any recip Arkansas written, discipline Majority rocal here. I opinion With accountable, fear the implications holding young lawyers context,10 the disciplinary negligence for the or inattention of experienced lawyers more who them. It can be supervise benefiting both the client and the firm—for an law efficient— role, lawyer to act in an inexperienced apprenticeship handling matter, certain details of a client contact. including regular Moreover, instances, client, here, a many fully like MPD the inexperienced lawyer provide aware will not expertise judgment expected experienced of the more firm, lawyer. attorneys, If in a young working become reti clients, freely cent to interact openly long tradition of as an apprenticeship entryway profession to our will suffer. I that the worry Majority opinion imperils the viability beginning legal this time-honored method of career. says, many
As the Preamble to the MLRPC of our reflect, presuppose decisions “the Rules that whether or not violation, should for a discipline imposed severity be and the sanction, circumstances, depend on all the such as the violation, willfulness and seriousness of the extenuating factors MLRPC, and whether there have been violations.” previous A Lawyer’s Responsibilities Preamble: deciding [19]. “ case, we should bear mind that ‘mistakes are the inevit- ” Serhant, able lot of v. mankind’ Baranski 106 F.R.D. (N.D.Ill.1985) Estate, Re (quoting Taylor’s Ch. D. (1882)), lawyers are not immune. ultimately grant Whether we decide to Respondent’s excep- *37 tion to the finding that she violated MLRPC 1.1 is a close call. caused, Clearly, the denial the labor certification was at in part by Respondent’s pay least failure to attention to details terribly significant. at a time when details were I no have Liability negligence entirely in is an different issue. from regrets doubt that she has learned this mistake. circumstances, 1.1, if Under these even she violated MLRPC violation, itself, justify repri- such would no more than a mand. (Communication)
MLRPC 1.4 Respondent’s alleged major failure to communicate is a by Majority justify Respondent’s issue used to discipline. evidence, IAs understand the Respondent’s alleged failures to (1) communicate with the client consisted the failure to set up Rogers a second conference call with and MPD in Decem- 2009, ber when was on Respondent planned trip a to India that the client knew of from the beginning representa- (2) tion; the failure to cause to Rogers provide substantive immigration information about the in to an process response (3) 15, e-mail; April the failure to advise MPD regarding one-year how to secure a extension for Dr. orMay Samuel (4) June, 2010, and the failure to set call up conference the client and for a 6-day period July.
The Majority says that “there were
on
multiple occasions
respond
which Narasimhan failed to
at all to
requests
information, and she also failed to provide
requested
status
update.” Maj.
also,
Op.
Maj.
at
(i) December Conference Call
Rogers conducted an initial telephone conference call with Haines and Samuel on December which he process outlined the for securing permanent resident status. *38 call, reveal, set during Rogers this in the record As the e-mails call. 2009 conference for the December up plans that no and there is indication India Respondent in any way. call to facilitate that second was asked Respondent call, is have this it through not follow and Rogers If did This was not viola- Respondent. to decidedly unfair blame of MLRPC 1.4. tion
(ii) April Communications keep to the client any by Respondent If failure there was matter, it was of the informed about the status reasonably to Respondent from is rife with e-mails minor. record that Although Dr. Samuel testified and Dr. Samuel.11 Haines in an Respondent April questions Rogers she asked 27, the record e-mail, response April no until and received 18, that “Gordon will replied April Respondent reveals that counsel Respondent’s the answers.”12 When respond with all “I reply, responded: to this Dr. Samuel brought her attention answers, me that just telling immediate so did not receive the answers receiving to and then somebody going respond 12, 13, just days 14—even five later —is question to the evidently accept did not to Samuel unreasonable me[.]” Haines, of the negotiated as the terms superior, what her had the Rogers that it was understood representation: not, did but would Respondent immigration expertise, information, assistance, with the gather speak local provide include 24 e-mails from documents introduced Petitioner 11. The mid-July, January 2010. Respondent MPD from to April and Sudha” on Dr. Samuel e-mailed "Gordon When 12. you opportunity,” have an "[w]hen for some additional information asking "respond Rogers day, him to Respondent the next e-mailed e-mail, 2, 2010, Rogers respond May did ASAP.” On may complete. described although response not have been Haines his Samuel on Rogers, Respondent, Haines and Dr. call with conference discussed, they talked Saturday, May in which that issue was Rogers guided the client as refiling appealing. options about the a new Form 9089 to the options, and MPD decided to resubmit to these Labor, According to Department which was done on June Haines, Respondent "respond[ed] quickly to resubmit the forms.” client, in preparing necessary filings. and assist any had Respondent power There was no evidence schedule, guarantee responsiveness, his Rogers’s control expect MPD had no reason to that she did. (iii) By After Denial Communications Initial DOL.
(May-July) May. sought by original The labor certification submis- by May of Form 9089 on on sion was denied DOL complained it was Dr. in her grounds incomplete. Samuel that, thereafter, testimony difficulty she had a arranging some or meeting Respondent May face-to-face with on around they actually did not meet until 27. Dr. May and Samuel so, something I do more explained: wanted to closer “[I]t denial, know, to when we received the you [Respon- but— just schedule seemed to open enough dent’s] never be for her to meet with The written during period e-mails this me[.]”13 which provide specific negate evidence communications general complaint e-mail, that Dr. Samuel In a 7May made. Dr. Samuel asked to Respondent missing “address the infor- necessary corrections,” mation and make and Respondent replied indicating the same to day, they speak were at 2:00 p.m. day. next a Apparently, meeting face-to-face did not place, take but verified that Haines a conference call with Rogers, Respondent, Haines and Dr. Samuel occurred on Saturday, May which issue During was discussed. call, they the options refiling talked about or appealing. guided Rogers the client as to these and options, MPD decid- ed to resubmit a Form 9089 revised to the DOL.
Respondent responded quickly to the form. resubmit She e-mailed Rogers May asking on him fill to out “the Ml and F section” “the of the May section 9089 form.” From 8- 27, Rogers were on Respondent working completing a Form May e-mail, revised 9089. In a 12 Respondent sent May exchange, Other 13. than a 7 there are no e-mail communications May requested or June of 2010 which Haines or Samuel informa- meeting Respondent. tion with 686 form,” to the 9089 certain information needed “re-fill
Rogers of the asking questions aspects comments and about making form, May and in a 16 e-mail to Rogers completed form. Haines, for “a more information” Dr. asked little Samuel thought Respondent, would be to include. helpful that he meanwhile, spoke government agencies securing two about to information,” necessary reporting to “[prevailing wage May in a 20 e-mail. Rogers work being Dr. Samuel was aware of the
Importantly, 14 there May May were several e-mails done—between details regarding Samuel between talking May revised Form 9089. After Dr. Samuel document, sign the revised arrange meeting Respon- Haines, indicating: “we are on dent e-mailed Dr. Samuel and am.” May Respondent tomorrow 27th 9:30 sent May Form Federal the DOL on Express revised sum, May, four-way after a regarding conference *40 was Dr. 8, communicating with Samuel call May Rogers on that Respondent about the revisions to Form 9089 he and making original filing. to correct the deficiencies of the were Respondent obligated was not to communicate with Certainly Rogers already Dr. when so. doing Samuel 8, faxed a Respondent follow-up June. On June letter from “Final requesting DOL relief the Determination Denial” Form told Rogers the 9089. On June she she was 1-140, working on of Form known as completion also “Petition Worker,” Immigrant for which she would send for his review link approval. included a from the DOL website She 1-140 in indicating petition step “[a]n is second the Green process” approved[J”14 Card after “Labor Certificate is Meanwhile, the lack of success with Form 9089 had eroded Respondent’s capabilities. trust in In effort record MPD’s a belated to original filing, on the MPD's dissatisfaction with the 9089 June Rogers, indicating sent a addressed to that she it Haines letter found ongoing "prudent response to to send this letter some issues.” She Department complained by about the March 2010 denial
687 17, 2010, the Foreign On June Office of Labor Certification it a Respondent “prevailing e-mailed notice that had issued wage position Project Specialist” determination for the 21, Respondent reviewing on June informed the DOL office above, receipt. Form As indicated this this determi- fruitless, later, proved nation to be as the DOL would November, reject Form labor request, certification on though requisite provided, even information was grounds complete it was not first when filed.
July e-mail, a July Termination. In Dr. Samu- —MPD’s requested meeting el with On Rogers July 16. the same day, Respondent indicating that replied, Rogers was Pana- [Rogers] ma and she would “have to if see is available talk e-mail, Friday.” also she advised that she and “working your were on 1-140 1-485 application.” Respondent up the day followed next with another e-mail schedule, advising Rogers, checking Samuel that after his could fit in a conference Friday, call that but could do so later, the following days week.15 It was six Tuesday, July that Haines sent e-mail terminating the MPD’s attor- ney-client ILG, relationship ILG to asking send final bill.
(iv) Conclusion Re: MLRPC 1.4 Rejecting a key by that, defense Respondent offered in light of her limited experience, her role was to play assistant Labor, delay caused the need to resubmit Form 9089. In this regard, she said that “expertise, his resume indicated that he had knowledge, necessary respond immigra- skills and abilities to these issues!,]” complained Respondent
tion but “either does not have issues, or, experience sufficient to address these she is distracted and pay doing.’’ does not sufficient attention to she what Haines com- *41 plained rejected Department application that the of Labor the because provided of the omission of Respondent. information that had to MPD She you insisted: “I need that some assurances will either deal with directly closely this matter Ms. supervised or that Narasimhan be more for all activities in the future.” you that e-mail she advised Dr. “I have Samuel: first-class mailed yesterday giving you update your a letter an about 9089 form. You today should receive it or tomorrow.” “As claim that the to Narasimhan’s Majority says:
Rogers, facilitating Rogers, communication with by responded she representing for responsibility accepted primary MPD; such, to upon it the as was incumbent or information herself to ensure provide requested Maj. A.3d at 522. Op. in full.” Rogers responded before, judge reject did not or otherwise hearing I said As does not defense. I submit that evidence address this Majority’s treatment. support her Samuel, support superior, the testimonial of Dr. without Haines, against Respondent about general complaint made a Yet, my to as discussion failures communicate. supposed demonstrates, hearing Dr. nor neither Samuel above information for us conclude provided enough specific judge, providing 1.4 delaying violated MLRPC Respondent always pro- for cannot Lawyers service. replies requests like, especially their would as fast as clients legal vide advice research, thought many questions require since answers to law- discipline In our of judgment. overseeing role violations, fully careful to under- yers for ethical we should be for alleged delay, discipline only of stand the context duty. delays neglect qualify those diligent efforts to communicate Respondent’s In light overall, and communi- of the work performed and the evidence testimony, cations, I such as general submit that Dr. Samuel’s to be just open schedule never seemed “[Respondent’s] sufficiently me ...” is not enough specific to meet with convincing Respondent evidence that provide clear 1.4.16 Neither Dr. Samuel nor violated MLRPC my strong than that. It is specific said more judge anything and the generalities both Samuel opinion complained: also 16. She Definitely very get phone. very difficult to her on the difficult "It face-to-face, lag I there was a lot time
to meet and then found that matter, emails, again was a responses to so time-sensitive between —it question my question popped if had a so if a mind or Diana question, department we’d off other member of the had shoot some email, response, extremely it was difficult.” so
689 judge topic on this do not to the level of specific rise delays that our justify finding would that there exists clear convincing evidence a failure to communicate. Conclu- sory testimony not convincing does become clear and evidence simply because a it hearing judge deems so. 8.4(d)
MLRPC
I do
Finally,
agree
not
that Respondent violated MLRPC
8.4(d). This Rule should be reserved for more serious viola-
tions than have been demonstrated
The Majority
here.
relies
Dore,
on our
in
opinion Att’y Grievance
v.
Comm’n
433 Md.
(2013)
707-08,
73
analogous
A.3d
support
8.4(c)
finding a violation of MLRPC
an
supporting
indefi-
suspension
right
nite
with the
to reapply
days,
after 60
reasoning that both cases involved
dishonesty
misrepre-
sentation
any
without
intent
In
Majority’s
deceive.
view, “Narasimhan’s lack of
competence
MPD
representing
reflected negatively
attorneys
legal
and the
profession,
aas
consequence, had the effect of eroding public confidence
in the legal profession.”
Maj. Op. at
Conclusion The exacting exemplified approach Majority’s opinion will further the principles motivating adoption our of the Rather, amplify anxiety only it will serve
MLRPC.
complexities
with the
modern
when faced
attorney suffers
circumstances,
her mis-
including
Under all
practice.
if
find
and even we
prior experience,
representation about
*43
days
1.1,1
suspension
think a flat
for
of MLRPC
a violation
for Ms. Narasimhan.
fully
sanction
sufficient
joins
he
me
state that
Judge McDONALD authorizes
dissenting opinion.
concurring and
Quinton RICHMOND, et al. Term, 105, Sept. No. 2013. Maryland. Appeals Court May (William F. Bernhardt, Gen. Brock- Atty. Asst. Doyle Julia General; Gansler, Atty. F. Gen. man, Douglas Deputy Solicitor Baltimore, MD), brief, on for appellants. Maryland, (Brian Cutler, Wilmer, Boynton, Picker- Bashur M. Ashley Hut, DC); A. Dorr, LLP, Stephen Washington, ing, Hale (Paul DeWolfe, B. Public De- Jr., Public Defender Assistant Baltimore, MD), brief, appellees. for Maryland, fender of (Mitchell LLP, Mirviss, Venable, Y. Balti- Michael Schatzow more, Colbert, Maryland School of Law MD; L. Douglas brief, Baltimore, MD), on Clinic, appel- Access to Justice lees.