Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Theriault

Citation: 390 Md. 202

Docket Number: 48ag/04

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
Misc. Docket AG No. 48
September Term, 2004
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v.
MICHAEL J. THERIAULT
Bell, C.J.
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene,
JJ.
Opinion by Bell, C.J.
Filed: December 15, 2005
1Maryland Rule 16-751, as relevant, provides:
“ (a) Commencement of Disciplinary or Remedial Action.
“(1) Upon Approval of Commission. Upon approval or
direction of the Commission, Bar Counsel shall file a Petition
for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals.”
2Bar Counsel charged violations of Maryland Code (2002) § 7-104, the general
theft provisions, and § 7-113, “Embezzlement--Fraudulent misappropriation by
fiduciaries,” of the Criminal Law Article, as well as Maryland Code (1957, ___
Replacement Volume) Article 27, § 132, the predecessor to § 7-113, and § 342, the
predecessor to § 7-104.
In a Petition For Disciplinary Action, filed pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 Bar
Counsel, acting at the direction of the Attorney Grievance Commission Of Maryland, the
petitioner, alleged that Michael John Theriault, the respondent, engaged in misconduct as
reflected in his violation of certain of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by
Maryland Rule 16-812, other Maryland rules and statutes, including criminal statutes.  Most
of the allegations,  pertaining to the alleged commingling and misappropriation of trust
funds, were the result of an investigation, prompted by Bar Counsel’s receipt of a report from
the respondent’s bank that a check drawn on the respondent’s IOLTA Attorney Trust
Account had been returned for insufficient funds.  They included: theft,2 misuse of trust
3Maryland Code (1989, ____ Replacement Volume) § 10-306 of the Business
Occupations and Professions Article, which provides:
“A lawyer may not use trust money for any purpose other than the purpose
for which the trust money is entrusted to the lawyer.”
4Maryland 16-609 provides:
“An attorney or law firm may not borrow or pledge any funds required by
these Rules to be deposited in an attorney trust account, obtain any
remuneration from the financial institution for depositing any funds in the
account, or use any funds for any unauthorized purpose.   An instrument
drawn on an attorney trust account may not be drawn payable to case or to
bearer.”
5As relevant, Rule 1.15 provided:
“(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a
lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the
lawyer's own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained
pursuant to Title 16, Chapter 600 of the Maryland Rules. Other property
shall be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records
of such account funds and of other property shall be kept by the lawyer and
shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the representation.
“(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third
person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third
person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by
agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or
third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is
entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.”
Effective July 1, 2005, as a result of Court action on February 8, 2005, Rule 1.15 was
amended.  As amended, among changes, subsection (b) has been renumbered subsection
(d).
2
money,3 violation of Rule 16-609, Prohibited Transactions,4 and violation of Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.15, Safekeeping Property,5 and 8.4, Misconduct.6   The other
 
6Rule 8.4, as pertinent, provides:
*     *     *     *
“(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; 
“(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;   
“(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice”
*     *     *     *
7Md. Code (2002) § 3-201 (b) of the Criminal Law Article provides that “Assault’
means the crimes of assault, battery, and assault and battery, which retain their judicially
determined meanings.”
8Rule 16-752 (a) provides:
“(a)  Order. Upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial
Action, the Court of Appeals may enter an order designating a judge of any
circuit court to hear the action and the clerk responsible for maintaining the
record. The order of designation shall require the judge, after consultation
with Bar Counsel and the attorney, to enter a scheduling order defining the
3
allegation  related to a domestic violence charge brought by the respondent’s spouse and the
resultant protective order entered in the case.   It was that the respondent assaulted her in the
second degree and, in so doing, violated Maryland Code (2002) § 3-203 of the criminal Law
Article.7
We referred the case, pursuant to Rules 16-752 (a),8 to the Honorable Maurice W.
extent of discovery and setting dates for the completion of discovery, filing
of motions, and hearing.”  
9Maryland Rule 16-757 (c) provides:
“(c)  Findings and conclusions. The judge shall prepare and file or dictate
into the record a statement of the judge's findings of fact, including findings
as to any evidence regarding remedial action, and conclusions of law. If
dictated into the record, the statement shall be promptly transcribed. Unless
the time is extended by the Court of Appeals, the written or transcribed
statement shall be filed with the clerk responsible for the record no later
than 45 days after the conclusion of the hearing. The clerk shall mail a copy
of the statement to each party.” 
10There are no mandatory bar dues in Maryland, since we do not have a mandatory
bar.   The reference here is to the mandatory assessment of the Client Protection Fund. 
Decertification is the sanction for the failure to pay those assessments.  See Maryland
4
Baldwin, Jr., of the Circuit Court for Harford County, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757
(c).9  Although he was served, the respondent did not file a response, resulting in the entry
of an order of default.   Rather than move to vacate order of default, the respondent filed an
untimely answer to the Petition, which prompted the petitioner to file a Motion to Strike
Respondent’s Answer.  Following a hearing on that motion, at which the respondent
appeared, in proper person, and participated, the hearing court granted the petitioner’s motion
and, proceeding to the default hearing, accepted the petitioner’s proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law and adopted them as its own.  They are:  
“[I]t is the finding of this court, as being established by clear an[d] convincing
evidence that Michael John Theriault was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 14,
1995 and presently stands decertified by order of the Court of Appeals dated April 4, 2005
for non payment of his mandatory bar dues.10 
Rule 16-811 (f) (4).
5
“BC DOCKET NO. 2003-252-3-6
COMPLAINANT: BAR COUNSEL
“The court finds that on December 27, 2002 the Petitioner received notice from First
Union National Bank, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-610 b 1 (B) and Rule 16-610 b 1 (C).
That notice indicated the account in the name of Michael J. Theriault, Esquire, IOLTA
Attorney Trust Account No. 2044004481812 was charged with a check drawn against
insufficient funds in the amount of $ 8,000 when the available balance was only $ 5, 829.
“The check, number 162 was drawn on December 14, 2002 payable to the order of
Baltimore Sun, Inc. and Marshall Grier in the amount of $ 8, 000 bearing the signature of the
account holder, and Respondent herein, Michael J. Theriault, Esquire.
“The Respondent was placed upon notice by letter dated January 8, 2003 and was
asked to provide a full explanation for the overdraft as well as to provide copies of his client
ledger cards, deposit slips, canceled checks, and monthly bank statements for the period
beginning July, 2002 through and including December, 2002.   By letter dated January 16,
2003 the Respondent provided a response and documents which, upon review precipitated
a docketed disciplinary file being opened against Respondent bearing BC Docket No. 2003-
253-03-6.   In connection with that disciplinary investigation a notice letter was sent to the
Respondent dated January 27, 2003 stating a review of his previously provided financial
records indicated the possibility of commingling in his fiduciary account as well as a
6
possibility of misuse of fiduciary funds entrusted to him.   He was asked to provide an
explanation for each of the payees noted on the checks provided with his earlier January 16th
response and specifically asked to address payments made to an individual as payee, namely
Coy Condon, which appeared to be for personal purposes.   By response dated February 5,
2003 the Respondent provided further documents and explanation.
“An analysis of Respondent’s explanations, response, and records of his fiduciary
account revealed the Respondent received funds in his fiduciary account, by December 16,
2002, on behalf of the Estate of Ethel Brenner totaling $ 2, 750 but made no disbursement
attributable to that estate during the time within which he held these funds in a fiduciary
capacity.   On December 31, 2002 the balance in Respondent’s trust account was reduced to
only $ 211.44 which constituted an out of balance position in his fiduciary account in excess
of $ 2,500 attributed to that client alone.
“Further analysis of Respondent’s response and financial records revealed he received
a settlement of $ 8, 000 on behalf of the Emkay Distributors Account on October 23, 2002.
By check number 162, on December 31, 2002 he made full distribution of that amount but
the balance in his escrow account had diminished on December 10, 2002 to the amount of
$ 4, 611.44.   This constituted a misappropriation of fiduciary funds in the approximate
amount of $ 3, 388.56 attributed to that client alone.
“Also disclosed upon analysis of Respondent’s financial records was that he received
an insurance settlement in the amount of $1, 642 on behalf of his client Thuy Ta on August
7
21, 2002.   For the period within which financial records were reviewed there was no
distribution of these funds on behalf of the client.   Nonetheless, the balance reflected on his
account statement on December 31, 2002 was diminished to only $ 211.44 thereby
evidencing an out of balance position of more than $ 1,400 attributed to that client alone. 
The Respondent was, by letter dated July 7, 2003 asked to respond to the result of this
analysis evidencing apparent misappropriation of fiduciary funds.  
“The court finds that upon further explanation from the Respondent dated July 20,
2003 an additional request for information and explanation was forwarded to Respondent by
letter dated July 31, 2003.   That request was responded to by letter dated August 14, 2003
and Respondent provided additional information on the matter of his client Thuy Ta and the
Estate of Ethel Brenner.    Subsequently a meeting between the Respondent, Assistant Bar
Counsel and a paralegal of the Petitioner, was scheduled to take place on September 24,
2003.
“At the meeting scheduled for September 24, 2003 the Respondent was requested to
provide additional documentation and explanation in connection with the matters addressed
in the earlier correspondence of July 31, 2003 representing the inquir[i]es into three different
areas of his handling of fiduciary funds.   During that meeting Respondent admitted and
acknowledged he did not handle fiduciary funds properly and misappropriated, at least, the
estate funds entrusted to him in the matter of the Estate of Ethel Brenner.
“On January 12, 2004 the Respondent was arrested and charged in Harford County,
8
Maryland, at his home, with second degree assault (domestic) and was the subject of a Final
protective Order dated January 20, 2004 in the District Court of Maryland for Harford
County in Case No. 0901SP001682004.   The court finds that the Respondent did assault
Katrina Rose, his wife, in the second degree in violation of Criminal Section 3-203.”
On those factual findings, the hearing court concluded that the Respondent violated
each of the Maryland Rules and statutes charged.   It also determined that there was no
mitigation in this case, that the evidence to which the respondent directed the court to look
and which consisted of “a few self-serving letters relating to some problems in his personal
life,” “[did] not establish any medical, psychiatric, or other condition which would act to
mitigate the findings of fact or conclusions of law found....”
Neither the petitioner nor the respondent took exceptions to the hearing court’s
Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law.   The petitioner did, however, file Petitioner’s
Recommendation For Sanction, in which it urged this Court to order the respondent
disbarred.  Although the respondent did not file a written recommendation, it is fair to say
that he does not agree with the petitioner’s sanction recommendation.   He appeared at the
argument, urging, despite the failure to file exceptions, that he did not intentionally
misappropriate any trust funds and that intentional misappropriation had not been proven.
The hearing court found that, for the period for which the respondent’s trust account
records were reviewed, the respondent, on more than one occasion, received client funds,
which were placed in his trust account, but not disbursed to the client timely.   In addition the
9
hearing court determined that the respondent was “out of trust,” and significantly so, with
respect to each of the clients whose cases were reviewed.  Moreover, and necessarily, the
hearing court held, the respondent used these funds for purposes other than for which they
were entrusted.  Based on these findings, and including the respondent’s admission that, with
respect at least to the estate matter, he did not handle fiduciary funds properly and
misappropriated the estate funds entrusted to him,  it concluded that the respondent not only
misused trust funds, but that he stole, embezzled and fraudulently misappropriated client
funds.
On our independent review of the record, we are satisfied the hearing court’s findings
of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence, Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Davis,
375 Md. 131, 157-58, 825 A.2d 430, 445-46 (2003); Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Link, 380
Md. 405, 420, 844 A.2d 1197, 1207 (2004).   Moreover, reviewing the hearing court’s
conclusions of law de novo, as we must, Attorney Griev. Comm’n  v. Kreamer, 387 Md. 503,
519, 876 A.2d 79,89 (2005), it is clear that they  follow from the facts found.  Link, 380 Md.
405, 420, 844 A.2d 1197, 1207 (“the ultimate question, whether a lawyer has violated the
professional rules, what, in other words, to make of those facts, rests with this Court”).
Although “[t]he primary purpose in imposing discipline on an attorney for violation
of the Rules of Professional Conduct is not to punish the lawyer but rather to protect the
public and the public's confidence in the legal profession,”Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Stein,
373 Md. 531, 533, 819 A.2d 372, 375 (2003), and that  most appropriately and likely will
10
occur when sanctions commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the
intent with which they were committed are imposed, Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Awuah, 346
Md. 420, 435, 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997). See Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Sheinbein, 372
Md. 224, 255, 812 A.2d 981, 999 (2002); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Hess, 352 Md. 438,
453, 722 A.2d 905, 913 (1999); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Webster, 348 Md. 662, 678, 705
A.2d 1135, 1143 (1998), we have long since made clear the seriousness with which we view
acts of  misappropriation.  They are, we have said, and repeated often, “act[s] infected with
deceit and dishonesty, and, in the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances justifying
a lesser sanction, will result in disbarment.”Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Bakas, 323 Md. 395,
403, 593 A.2d 1087, 1091 (1991). See Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Spery, 371 Md. 560, 568,
810 A.2d 487, 491-92 (2002); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Sullivan, 369 Md. 650, 655-56,
801 A.2d 1077, 1080 (2002); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 410,
773 A.2d 463, 483 (2001).   It is the respondent's burden to establish compelling extenuating
circumstances justifying a lesser sanction.  Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Sabghir, 350 Md. 67,
84-85, 710 A.2d 926, 934 (1998);  Bakas, 323 Md. at 403, 593 A.2d at 1091.   That showing
must be by a preponderance of the evidence. Sabghir, 350 Md. at 85, 710 A.2d at 934.
The respondent directed the hearing court’s attention to the petitioner’s exhibit 1, in
which he maintained could, and would be found, evidence favorable to the respondent, that
would mitigate the findings of fact or conclusions of law.   The hearing court accepted the
respondent’s invitation  to review that exhibit, but unfortunately for the respondent, it found
11
it lacking in mitigating value and so found.   Consequently, this record does not contain any
compelling extenuating circumstances that justifies a lesser sanction.   Accordingly, the
petitioner’s recommendation is accepted, the respondent is ordered disbarred.
IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL PAY
ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS
COURT, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF ALL
TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO MARYLAND
RULE 16-761 (c), FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT
IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST MICHAEL
JOHN THERIAULT.