Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Brown

Citation: 380 Md. 661

Docket Number: 22ag/03

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket  AG
No. 22
September Term, 2003
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v. 
RONALD ALLEN BROWN
Bell, C.J.
          Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene,
JJ.
Opinion by Bell, C.J.
Filed: April 9, 2004 
 
1Maryland Rule 16-751, as relevant, provides:
“(a)  Commencement of disciplinary or remedial action. (1) Upon approval 
of the Commission.  Upon approval or direction of the Commission, Bar Counsel
shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals.” 
2Rule 1.1 provides:
“A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.   Competent
representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
3Rule 1.15 provides, as relevant:
“(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 ans, upon request by the client or third person, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.”
4Rule 8.1 provides, as relevant:
“An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar or a lawyer in
connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a
 
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel,
acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary Action against
Ronald A. Brown, the respondent, in which it was charged that the respondent violated Rules
1.1, Competence,2 1.15, Safekeeping property,3 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary
Matters,4 and 8.4, Misconduct,5  of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted
disciplinary matter, shall not:
*     *     *     *
“(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a
misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the
matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information from an admissions or disciplinary authority,
except that this Rule does not require disclosure of
information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.”  
5Rule 8.4, as relevant, provides:
“It is professional  misconduct for  a lawyer to: 
“(a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct,
knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or to do so through the acts of
another;
“(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.”
*     *     *     *
6That Rule provides:
“An attorney or law firm shall maintain each attorney trust account with a
title that includes the name of the attorney or law firm and that clearly
designates the account as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow
Account,’ or ‘Clients’ Funds Account’ on all checks and deposit slips.   The
title shall distinguish the account from any other fiduciary account that the
attorney or law firm may maintain and from any personal or business
account of the attorney or law firm.”
7Maryland Rule16-609 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 cash or to
2
by Maryland Rule 16-812 .   Bar Counsel also alleged that the respondent violated  Maryland
Rules 16-606, Name and Designation of Account,6 and 16-609, Prohibited Transactions,7 and
bearer.”  
8Maryland Code (1989, 2000 Replacement Volume) § 10-306 of the Business and
Occupation Article 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.” 
9Section 10-307 provides:
“A lawyer who willfully violates any provision of this Part I of this subtitle,
except for the requirement that a lawyer deposit trust moneys in an attorney
trust account for charitable purposes under § 10-303 of this subtitle, is
subject to disciplinary proceedings as the Maryland Rules provide.”
10Rule 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
extent of discovery and setting dates for the completion of discovery, filing
of motions, and hearing.”  
11Maryland 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.” 
3
Maryland Code (1989, 2000 Replacement Volume) § §10-3068 and 10-3079of the Business
Occupations and Professions Article. 
We referred the case, pursuant to Rules 16-752 (a),10 to the Honorable Christopher C.
Henderson, of the Circuit Court for Charles County, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757
(c).11   Although served with this Court’s Order and the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial
12At argument, in response to a question from the bench, the petitioner indicated
that this date should be July 30, 2002, as the withdrawal of the deposited amount could
not have occurred before it was deposited.
4
Action, the respondent did not file a response.   Consequently, an Order of Default was
entered and a hearing date set.   The Order of Default has not been vacated and the
respondent has not requested that relief.   Following the hearing, at which the respondent
neither appeared nor participated, the hearing court found facts by a clear and convincing
standard and drew conclusions of law as follows:
“FINDINGS OF FACT  
“In 2002, the Respondent represented Sara August in a personal injury
matter that had occurred on January 13, 2002.   Respondent settled August’s
matter in July 2002 with the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund in the
amount of $ 4,500.   Thereafter, on July 25, 2002, Respondent deposited
August’s $ 4,500 settlement check into his attorney trust account at Sun Trust
Bank.   On July 20, 2002,12 Respondent wrote Check No. 1001, on that account
in the amount of $ 4,500 made payable to his law office leaving a balance of
$ 105.44.    On August 20, 2002 Respondent wrote August Check No. 1028 in
the amount of $ 2,280 when he did not have sufficient funds in the trust
account to cover that check.
“Sun Trust Bank honored Respondent’s Check No. 1028 made payable
to August in the amount of $2,820 [sic].   Thereafter, Sun Trust Bank filed suit
in the District Court for Charles County Maryland against the Respondent. 
On May 21, 2003, judgment was entered against the respondent in the amount
of $ 2,866.56, interest of 74.92, costs of $ 20 and attorney’s fees in the amount
of $ 716.64.   As of December 1, 2003, Respondent had not paid the judgment
entered against [him] in favor of Sun Trust Bank.
“Respondent opened up his attorney trust account at Sun Trust Bank on
July 11, 2002, depositing $ 105.44.   The only activity that was conducted on
that account was the August settlement of $ 4,500.   Further when Respondent
opened the trust account at Sun Trust Bank, he did not have the account nor
5
the checks clearly designated as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow
Account,’ or ‘Client Funds Account’ as required pursuant to Maryland Rule
16-606.
“Petitioner mailed letters to the Respondent dated September 10, 2002,
November 1, 2002, and November 13, 2002 requesting a written response to
the overdraft on his attorney trust account held at Sun Trust Bank.    The
Respondent never responded to those letters.   On January 10, 2003, the
Respondent agreed to an interview with Bar Counsel’s investigator, however,
he failed to appear for that interview.
“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“By his conduct, the Respondent violated Maryland Rules of
Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.[15] (a) (b), 8.1 (b), 8.4 (a) (b) (c) (d), Maryland
Rules 16-606 and 16-6098 and Business Occupations and Professions Article
§ 10-306 and § 10-307.    The Respondent’s failure to properly maintain
August’s settlement monies in his escrow account demonstrates his
incompetence pursuant to Rule 1.1.   The Respondent’s failure to hold the
money in his escrow account and his failure to promptly deliver the money to
his client August, violates Rule 1.15 (a) and (b).   Respondent’s failure to
respond to the Petitioner’s letter[s] and attend the scheduled interview violates
Rule 8.1 (b).   The Respondent’s failure to properly designate his attorney trust
account at Sun Trust Bank as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow
Account,” or ‘Client Funds Account’ violates Rule 16-606.
“The Respondent’s misuse of August’s settlement monies violates
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (a) (b) (c) (d), Maryland Rule 16-
609 and Business Occupations and Professions Article § 10-306 and § 10-307.
The Respondent’s misappropriation of August’s $ 2,820 is an act of theft and
dishonesty which is a violation of Rules 8.4 (b) and (c).”  
The petitioner took no exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the hearing court.
It did make a recommendation for sanction, however.  Relying on Attorney Grievance
Comm’n v. Spery, 371 Md. 560, 568, 810 A. 2d  487, 491-92 (2002); Attorney Grievance
Comm’n v. Sullivan, 369 Md. 650, 655-56, 801 A. 2d 1077, 1080 (2002); Attorney
6
Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 410, 773 A. 2d 463, 483 (2001) and
noting what we have often said, “that ‘[m]isappropriation, by an attorney,  of funds entrusted
to his/her care is an act of deceit and dishonesty, and, in the absence of compelling and
extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser sanction, will result in disbarment,”’ it urges
the respondent’s disbarment.  The petitioner concludes, “Respondent’s misrepresentation
coupled with his failure to participate in the disciplinary process would justify a sanction of
disbarment.”
Although he did not appear or participate in the disciplinary proceedings, the
respondent filed Respondent’s Exceptions and Recommendations.  Without providing any
particulars or argument, he merely “denie[d] that he misappropriated funds entrusted to him
or failed to properly establish his attorney trust account or committed the misconduct as
found by the Circuit Court.”  His recommendation is that the proceeding be dismissed.
The respondent’s “exceptions” are overruled.  It is well settled that the “hearing
court’s findings of fact are prima facie correct and will not be disturbed unless they are
shown to be clearly erroneous.” Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Garland, 345 Md. 383, 392, 692
A.2d 465, 469 (1997) (citing Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Goldsborough, 330 Md. 342, 347,
624 A.2d 503, 505 (1993)).   Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.  McCoy, 369 Md. 226, 234-
235, 798 A. 2d 1132, 1137 (2002).   Indeed, the findings of fact made by the hearing court
are reviewed to determine if they are based on clear and convincing evidence.  Attorney
Grievance Comm’n v. Powell, 328 Md. 276, 287-288, 614 A.2d 102, 108 (1992); Attorney
7
Grievance Comm’n v. Clements, 319 Md. 289, 298, 572 A.2d 174, 179 (1990).    The
findings of fact made in this case are not clearly
erroneous.     In point of fact, there is ample evidence to
support them an d, just as important, to justify the
conclusions drawn from them.   Significantly, the
respondent has presented nothing to suggest, not to
mention demonstrate, otherwise.   Exceptions will be
overruled, we have said, when the findings are not
clearly erroneous.   McCoy, 369 Md. at 234-235, 798 A. 2d at
1137.
Turning to the sanction, the petitioner has
accurately stated the general rule, “that disbarment will inevitably
follow any unmitigated misappropriation of client, or any third party’s funds[.]” 
Attorney Grievance Comm ’n v. Hayes, 367 Md. 504, 512-13, 789
A.2d 119, 124 (2002), and the cases therein cited.   Moreover,
we have made clear, albeit in the context of a reciprocal
discipline proceeding,  that “the burden is on the
respondent to demonstrate - in Maryland, the burden 
of
establishing factual matters in defense must be carried
8
by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ Powell, 328 Md. at
288, 614 A.2d at 109; Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Bakas, 322 Md.
603, 605, 589 A.2d 52, 53 (1991) - that less severe discipline than
that [recommended by Bar Counsel], or no discipline,
should be impo sed.” McCoy, 369 Md. at 236, 798 A. 2d at 1137.  The
respondent’s submission, consisting of only a recommendation, without any further
amplification or statement of  basis, certainly  has not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that a less severe sanction than that recommended should be imposed in these
proceedings.   
Given the hearing court’s findings, the only appropriate sanction in this case is
disbarment.
IT  IS SO ORDERE D; RESPONDENT SHALL
PAY ALL COSTS AS TAX ED BY THE
CLERK  OF THIS COURT,  INCLUD ING
C O S T S  
O F  
A L L  
T R A N S C R I P T S ,
PURSUANT  TO MARYLAND RULE  16-761,
FOR  
WHICH 
S UM 
JUDGMENT 
IS
ENTERED  IN FAVOR O F THE  ATTORNEY
GRIEVANCE  
COMM ISSION 
AGAINST
RONALD ALLEN BROWN.