Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Fallin

Citation: 371 Md. 237

Docket Number: 41ag/01

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Misc. No. AG 41
September Term, 2001
______________________________________
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v.
GLEN MARCUS FALLIN
______________________________________
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia,
   JJ.
______________________________________
Opinion by Wilner, J.
______________________________________
Filed: October 9, 2002
The Attorney Grievance Commission (AGC), through Bar Counsel, seeks the
disbarment of respondent, Glen Marcus Fallin, based on findings that respondent engaged
in several acts of professional misconduct following his earlier indefinite suspension by this
Court.  For the reasons hereafter stated, we sustain the findings of misconduct and accept the
recommendation of Bar Counsel that respondent be disbarred.
On January 11, 2001, we filed an unreported opinion and order directing that,
effective February 10, 2001, respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Glen Marcus Fallin, September Term 1999,
No. 55.  That action came as the result of a petition for disciplinary action filed by AGC
charging respondent with misconduct in his handling of matters for two clients.  In both
instances, he accepted a fee from the client but failed diligently to pursue their cases and
failed to communicate with them.  In one case, although the fee was, in part, a contingent
one, respondent neglected to have a written agreement with respect to that fee.  The several
violations found by the hearing judge – of Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC)
1.3 (acting with diligence), 1.4 (keeping client informed), 1.5(a) (fee shall be reasonable),
1.5(b) (informing client of basis of fee), 1.5(c) (informing client in writing of basis of
contingent fee), 1.5(e) (division of fee between counsel), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 8.1(b)
(responding to demand for information by Bar Counsel), and 8.4(a) (violating other MRPC)
– were not contested by respondent.  With respect to sanction, we noted that, in 1999,
respondent had been reprimanded and that his then-current misconduct went “to the very
heart of the attorney client relationship and the public’s faith in the administration of justice.”
1 We note from the certificate of service on the motion, dated May 8, that respondent
mailed a copy of it to Bar Counsel, thus assuring that  Bar Counsel would not receive it prior
to the hearing.  Bar Counsel was shown a copy of it by the judge’s clerk on the morning of
the hearing.
-2-
Id. at 11.
On December 31, 2001, AGC filed another petition, alleging violations with respect
to three other clients – Margaret McAnany, Richard Comeau, and Betty Boeller.  We ordered
that Mr. Fallin respond to the petition within 15 days after service and that Judge Lawrence
R. Daniels, of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, hear the matter.  A copy of the petition
was served on the Treasurer of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund, in accordance with the
applicable Maryland Rule, along with interrogatories and a request for admission of facts.
When apprised that respondent had failed to file a timely response to the petition, Judge
Daniels, on March 22, 2002, entered an order of default against him.  The order allowed
respondent 30 days within which to move to vacate the order and set a hearing for May 8,
2002.  No motion to vacate was filed within the 30-day period.
On May 8 – the day set for the hearing – respondent faxed directly to Judge Daniels
a motion to vacate the order of default, but, in an accompanying letter, informed the judge
that he would not be appearing at the hearing because his computer was inoperative.
Because the motion was delivered directly to the judge by FAX and was never filed with the
clerk, the judge declined to consider it.1  Bar Counsel put into evidence the demand for
-3-
admission of facts and genuineness of documents and the exhibits thereto, and, given
respondent’s failure to respond to that demand, asked Judge Daniels to accept the requested
facts as admitted and the attached documents as genuine.
On the evidence produced, Judge Daniels found, by clear and convincing evidence,
as follows:
(1) With respect to the complaint of Ms. McAnany, Judge Daniels found that in
December, 2000, respondent was retained by her to pursue claims for wrongful termination
of her employment and defamation, that in December, 2000, respondent received a fee of
$1,000 for the representation, which was to include settlement negotiations, filing suit, and,
if necessary, trial, that respondent was suspended by this Court on January 11, 2001, the
suspension to take effect February 10, 2001, that, following the date of his suspension, he
continued to remain involved in the matter, and that he failed to return any part of the fee,
notwithstanding that, because of the suspension, he was unable to continue the
representation.  One particularly damaging item of evidence was an e-mail message he sent
to Ms. McAnany on January 22, 2001, informing her that another attorney was likely to
undertake the representation “if on February 11 I am unable to practice,” but, in that event,
“I would still assist behind the scene, although I would not be able to give legal advice
directly to you.”  On February 20, he sent an amended complaint to Ms. McAnany for her to
file.
On those findings, Judge Daniels concluded that respondent had violated both MRPC
-4-
1.16, by failing to refund the unearned portion of the fee he received, and MRPC 5.5, by
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law following his suspension.  On evidence that he
declined to respond to several requests by Bar Counsel for information regarding Ms.
McAnany’s complaint, Judge Daniels also found a violation of MRPC 8.1 (failing to respond
to lawful request by Bar Counsel for information) and 8.4(a) (violating MRPC).
(2) With respect to the complaint of Richard Comeau, Judge Daniels found that
respondent was retained on December 27, 2000 to pursue a claim of wrongful termination
of employment, that, on January 25, 2001 – two weeks after the announcement of his
suspension – he agreed to a fee of $750 plus 50% of any recovery, that on February 7, 2001,
he negotiated Mr. Comeau’s check for $750, that he failed to inform Mr. Comeau of his
suspension and withdrawal from representation but rather, on February 12, 2001, he informed
him that he was having another attorney send a demand letter to the employer because that
attorney would “present a more effective threat,” and that respondent failed to return any
portion of the $750 fee he had received.
On those findings, Judge Daniels concluded that respondent violated MRPC 1.4(a)
(keeping client informed), 1.4(b) (explaining matter to client), 1.5 (reasonable fee), and 1.16
(returning unearned fee following termination of representation).  On evidence that
respondent failed to respond to requests by Bar Counsel for information regarding Mr.
Comeau’s complaint, Judge Daniels also found a violation of MRPC 8.1(b), as well as 8.4(a).
(3) With respect to the complaint of Betty Boeller, Judge Daniels found that
2 Bar Counsel charged in ¶ 28 of his petition that, apart from any claim of a contingent
fee, Ms. Boeller paid respondent a fee of $6,500, which, when respondent became unable to
continue the representation following his suspension, became unreasonable, and that
respondent declined to return any part of it to Ms. Boeller.  In light of the default order, that
allegation was deemed admitted.  Judge Daniels made a finding only with respect to the
failure to return the unearned portion of the fee.  That limited finding cannot stand alone,
however, as it necessarily presupposes that respondent received a fee.  Given the deemed
admission, we find that respondent received the $6,500 fee, as alleged.
-5-
respondent had represented Ms. Boeller since 1996 in connection with claims of wrongful
termination of employment and sexual harassment, that he failed to respond to inquiries and
communications from the Maryland Human Relations Commission and the Federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in connection with the case, that he failed to keep Ms.
Boeller informed of the status of her case, that, after filing a complaint in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore County, he failed to pursue it with diligence and allowed the case to languish,
that he claimed a 50% contingency fee in connection with the case but never reduced that
agreement to writing, that, following his suspension, he failed to return any portion of a fee
he did receive,2 and that he failed to respond to requests for information from Bar Counsel.
On those findings, Judge Daniels concluded that respondent violated MRPC 1.1
(competent representation), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (keeping client informed), 1.5(c) (written
agreement for contingent fee), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(a).
-6-
Neither party has filed any exceptions to these findings, and respondent did not appear
at the hearing in this Court.  On the record before us, we sustain the findings made by Judge
Daniels.  As noted, Bar Counsel has recommended that respondent be disbarred.  This is the
third time, within three years, that respondent has been the subject of discipline.  He was
reprimanded in 1999 and he was indefinitely suspended in 2001.  The instant charges are
particularly grievous in light of the suspension.  Apart from indicating a continuing pattern
of wrongful conduct involving derelictions that, as we noted in our earlier opinion, go “to the
very heart of the attorney client relationship,” they show a disdain for our suspension order.
As we have often stated, the purpose of discipline is not punishment of the attorney but
protection of the public, and it is clear to us that, to serve that interest, disbarment is the
appropriate sanction.
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(b), FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS
ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY
GRIEVANCE 
COMMISSION 
OF 
MARYLAND
AGAINST GLEN MARCUS FALLIN.