Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Walker

Citation: 405 Md. 3

Docket Number: 2ag/07

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2008-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Alfred Walker, Jr. 
AG No. 2, September Term, 2007
                                                                                                                                             
Headnote:   Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for a respondent who, while decertified
for failure to pay Client Protection Fund assessments, violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.7, 5.5(a),
8.1(b), and 8.4(d).  
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket AG No. 2
September Term, 2007
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v.
ALFRED WALKER, JR.
Bell, C.J.
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
Murphy
Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, Specially
Assigned)
Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, Specially
Assigned),
JJ.
Opinion by Murphy, J.
Filed: May 29, 2008
1 Rule 1.1 requires that a lawyer “provide competent representation to a client.”  
2 Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer “act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
3 Rule 1.7, in pertinent part, provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation involves a conflict of interest.”  
4 Rule 5.5, in pertinent part, prohibits a lawyer who has been decertified by the Court
of Appeals from “hold[ing] out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is
admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.”
5 Rule 8.1, in pertinent part, provides that a lawyer shall not “knowingly  fail to
respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority[.]”
6 Rule 8.4(d) provides that it is “professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.]”
Alfred Walker, Jr., Respondent, was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 23,
1994, and was decertified by this Court on April 5, 2005 for failure to pay his Client
Protection Fund assessments for 2005 and 2006.  He has never been reinstated.  On
March 23, 2007, the Attorney Grievance Commission filed a Petition for Disciplinary
Action in which it asserted that, subsequent to his decertification, Respondent violated
several Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.1,1 1.3,2 1.7,3 5.5,4 8.1,5 and
8.4(d).6  The record shows that, on May 8, 2007,  Respondent was served personally with
a copy of the Petition, as well as a copy of this Court’s March 28, 2007 Order directing
that the charges against him “be heard and determined by Judge A. Michael Chapdelaine,
of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-757[.]” 
Respondent did not file a written response to the Petition.  On May 30, 2007, Bar
Counsel requested that an Order of Default be entered against Respondent.  That request
2
was granted.  The Order of Default, signed by Judge Chapdelaine on June 19, 2007 and 
entered in the record on July 3, 2007, included the following provisions:
ORDERED, that the Clerk shall issue a notice to the
Respondent at his last known address informing him that the
Order of Default has been entered and that he may move to
vacate the Order within thirty (30) days after entry; and it is
further,
* * *
ORDERED, that this matter be set for a hearing on
the17th day of August, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.
Respondent neither moved to vacate the Order of Default nor attended the August
17, 2007 hearing, subsequent to which Judge Chapdelaine filed an Opinion that included
the following findings and conclusions:
(4)
That the respondent entered his appearance on behalf
of [the defendant] in a criminal case [in] Prince
George’s County, Maryland, 
(5)
The respondent appeared more than two hours late for
hearing in [that] case advising the Court that he had
forgotten about the case.
(6)
That on February 2, 2006, the respondent entered his
appearance on behalf of [a second defendant] in a
criminal case [in] Prince George’s County, Maryland.
(7)
The respondent failed to appear for a Motion [hearing]
in [that] case on March 31, 2006 and was late for the
trial on April 10, 2006.
(8)
That [a judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s
County], [] filed a Complaint with the Attorney
Grievance Commission as a result of the respondent’s
3
conduct.
(9)
[An a]ssistant bar counsel... wrote to the respondent on
April 28, 2006 advising him of the complaint from [the
judge] and also noting the respondent’s decertification
and requested a response to those issues.
(10)
Respondent did not respond to the letter from bar
counsel and a second letter was sent on May 11, 2006.
(11)
The second letter was returned “unclaimed” and as a
result, an investigator with the Attorney Grievance
Commission obtained a telephone number for the
respondent.
(12)
The investigator for the Commission placed a
telephone call to the respondent’s number requesting a
return call which [went unreturned].
(13)
The Commission investigator ultimately contacted the
respondent who indicated that he was not giving out
his address because of fear from having been a victim
of a robbery in February 2005 but agreed to meet with
the investigator on September 5, 2006.
(14)
The respondent did not appear on September 5, 2006;
called and left a message and said he could appear on
September 6, 2006.
(15)
The respondent did not appear for the meeting on
September 6, 2006 either.
(16)
On September 7, 2006, the respondent contacted the
office of the Attorney Grievance Commission and said
that he would appear on September 8, 2006; once again
respondent did not appear.  Respondent has never
responded to the written Complaint or submitted to an
interview.
As a result of the above facts, the Court concludes that
4
the respondent violated Rule 1.1, 1.3, 8.4(d) by failing to
appear for Court proceedings.  The Court further finds that the
respondent violated Rule 5.5(a) by practicing law while he
was decertified and that the respondent violated Rule 8.1(b)
by knowingly failing to respond to requests for information
from bar counsel.
An additional Complaint herein involves the allegation
of further violations in the matter of the respondent having
been charged as a co-defendant with [a third defendant], in [a
case in] the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County,
Maryland.  The facts were, in that case, that the respondent
was occupying an automobile in which cocaine, marijuana
and a firearm were discovered.  The Court makes the
following findings of fact:
(1)
The defendant was charged as a co-defendant
with [a third defendant], having been arrested
on July 15, 2005.
(2)
The respondent’s case was nol prossed at a
preliminary hearing on April 26, 2005.
(3)
That [the third defendant] was indicted by a
grand jury on November 28, 2005 and [on]
February 27, 2006, the respondent entered his
appearance on behalf of [that defendant] and
requested a continuance.
(4)
On May 31, 2006, respondent filed a Motion to
Strike his Appearance which was granted on
June 1, 2006.
As a result of the above facts, the Court concludes as
follows:
(1)
That the respondent violated Rule 1.7 by
representing a client with whom he had been a
co-defendant, as such was a clear conflict of
interest
5
(2)
As stated above, the respondent was decertified
by the Court of Appeals at such time as he
entered his appearance on behalf of [the third
defendant] and as such violated Rule 5.5(a).
(3)
The respondent violated rule 8.1(b) by failing to
respond to the request for information by bar
counsel.
Neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent has noted any exceptions to Judge
Chapdelaine’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  We shall treat the hearing
judge’s findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining the appropriate
sanction.  Md. Rule 16-757(b)(2).
According to the Petitioner (in the words of its Recommendation for Sanction): 
The findings of the trial court show that respondent has
completely ignored his responsibilities as a lawyer.  Having
been ordered by this Court on April 5, 2005 to cease
practicing law, respondent represented defendants in criminal
cases in 2005 and well into 2006.  During this time, he missed
one scheduled court appearance and was significantly late for
two others.  He ignored three letters from Bar Counsel’s
Office requesting explanations of his conduct. He undertook
to represent a defendant with whom he had been arrested for
possession of cocaine and marijuana on the charges arising
out of the arrest.  All of these matters are serious violations of
the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Attorney Grievance
Commission v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554[, 745 A.2d 1037] (2000)
(attorney disbarred for, inter alia, violating court order against
practicing while decertified); Attorney Grievance v. Kreamer,
387 Md. 503[, 530-31, 538, 876 A.2d 79, 95-95, 100] (2005)
(attorney suspended for, inter alia, failing to answer Bar
Counsel’s request for written response).  In addition,
respondent failed to appear to file an answer or to participate
in the hearing of this matter, even though he was personally
6
served with process.  Respondent’s conduct shows that he has
no interest whatsoever in maintaining the standards of the
legal profession.  Respondent’s conduct warrants disbarment.
Respondent has not provided this Court with any reason why the Commission’s 
recommendation should be rejected.  From our de novo review of the record and of the
cases cited by Bar Counsel in Petitioner’s Recommendation for Sanction, we conclude
that the appropriate sanction is disbarment.  
IT IS SO ORDERED. RESPONDENT SHALL
PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THIS
COURT, INCLUDING THE COST OF
T R A N S C R I P T S ,  
P U R S U A N T  
T O
MARYLAND RULE 16-761 FOR WHICH
SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR
OF 
THE 
ATTORNEY 
GRIEVANCE
C O M M I S S IO N 
AGAINS T  
AL FR ED
WALKER, JR.