Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Watson

Citation: 382 Md. 465

Docket Number: 17ago/03

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket  AG
No. 17
September Term, 2003
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v. 
BARRY K. WATSON
Bell, C.J.
         Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
                     Greene
JJ.
Opinion by Bell, C.J.
File: August 4, 2004
 
1Rule 16-751 of the M aryland Rules of Procedure provides, as relevant:
“(a) Commencement of Disciplinary or Remedial Action.  Upon approval of
the Commission, Bar Counsel shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or
Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals.”
Upon the completion of an investigation by Bar Counsel, unless there is a
recommendation pursuant to Rule 16-735 (dismissal of the complaint or termination of
the proceeding without discipline),  Rule 16-736 (Conditional Diversion Agreement),
16-737(reprimand) or Rules 16-771, 16-773, or 16-774 (immediate filing of a Petition for
Disciplinary or Remedial Action), Rule 16-734 (d) requires that Bar Counsel   “file with
the Commission a Statement of Charges with an election for peer review in accordance
with Rule 16-741." 
Maryland Rule 16-741 governs the filing of  statements of charges.   It provides:
“(a) Filing of Statement of Charges.
“(1) Upon completion of an investigation, Bar Counsel shall
file with the Commission a Statement of Charges if Bar
Counsel determines that:
“(A) the attorney either engaged in conduct
constituting professional misconduct or is
incapacitated;
“(B) the professional misconduct or the
incapacity does not warrant an immediate
Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action;
“(C) a Conditional Diversion Agreement is
either not appropriate under the circumstances
or the parties were unable to agree on one;  and
“(D) a reprimand is either not appropriate under
the circumstances or (i) one was offered and
rejected by the attorney, or (ii) a proposed
reprimand was disapproved by the Commission
and Bar Counsel was directed to file a
Statement of Charges.”
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel
filed, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-7511 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure, a Petition For
Disciplinary Or Remedial Action, in which it alleged that the respondent, Barry K. Watson,
2Rule 1.4 requires a lawyer to “keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information” and “explain a
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions
regarding the representation.”
3Rule 1.15, as relevant,  provides:
“(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. ”
4Rule 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 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.”
2
the respondent, violated Rules 1.4, Communication,2 1.15, Safekeeping Property,3  and 8.4,
Misconduct,4  of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule
16-812.   Bar Counsel also alleged that, in addition,  the respondent violated  Maryland Rules
5Rule 16-603 provides:
“An attorney or the attorney's law firm shall maintain one or more attorney
trust accounts for the deposit of funds received from any source for the
intended benefit of clients or third persons.  The account or accounts shall
be maintained in this State, in the District of Columbia, or in a state
contiguous to this State, and shall be with an approved financial institution. 
Unless an attorney maintains such an account, or is a member of or
employed by a law firm that maintains such an account, an attorney may not
receive and accept funds as an attorney from any source intended in whole
or in part for the benefit of a client or third person.”
6Rule 16-604 provides:
“Except as otherwise permitted by rule or other law, all funds, including
cash, received and accepted by an attorney or law firm in this State from a
client or third person to be delivered in whole or in part to a client or third
person, unless received as payment of fees owed the attorney by the client
or in reimbursement for expenses properly advanced on behalf of the client,
shall be deposited in an attorney trust account in an approved financial
institution.  This Rule does not apply to an instrument received by an
attorney or law firm that is made payable solely to a client or third person
and is transmitted directly to the client or third person.”
7Maryland 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.” 
8The Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action also charged the respondent with
certain Rule violations in connection with his representation of Dorethia L. Glover.  
Those allegations of professional misconduct were withdrawn by the petitioner.
3
16-603, Duty to Maintain Account,5 and 16-604, Trust Account - Required Deposits,6 as well
as Maryland Code (1989, 2000 Replacement Volume) § 10-3067 of the Business and
Occupation Article.  The alleged violations were committed during the course of the
respondent’s representation of Darrill Winder and his minor children in their personal injury
claims arising out of a motor vehicle accident. 8  
9Notice of the order of default and the date it set for the hearing was mailed to the
respondent at his last known address.   Although that hearing date was rescheduled, the
court, by letter, notified respondent of the new date.
10Maryland 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.”
11In a footnote, the hearing court noted that it had been advised that, “effective
April 8, 2003, the Respondent was decertified as an attorney in this State for non payment
of the annual attorney’s assessment [to] the Client protection Fund of the Bar of
Maryland.”
4
We referred the case to the Honorable M. Brooke Murdock, of the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, for hearing.  See Rule 16-757.   Although served with process, the
respondent did not file an answer, prompting the entry of an order of default.  Following a
hearing on the merits,9 at which the respondent neither appeared, nor participated and in
which testimony was elicited and exhibits considered from the petitioner, the hearing court
made findings of fact, see Rule 16-757 (c), 10 and drew conclusions of law, as follows:
“Findings of Fact
“Barry K. Watson (hereinafter ‘the Respondent’) was admitted to the
Maryland Bar on December 23, 1987.   Throughout the period of the
representation and events which are the subject of these findings, the
Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law as a sole practitioner
in Baltimore City.[11]  
“In July 2001, the Respondent assumed representation of Darrill Winder
5
and Mr. Winder's three minor children, Quashawn, Shacora and Tyneshia,
(hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘the Winders’), in connection with their
personal injury claims arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
August 9, 2000. The Winders originally had been represented by the law firm
of Hassan, Hassan & Tuchman, P.A. (‘the Hassan firm’).  Prior to July 2001,
the Hassan firm had received Personal Injury Protection (PIP) payments on
behalf of each of the Winders and deposited such funds for safekeeping in the
firm's attorney escrow account.  After being advised in July 2001 that the
Winders had retained the Respondent as their new attorney, the Hassan firm
transferred the escrowed PIP funds to the Respondent by the issuance of four
checks drawn on the Hassan firm's attorney escrow account. Each of the checks
was made payable to ‘Barry Watson Escrow Account.’   The four checks were
issued in the following amounts.
Check No.
Amount
For (Client)
37852
$869.56
Quashawn Winder
37853
893.23
Tyneshia Winder
37854
682.19
Darrill Winder
37855
877.04
Shacora Winder
         “On or about July 17, 2001, the Respondent picked up the four checks
from the Hassan firm along with the representation files for the Winders.
In July 2001 and at all times thereafter, the Respondent maintained no
attorney trust or escrow account in which client funds could be
appropriately safeguarded. Shortly after obtaining the four escrow account
checks issued by the Hassan firm, the Respondent cashed those checks or
deposited the checks in a personal bank account. In either case, the
Respondent did not deposit and safeguard the funds as trust money
entrusted to him to hold for the benefit of the Winders or another beneficial
owner. See Maryland Code, Business Occupations and Professions Article,
§ 10-301(d).   The Respondent knowingly and willfully appropriated the
Winders’ PIP monies totaling $3,322.02 for his personal use and benefit.
             “As of July 2001, the Respondent commenced representation of the
Winders with respect to their claims against the allegedly negligent third
party or parties responsible for their injuries. In October 2001, the
Respondent agreed to negotiated settlements of the Winders' claims.   The
claims were settled jointly with Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund
(MAIF) and Safeco Insurance Company, which insured the two vehicles
involved in the accident. The Winders had been passengers in the vehicle
6
insured by MAIF.
          “In October 2001, the Respondent received a total of eight settlement
checks, four issued by each insurance carrier.  Each of the four MAIF
checks was issued October 18, 2001 and was made payable jointly to the
claimant and the Respondent, as follows:
                Check No.                     Amount                 Claimant
                 H10695                       $1,500.00
         Darrill Winder
                 H10696
                750.00
         Tyneshia Winder*
                 H10697
             1,000.00
         Shacom Winder*
                 H10698
                750.00
         Quashawn Winder*
(*The checks issued for the three minors were made payable
jointly to Dana Taylor, as parent and/or guardian of each child,
and Barry K. Watson, Atty.)
“Each of the four Safeco checks was issued [on] October 23, 2001 and was
made payable to the claimant ‘c/o Barry (or Barry Keith) Watson,’ as follows:
  Check No.
       Amount
Claimant
   0668152
       $1,500.00              Darrill Winder
   0668153                            750.00
    Tyneshia Winder
   0668154
         1,000.00
   Sharma Winder
   0668155
       750.00 
    Quashawn Winder
          “The combined total amount of the eight settlement checks was
$8,000.00.   The Respondent forged the endorsements of his clients in order
to negotiate all eight checks and retained all of the proceeds therefrom for
himself. The Respondent did not deposit and safeguard the Winders'
settlement funds as trust money.   He knowingly and willfully appropriated
such funds for his personal use and benefit.
             “For a considerable period of time following the settlements,
extending into mid-2002, the Respondent tried to conceal his actions by
misrepresenting to Darrill Winder and Mr. Winder's wife, Dana Winder (a/k/a
Dana Taylor), that he had not received any of the settlement checks. In
September 2002, the Respondent turned over the Winders' representation files
7
to Darrill and Dana Winder and admitted to cashing the insurance settlement
checks issued by MAIF and Safeco.
          “The Respondent has not repaid any of the misappropriated PIP
monies and settlement funds.
“Conclusions of Law
“This court concludes that the Respondent, upon being retained in
July 2001 to represent Darrill Winder and Mr. Winder's three minor children,
Quashawn, Shacora and Tyneshia , and while representing them thereafter,
engaged in professional misconduct as defined in Maryland Rule 16-701(i)
and Rule 8.4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) , as
adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812.   The Respondent failed to keep the clients
reasonably informed about the status of the representation and in fact
knowingly misled Mr. and Mrs. Winder about the status in order to conceal
his misappropriation/theft of client funds. The Respondent’s actions violated
the communication requirements of MRPC 1.4, as well as the prohibition
against engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation,  MRPC  8.4(c).
“By receiving and accepting funds for the benefit of clients or third
persons when he did not maintain an attorney trust account for the deposit of
such funds, the Respondent violated  the following Maryland Rules set forth
in Title 16, Chapter 600:
“Rule 16-603 Duty to M aintain Account.
“An attorney or the attorney's law firm shall maintain one or
more attorney trust accounts for the deposit of funds received
from any source for the intended benefit of clients or third
persons. The account or accounts shall be maintained in this
State, in the District of Columbia, or in a state contiguous to
this State. and shall be with an approved financial institution.
Unless an attorney maintains such an account, or is a member
of or employed by a law firm that maintains such an account,
an attorney may not receive and accept funds as an attorney
from any source intended in whole or in part for the benefit of
a client or third person.
8
“Rule 16-604 Trust Account - Required
Deposits. 
“Except as otherwise permitted by rule  or other law, all funds,
including cash, received and accepted by an attorney or law firm
in this State from a client or third person to be delivered in whole
or in part to a client or third person, unless received as payment of
fees owed the attorney by the client or in reimbursement for
expenses properly advanced on behalf of the client, shall be
deposited in an attorney trust account in an approved financial
institution. This Rule does not apply to an instrument received by
an attorney or law firm that is made payable solely to a client or
third person and is transmitted directly to the client or third person.
“The Respondent violated MRPC 1.15(a) by not holding the Winders' PIP
monies and settlement funds separate from his own property and by not
otherwise safeguarding the Winders' client funds. He violated MRPC 1.15(b) by
failing to notify his clients upon receiving funds in which they had an interest,
by failing to deliver to the clients funds to which they were entitled and by not
rendering a full accounting of all client funds he obtained as the Winders'
attorney.
“The Respondent knowingly and willfully misused trust money entrusted
to him for the benefit of the Winders. Such conduct violated § 10-306 of the
Business Occupations and Professions Article. The Respondent engaged in
criminal acts reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a
lawyer in other respects, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b). The Respondent’s
criminal acts include, but are not necessarily limited to, theft (Md. Code,
Criminal Law Article, § 7-104), fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary (§ 7-
113) and counterfeiting of private instruments and documents (§ 8-601). The
Respondent’s criminal activities also establish violations of MRPC  8.4 (c) &
(d).”
Neither the petitioner nor the respondent filed exceptions to the findings and
conclusions of the hearing court.   As we have seen, the respondent did not participate in these
proceedings.   The  petitioner has filed  Petitioner’s Recommendation for Sanction, in which
it urges the respondent’s disbarment.   In support of that recommendation, it references the
12Although the respondent did not appear or participate in the injunction
proceedings, he was served both with process informing him of the action and giving him
notice of the hearing and, on May 28, 2004, with the Order Granting Preliminary
Injunction.    
In deciding to grant the preliminary injunction, the trial court acknowledged that
the respondent was decertified to practice law and expressed its satisfaction “that the
[respondent] poses an immediate and ongoing threat of causing substantial injury to the
financial interest of members of the public who may pay the [respondent] to provide legal
services, as well as substantial harm to the administration of justice by the continuation of
his unauthorized practice of law.” 
9
hearing court’s finding that the respondent “misappropriated funds he obtained in his capacity
as an attorney entrusted with clients’ personal injury settlement checks,” as well as personal
injury protection funds transferred to him by prior counsel, forging the clients’ endorsements
to accomplish that result, and relies on Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Vlahos, 369 Md. 183, 186,
798 A. 2d 555, 556 (2002); Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Mininsohn, 380 Md. 536, 571-572,
846 A. 2d 353, 375 (2004); Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Herman, 380 Md. 378, 399-400, 844
A. 2d 1181, 1194-1195 (2004).
Following oral argument, aware that the respondent was then not eligible to practice
law, having been decertified by this Court for failure to pay his annual attorney assessment
to the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and having been informed that a
preliminary injunction enjoining the respondent from  practicing, attempting to practice,
holding himself out as authorized to practice, law and “soliciting, charging or accepting
payments intended as fees for legal services” had been obtained by the petitioner on May 26,
2004,12 the Court issued, on June 3, 2004, a Per Curiam Order immediately disbarring the
10
respondent for “reasons  to be stated in an opinion later to be filed.”   We now provide those
reasons.
This Court has consistently  and repeatedly  admonished  that “[m]isappropriation of
funds by an attorney is an act infested with deceit and dishonesty and ordinarily will result in
disbarment in the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser
sanction.” Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Brown, 380 Md. 661, 668, 846 A. 2d 428, 432 (2004);
Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Hayes, 367 Md. 504, 510, 789 A.2d 119, 123 (2002); Attorney
Griev. Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418, 773 A. 2d 463, 488 (2001); Attorney
Griev.  Comm'n v. Bernstein, 363 Md. 208, 226, 768 A.2d 607, 617 (2001);  Attorney Griev.
Comm'n v. Tomaino, 362 Md. 483, 498, 765 A.2d 653, 661 (2001);  Attorney Griev. Comm'n
v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 27, 741 A.2d 1143, 1156 (1999); Attorney Griev.  Comm'n v. Bakas,
323 Md. 395, 403, 593 A.2d 1087, 1091 (1991).    Moreover, our application of the general
rule has been consistent: “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.    This is in line with the
American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986).  Standard 5.11
provides that:
"Disbarment is generally appropriate when:
“(a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a necessary
element of which includes intentional interference with the
administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud,
extortion, misappropriation, or theft;  or the sale, distribution or
11
importation of controlled substances;  or the intentional killing of
another;  or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to
commit any of these offenses;  or
“(b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously
adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice.” 
Our cases also are clear that “the burden is on the respondent to demonstrate - in
Maryland, the burden of establishing factual matters in a defense must be carried by a
‘preponderance of the evidence,’ [Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. ] Powell, 328 Md. [276,] 288,
614 A.2d [102,] 109 [(1992)]; 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 imposed.” Brown, 380 Md. at 669-670, 846 A. 2d at 433, quoting
McCoy, 369 Md. at 236, 798 A. 2d at 1137.  As we have seen, the respondent has made no
submission and, indeed, has not participated at all in these proceedings.  Consequently, the
respondent 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 ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL
PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE
CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING
COSTS OF ALL TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT
12
TO MARYLAND RULE 16-761, FOR WHICH
SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR
OF 
THE 
ATTORNEY 
GRIEVANCE
COMMISSION 
AGAINST 
BARRY 
K.
WATSON.