Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Prichard

Citation: 386 Md. 238

Docket Number: 50ag/03

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2005-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
Misc. Docket AG
NO. 50
SEPTEMBER TERM 2003
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND 
v.
JAMES L. PRICHARD
    
Bell, C. J.
Raker
 
Wilner
           
Harrell
         
    
Battaglia
  
Greene 
Eldridge, John C. 
           (Retired, specially assigned)
                  
JJ.
OPINION BY BELL, C. J.
______________________________________
   
 
       FILED: April 11, 2005
     1Maryland Rule 16-751 (a), 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.” 
     2Maryland Rule 1.15 (a) 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 and, upon request by the client or third person, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.”
     3Rule 8.1. Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters, provides, in pertinent part: 
“An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or a lawyer in connection   
             with a bar admission application or in connection with a 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    
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the “Commission”), through Bar
Counsel and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 filed against James L. Prichard, the
respondent, a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, in which it was alleged that he
violated  Rules 1.15 (Safekeeping Property);2  8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters)3
           1.6.   
     4Rule 8.4 states, in pertinent part:
“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
*    *    *
 
“(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
     5Maryland Rule 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.”
     6Maryland Rule 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.”
2
and 8.4 (Misconduct),4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Appendix: Rules of
Professional Conduct of the Maryland Rules, Maryland Rule 16-812, Maryland Rules 16-603
(Duty to Maintain Account)5; 16-604 (Trust Account - Required Deposit)6 and Maryland
     7Section 10-302. Attorney trust account.
(a) Unless a lawyer or the firm of the lawyer maintains an attorney trust account in
accordance with this subtitle and the Maryland Rules, the lawyer may not accept
trust money.
     8Section 10-306. Misuse of trust money.
A lawyer may not use trust money for any purpose other than the purpose for 
which the trust money is entrusted to the lawyer.
     9Rule 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.”  
     10Maryland Rule 16-757 (a) provides:
“(a) Generally. The hearing of a disciplinary or remedial action is governed
by the rules of evidence and procedure applicable to a court trial in a civil
action tried in a circuit court. Unless extended by the Court of Appeals, the
hearing shall be completed within 120 days after service on the respondent
of the order designating a judge. Before the conclusion of the hearing, the
judge may permit any complainant to testify, subject to cross-examination,
regarding the effect of the alleged misconduct. A respondent attorney may
offer, or the judge may inquire regarding, evidence otherwise admissible of
any remedial action undertaken relevant to the allegations. Bar Counsel may
respond to any evidence of remedial action.”
3
Code (1989, 2000 Replacement Volume) §§ 10-302 (a)7 and 10-3068 of the Business
Occupations and Professions Article.  We referred the matter, pursuant to  Rule 16-752 (a), 9
to the Honorable Pamela L. North of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, for hearing
pursuant to Rule 16-757 (c).10  The respondent, having failed to respond to the Petition, an
     11Maryland Rule 2-613 (b) provides:
“(b) Order of Default. If the time for pleading has expired and a defendant
has failed to plead as provided by these rules, the court, on written request
of the plaintiff, shall enter an order of default. The request shall state the
last known address of the defendant.”
     12Maryland Rule 2-613 (c) provides:
“(c) Notice. Promptly upon entry of an order of default, the clerk shall issue
a notice informing the defendant that the order of default has been entered
and that the defendant may move to vacate the order within 30 days after its
entry. The notice shall be mailed to the defendant at the address stated in the
request and to the defendant's attorney of record, if any. The court may
provide for additional notice to the defendant.”
     13Maryland Rule 2-613 (d) provides:
“(d) Motion by Defendant. The defendant may move to vacate the order of
default within 30 days after its entry. The motion shall state the reasons for
the failure to plead and the legal and factual basis for the defense to the
claim.”
     14Maryland Rule 16-757 (c) provides:
“(c)  Findings and conclusions. The judge shall prepare and file or dictate
4
order of default, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-613 (b),11 setting a trial date more than thirty
days subsequently, was entered against him.  Although notified, as required by Rule 2-613
(c),12 that the order of default had been entered, the respondent did not move to vacate the
order, as required by Rule 2-613 (d).13   On the day set for the hearing, the hearing judge
conducted a hearing, after which she issued a Memorandum Of Findings Of Fact And
Conclusions Of Law, making findings of fact and drawing conclusions of law in accordance
with Maryland Rule 16-757 (c),14 as follows:
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.” 
5
“Findings of Fact
“The Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 17,1976. Pursuant to an
Order of the Court of Appeals filed May 27, 2003, he was indefinitely suspended by consent
from practicing law in this State, retroactive to May 1, 2003. Attorney Grievance
Commission v. Prichard. 375 Md. 1, 824 A.2d 966 (2003). The Respondent has not
petitioned for reinstatement from the previously entered indefinite suspension.
“The legal representation that is the subject of the current disciplinary action began
in September 2001, when Kenneth and Melissa Garrison (husband and wife) retained the
Respondent to represent them in connection with personal injury claims related to a motor
vehicle accident in which the Garrisons had been involved on September 6, 2001. On September
11, 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Garrison signed retainer agreements employing the Respondent on
a contingent fee basis. The retainer agreements signed by the Garrisons provided for the
Respondent to receive an attorney’s fee equal to thirty-three and one-third (33 1/3) percent
of any gross recovery or settlement in each client’s case.
“Allstate  Insurance Company (Allstate) was the insurance carrier for the party against
6
whom the Garrisons asserted personal injury claims.  In the spring of 2002, settlements of
the Garrisons' claims were reached in the following amounts:
Kenneth Garrison    $9,300.00
Melissa Garrison     $9,000.00
On May 14, 2002, Allstate issued separate settlement checks to Mr. and Mrs. Garrison in the
above amounts. Each settlement check was made payable jointly to the claimant and the
Respondent. Allstate mailed the checks to the Respondent, along with releases to be executed
by the Garrisons.
“At the time of settlement, Mr. and Mrs. Garrison each had unpaid bills for medical
treatment associated with injuries they sustained in the September 6, 2001 accident. Kenneth
Garrison had outstanding balances due to the following entities:
1. North Arundel Hospital             $ 479.19
2. Cohen and Pushkin, M.D., P.A. $ 750.00
3. Atlantic Rehab, Inc.                   $3,475.00
Melissa Garrison similarly had outstanding balances due in the following amounts:
1. North Arundel Hospital             $ 315.89
2. Cohen and Pushkin, M.D., P.A. $1,775.00
3. Atlantic Rehab, Inc.                   $1,665.00
“Upon receipt of the Garrisons' settlement checks, the Respondent arranged for Melissa
Garrison to meet him and to accompany him to a liquor store which also offered a check
cashing service. Mrs. Garrison and the Respondent endorsed the back of her settlement check
and cashed it on or about May 16, 2002. The Respondent prepared a handwritten distribution
7
sheet for Melissa Garrison, listing how the cash proceeds from her settlement check were to
be allocated.   The distribution sheet prepared by the Respondent indicates he received an
attorney's fee of  $2,500.00 (“reduced $500.00"). The Respondent listed the amounts of Mrs.
Garrison’s outstanding medical bills. He retained a sufficient amount of cash to pay off each
of those bills in full. The Respondent retained cash in the amount of $3,338.89 from the
proceeds of Melissa Garrison's settlement check and represented to Mrs. Garrison that such
funds would be used to pay the medical bills listed on the handwritten distribution sheet. The
distribution sheet reflects a net balance of $3,161.11 to be distributed to the client. Mrs.
Garrison acknowledges she received cash in that amount.
“Kenneth Garrison endorsed the back of his settlement check and turned the check
over to the Respondent. On or about June 15, 2002, Mr. Garrison's check was negotiated at
a branch of The Bank of Glen Burnie. The Respondent prepared a typed distribution sheet
which was provided to Mr. Garrison. The distribution sheet indicates the Respondent
received an attorney’s fee of $2,500.00 (“reduced $600.00"). As on Mrs. Garrison's
distribution sheet, the Respondent listed the amounts of Kenneth Garrison's outstanding
medical bills as deductions from the “gross proceeds” of $9,300.00. The Respondent retained
funds in the amount of $4,704.19 from the proceeds of Kenneth Garrison's settlement check
8
for the stated purpose of paying off the medical bills listed on Mr. Garrison's distribution
sheet. The distribution sheet reflects a net balance of $2,095.81 to be distributed to the client.
Mr. Garrison acknowledges he received cash in that amount from the Respondent.
“The Respondent did not issue any payment to Cohen and Pushkin, M.D., P.A., to
satisfy two separate account balances in the amounts of $1,000.00 and $775.00 owed by
Melissa  Garrison, despite retaining $1,775.00 from Mrs. Garrison's settlement proceeds for
that purpose.   Similarly, the Respondent did not pay off Kenneth Garrison's account balance
of $750.00 to Cohen and Pushkin, M.D., P.A., despite retaining funds in that amount from
Mr. Garrison's settlement proceeds for that purpose.
“The Respondent did not issue any payment to Atlantic Rehab, Inc. to satisfy Melissa
Garrison's outstanding account balance of $1,665.00, despite retaining funds (listed in the
amount of $1,248.00) from Mrs. Garrison's settlement proceeds for that purpose. Similarly,
the Respondent did not issue any payment to Atlantic Rehab, Inc. to satisfy Kenneth Garrison's
account balance of $3,475.00, despite retaining funds in that amount from Mr. Garrison's
settlement proceeds for that purpose.
“Mrs. Garrison testified she has been unable to determine whether the amounts she
and her husband owed to North Arundel Hospital, for which the Respondent also withheld
funds from their settlements, have been paid. As of the date of the hearing in this Court,
9
North Arundel Hospital had not initiated any collection efforts against the Garrisons.
“Throughout the time he represented the Garrisons, the Respondent did not maintain
an attorney trust account, as defined in Maryland Rule 16-602c, for the deposit of funds he
received as an attorney for the intended benefit of clients and/or third persons. Having no
such account, the Respondent did not deposit all or any portion of the Garrisons' settlement
proceeds in an attorney trust account at an approved financial institution when he received
such proceeds. 
“On April 2, 2003, Bar Counsel received a written complaint from Melissa Garrison
setting forth the underlying facts supporting the professional misconduct charges in this case.
By a letter to the Respondent dated April 16, 2003, mailed to the Respondent's only known
address, the office of Bar Counsel forwarded a copy of Mrs. Garrison's complaint to the
Respondent and requested that the Respondent respond in writing to that complaint within
ten days. The Respondent did not respond at all to Bar Counsel's lawful demand for
information.
Conclusions of Law
“By receiving and accepting the Garrisons' settlement funds, which were intended in
whole or in part for the benefit of a client or third person, when he did not maintain any attorney
trust account, the Respondent violated Maryland Rule 16-603. It follows therefrom that the
funds, including cash, the Respondent received and accepted to be delivered in whole or in
10
part to a client or third person were not deposited in an attorney trust account at an approved
financial institution. The Respondent therefore violated Maryland Rule 16-604.
“The funds withheld by the Respondent from the settlement proceeds of Kenneth and
Melissa Garrison for payment to third party medical providers constituted "trust money" as
that term is defined in the Maryland Code, Business Occupations and Professions Article,
§ 10-301(d).  By accepting trust money when he did not maintain an attorney trust account
for the deposit of such money, the Respondent violated § 10-302(a) of the Business
Occupations and Professions Article. Furthermore, the Respondent knowingly and willfully
used such trust money for a purpose other than the purpose for which the trust money was
entrusted to him. By doing so, he violated § 10-306 of the Business Occupations and
Professions Article.
“The Respondent failed to hold property of clients or third persons that was in his
possession in connection with a representation separate from his own property, including
monetary funds which were not kept in a separate account maintained pursuant to Title 16,
Chapter 600 of the Maryland Rules. The Respondent thus violated Rule 1.15(a) of the Maryland
Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC). By failing to deliver funds that the Garrisons' third
party medical providers were entitled to receive, the Respondent also violated MRPC
1.15(b).
“The Respondent fraudulently and willfully appropriated or secreted money held in
11
a fiduciary capacity contrary to the requirements of his trust responsibility. In so doing, the
Respondent engaged in criminal conduct including, but not necessarily limited to, the offense
of “Embezzlement - Fraudulent misappropriation by fiduciary,” as set forth in the Maryland
Code, Criminal Law Article, § 7-113. The Respondent's dishonest and fraudulent actions
with respect to the Garrisons' settlement funds represent professional misconduct that
violated MRPC 8.4(b) & (c).
“Finally, the Respondent violated MRPC 8.1(b) by failing to respond to a lawful demand
for information from a disciplinary authority (Bar Counsel's April 16, 2003 letter seeking a
response to Melissa Garrison's complaint). Although not a basis for the MRPC 8.1(b) violation,
this Court also notes that the Respondent has not responded in any fashion to the disciplinary
charges contained in the petition filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission.”
The petitioner has not taken any exceptions to the hearing court’s findings and
conclusions.   In its Petitioner’s Recommendation for Sanction, it urges disbarment as the
appropriate sanction.   In support of that recommendation, the petitioner reminds the Court
of the respondent’s rather recent, May 27, 2003, and continuing, indefinite suspension; the
finding by the hearing court that the respondent “engaged in serious professional misconduct
involving misappropriation of trust money that should have been paid to third party medical
providers out of the proceeds of the Garrisons’ personal injury settlements;” that the
respondent did not maintain an attorney trust account for the deposit of the funds retained;
12
and that the respondent was found to have used, knowingly and willfully, trust funds for a
purpose other than that for which the funds were entrusted to him.  In addition, the
respondent did not respond to the petitioner’s lawful demand for information.
As indicated, the respondent neither responded to the Petition for Disciplinary or
Remedial Action nor appeared at any time in these proceedings.
We accept the petitioner’s recommendation.  The respondent has misappropriated trust
funds, “an act infected with deceit and dishonesty,” and he has not presented, nor even
attempted to present, “compelling extenuating circumstances,” that would, or could, justify
a sanction more lenient than disbarment.    Disbarment, therefore, inexorably  must follow.
Attorney Grievance Comm’n  v. Daskalopoulos, 383 Md. 375, 384-85, 859 A. 2d 653, 658
(2004); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Watson, 382 Md. 465, 475-76, 855 A. 2d 1213, 1219
(2004); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Post, 379 Md. 60, 68, 839 A. 2d 718, 723 (2003);
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Spery, 371 Md. 560, 568, 810 A. 2d 487, 491-92 (2002). 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS
TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING COSTS
OF ALL TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 16-
715.C., FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR
OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST
JAMES L. PRICHARD.