Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Somerville

Citation: 379 Md. 586

Docket Number: 13ag/03

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2004-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket  AG
No. 13
September Term, 2003
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v. 
SALLY L. SOMERVILLE
Bell, C.J.
         Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
                      Eldridge, John C.,                        
                        (retired, specially assigned)
JJ.
Opinion by Bell, C.J.
File: February 17, 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 to “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, against Sally L. Somerville, the respondent,
2Rule 1.1 requires a lawyer to “provide competent representation to a client..  
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
3Pursuant to Rule 1.3, “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client.”
2
in which it was charged that the respondent violated Rules 1.1, Competence,2 1.3, Diligence,3
4Rule 1.4 provides:
“(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
“(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to
permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”
 
5Pertinent to this case is Rule 1.5 (a).   It provides:
“(a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.  The factors to be considered in
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following:
“(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of
the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the
legal service properly;
“(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the
acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other
employment by the lawyer;
“(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar
legal services;
“(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
“(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the
circumstances;
“(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with
the client;
“(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or
lawyers performing the services; and
“(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.”
 
6Rule 8.1 provides:
“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:
“(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact;  or
“(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
3
1.4, Communication,4 1.5, Fees,5 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters,6 and 8.4,
information from an admissions or disciplinary authority,
except that this Rule does not require disclosure of
information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.”
 
7Rule 8.4, as relevant, provides:
“It is professional  misconduct for  a lawyer to: 
*     *     *     *
(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.”
8Maryland Code (1989, 1995 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.” 
4
Misconduct,7  of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule
16-812.   Bar Counsel also alleged that the respondent violated  Maryland Code (1989, 1995
Replacement Volume) § 10-3068 of the Business and Occupation Article.  The alleged
violations were committed during the course of the respondent’s handling of the estate of the
complainant’s grandmother and, it was alleged, involved, among other defaults,
misappropriation of estate funds. 
We referred the case to the Honorable Stephen M. Waldron, of the Circuit Court for
Harford County, for hearing.  See 16-757.   The respondent, although served with process,
did not file an answer or appear for the hearing.  At the hearing, the hearing court received
from the petitioners four exhibits, consisting of affidavits and documents.  Following the
9Maryland 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.”
 
5
hearing, it made findings of fact, see 16-757 (c),9 and drew conclusions of law, as follows:
“Melva Miller, a resident of New York, retained Respondent in March
1999 to represent her in connection with her deceased grandmother's estate.
Respondent filed a Petition to Appoint Personal Representative on July 8,
1999, and Ms. Miller was appointed Personal Representative on August 26,
1999.
“Respondent failed to file an inventory, which was due on November
24, 1999. She did not file a first administration account, which was due on
May 22, 2000.
“On September 20, 2000, Ms. Miller's lawyer in New York State wrote
to Respondent about her failure to file the inventory and account. Ms. Miller
and her attorney made numerous attempts to contact Respondent, but she did
not respond. Ms. Miller was able to reach Respondent by telephone in August
2002. Ms. Miller told her that a Delinquent Notice had been issued by the
Register of Wills for failure to file the account. Respondent acknowledged she
had neglected the matter, but promised to conclude the estate administration
as soon as possible.   Respondent took no action to file the inventory and
account. Ms. Miller made repeated attempts to reach Respondent by telephone
in December 2002, without success.
“Ms. Miller then retained Robert L. Pierson, Esquire, to replace
Respondent as counsel.   Mr. Pierson wrote to Respondent on January 2 and
February 20, 2003, requesting information about the estate. Respondent did not
respond. Mr. Pierson filed a petition to compel Respondent's testimony before
6
the Orphans’ Court for Harford County. Respondent appeared in the Orphans’
Court on June 6, 2003, and Mr. Pierson was able to obtain documents and 
information from her. Based on that information, Mr. Pierson concluded that
Respondent owed the estate $4,965.85. He wrote to Respondent on July 7,
2003, to try to resolve that claim. He left telephone messages for her on July
17 and 18, 2003, but has received no response to the letter or telephone
messages.
Mr. Pierson's review of the estate checking account records and his
interview of Respondent uncovered several improprieties in Respondent's
handling of estate funds. On September 14, 1999, Respondent drew a check
for $1,000.00 from the estate account. Ms. Miller never authorized her to take
those funds, and Respondent had never filed a petition for approval of counsel
fees. Respondent had no authority to take those funds from the estate.
Respondent also paid two individuals, Barbara Giles and Elaine Morgan,
$500.00 each from estate funds without any apparent justification. Respondent
also overpaid the legatees, resulting in the estate having insufficient funds to
pay taxes and expenses. The estate cannot be closed because of that deficiency.
“After Ms. Miller submitted a complaint to the Attorney Grievance
Commission, Office of Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent on October 8,
November 4 and December 9, 2002, requesting that she respond to Ms.
Miller's complaint. Respondent did not answer any of those letters.
Commission Investigator William M. Ramsey then made several attempts to
interview Respondent. Respondent never submitted to an interview.
Respondent evaded service of the Statement of Charges when Mr. Ramsey
attempted to serve her. Respondent failed to attend the Peer Review meeting
regarding Ms. Miller's complaint. 
“Respondent acted incompetently in her representation of Ms. Miller
in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by not
filing an inventory and an administration account and by improperly disbursing
estate funds.
“Her failure to file the inventory and account and her failure to respond
to the Delinquent Notice and other inquiries by the Register of Wills and
Orphans' Court was a lack of diligence in violation of Rule 1.3 of the
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.
“Respondent violated Rule 1.4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional
Conduct by failing to return telephone calls from Ms. Miller and her attorneys
10Because there are no exceptions taken to the conclusions of law and the
respondent has not participated, we expressly note that we do not necessarily accept that
the failure to attend a peer review hearing is a violation of Rule 8.1, reflecting a knowing
failure to cooperate.
7
and by failing to keep her informed of the status of the estate administration.
“Respondent took $1,000.00 from the estate checking account on
September 14, 1999.  Ms. Miller never authorized Respondent to take those
funds and Respondent had never filed a petition to authorize her to be paid
counsel fees from the estate. By taking those funds without permission.
Respondent collected an unreasonable fee in violation of Rule 1.5(a) of the Maryland
Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent's unauthorized taking of estate
funds was a criminal act in violation of Rule 8.4(b) and § 10-306 of the
Business Occupations and Professions Article, Annotated Code of Maryland.
Respondent's action was dishonest, and in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.
“Respondent's failure to respond to letters from Bar Counsel, her refusal
to meet with an investigator for the Attorney Grievance Commission and her
failure to attend the Peer Review meeting in this matter were knowing failures
to respond to requests for information from a disciplinary authority in violation
of Rule 8.1(b) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.[10]
“By her failure to take substantial action to administer the estate, her
misuse of estate funds to make unauthorized and excessive expenditures, and
by taking estate funds without authorization. Respondent engaged in conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.”
The petitioner took no exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the hearing court
and, as we have seen, the respondent did not participate in these proceedings.   The petitioner
did, however, file Petitioner’s Recommendation for Sanction, in which it urged the
respondent’s disbarment, noting that the respondent 
“neglected the estate matter, failed to file an inventory and account, ignored
8
notices from the Register of Wills and inquiries from her client, made
improper and excessive disbursements from the estate account and took
$1000.00 without authorization.   Respondent also failed to respond to the
Petitioner regarding this matter.”
The penultimate observation acknowledges that the respondent misappropriated,
appropriated  to her own use funds of others entrusted to her, see Bar Ass’n v. Marshall, 269
Md. 510, 520, 307 A.2d 677, 682 (1973) (obtaining fee from a workers' compensation client
before approval by the  Commission and keeping it and the fee subsequently approved by the
Commission);  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McBurney, 283 Md. 628, 631, 392 A.2d 81,
82 (1978) (after denying their receipt, depositing insurance settlement funds belonging to a
client in office rather than his escrow account), estate funds.  The hearing court’s
characterization  was more emphatic and direct: “Respondent's unauthorized taking of estate
funds was a criminal act in violation of Rule 8.4(b) and § 10-306 of the Business
Occupations and Professions Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. Respondent's action was
dishonest, and in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.”
We  have often repeated what is in this State well settled with regard to the sanction for
misappropriation of entrusted funds, that it “is an act infected with deceit and dishonesty,
and, in the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser sanction, will
result in disbarment.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Spery, 371 Md. 560, 568, 810 A. 2d
487, 491-92 (2002).  See Attorney Grievance Commission v. Smith, 376 Md. 202, 237, 829
A. 2d 567, 588 (2003); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sullivan, 369 Md. 650, 655-56, 801
A. 2d 1077, 1080 (2002); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 410,
9
773 A. 2d 463, 483 (2001); Marshall,  269 Md. at 520, 307 A.2d at 682.   
There are no compelling extenuating circumstances in this case or, at least, we have
not been informed of any.   Accordingly, we agree with the petitioner, the appropriate
sanction 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 
TO
MARYLAND RULE 16-761, FOR WHICH
SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR
OF 
THE 
ATTORNEY 
GRI E V A N CE
COMMISS ION 
AGAINST 
SALLY 
L.
SOMERVILLE.