Title: Attorney Grievance v. Hodgson

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket AG 
No. 55
September Term, 2005
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v.
 
MELINDA PORCHER HODGSON
Bell, C.J.
          Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
JJ.
Opinion by Bell, C.J.
     File: December 8, 2006
 
1Maryland Rule 16-751, 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.” 
2Rule 1.3 requires “[a] lawyer [to] act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
3Rule 1.4 provides, as relevant:
“(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”
4Rule 8.1 provides, as relevant:
“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 1.6.”  
5Rule 8.4, as relevant, provides:
“It is professional  misconduct for  a lawyer to: 
 
*     *     *     *
“(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
*     *     *     *
 
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel,
acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary Or Remedial
Action against Melinda Porcher Hodgson, the respondent.   The petition charged, consistent
with allegations made against the respondent  by two complainants, that the respondent
violated Rules 1.3, Diligence,2 1.4, Communication,3  8.1, Bar admission and disciplinary
matters,4 and 8.4, Misconduct,5 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted
6Maryland Rule 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.”  
7As relevant, Maryland Rule 16-753 provides:
“If after reasonable efforts the attorney cannot be served personally, service
may be made upon the employee designated by the Client Protection Fund
of the Bar of Maryland pursuant to Rule 16-811 c 1 (x), who shall be
deemed the attorney's agent for receipt of service. The Fund's employee
shall send, by both certified mail and ordinary mail, a copy of the papers so
served to the attorney at the address maintained in the Fund's records and to
any other address provided by Bar Counsel.”
8Maryland 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
2
by Maryland Rule 16-812.    
We referred the case, pursuant to Rule 16-752 (a),6 to the Honorable Sherrie L. Krauser
of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, for hearing and to make recommended
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The respondent was served as permitted by Maryland
Rule 16-753,7 through the Client Protection Fund.  When the respondent did not answer the
petition, an order of default was entered against her.  Following a hearing, at which, despite
being notified as to the date and time, the respondent did not appear, the hearing court,
pursuant to Rule 16-757 (c),8 found facts by the clear and convincing standard, as follows:
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.” 
3
“Melinda Porcher Hodgson (hereinafter ‘the Respondent’) was originally admitted to
the Bar of the Court of Appeals of Maryland on December 11, 2001.   The Respondent
maintained a law office in Baltimore, Maryland. The Respondent was decertified on April 7,
2005 for nonpayment of her assessment to the Client Protection Fund, of the Bar of Maryland,
and to date, has not been reinstated.
“In October 2002, the Respondent was retained by Sadie Gardner-Young to file a
complaint of divorce and represent her in that matter. On October 15, 2002, the Respondent
and Ms. Gardner-Young executed a written retainer agreement. The retainer agreement
referred to Respondent as ‘Of Counsel’ of the ‘Law Office of Sutton and Ward, LLC’, with
attorneys David D. Sutton and Kenneth S. Ward. Although the retainer agreement provided
for a retainer of $3,000, the Respondent agreed to reduce her fee and offered her
representation for a flat fee of $2,500 if Ms. Gardner-Young would sign the agreement that
day. On or about October 15, 2002, Ms. Gardner-Young gave the Respondent a check in the
amount of $500, and subsequently made additional payments totaling $2,500, plus an
additional $170 for the filing fee of the divorce complaint.
“On March 15, 2004, the Respondent filed a complaint for absolute divorce on behalf
4
of  Ms. Gardner-Young. The Respondent, however, failed to file a financial affidavit, and
therefore, the complaint was dismissed on June 14, 2004.  At the time the complaint was
dismissed, the Respondent did not advise Ms. Gardner-Young that she failed to file a financial
affidavit and that her case was dismissed as a result of her failure to do so.
“Since the time she retained Respondent in 2002, Ms. Gardner-Young had difficulty
getting in contact with Respondent to inquire of the status of her case. The Respondent did
not send Ms. Gardner-Young any written communication, aside from the retainer agreement,
and oftentimes did not return Ms. Gardner-Young's telephone calls and/or was not in her
office. When Ms. Gardner-Young did not receive any communication from Respondent for
many months after the filing of her complaint, she called the Respondent to inquire about the
status of her case. The Respondent finally told Ms. Gardner-Young that her case had been
dismissed, but only after Ms. Gardner-Young called her several times and the Respondent
finally answered the telephone at her office.
“After Ms. Gardner-Young learned of the dismissal of her case, she terminated
Respondent's representation and obtained new counsel, Arthur G. Wilson, Esquire. When Mr.
Wilson, on behalf of Ms. Gardner-Young, requested the Respondent to refund any unused
portion of her retainer, the Respondent submitted her bill totaling $2,900, which included
alleged charges of $100 for ‘Document Review’ of ‘Motion to Dismiss’, $400 for ‘Research’,
and $600 for ‘Preparation and delivery of financial statement’.  The Respondent, however,
5
had not sent Ms. Gardner-Young any written correspondence, including billing statements,
during the course of her representation. Moreover, the Respondent had not filed any motion,
financial affidavit or other papers in court on behalf of Ms. Gardner-Young.
“In January 2005, Ms. Gardner-Young filed a written complaint against the
Respondent with the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland. The office of Bar
Counsel sent the Respondent several written requests for information in the course of
investigating Ms. Gardner-Young's complaint. The Respondent did not respond to the letters
from the office of Bar Counsel.
“In December 2004, another complaint against the Respondent was received by the
Attorney Grievance Commission from another former client of the Respondent, Raymond
Perales. Mr. Perales complained that Respondent failed to communicate with him after
retaining her to represent him in his domestic matter. In his complaint, Mr. Perales stated that
when he called the Respondent's law office on December 3, 2004 to confirm receipt of his
letter, which he sent via facsimile to Respondent's law office terminating her representation
and requesting a partial refund, he was advised that the Respondent no longer worked there.
“In the course of investigating Mr. Perales' complaint, the office of Bar Counsel sent
the Respondent several written requests for information, including letters dated March 1,
2005, March 15, 2005 and March 30, 2005. The Respondent did not respond to the letters.
“The Respondent has been decertified since April of 2005 for failure to pay her
6
assessment by the Client Protection Fund, and thus is currently unauthorized to practice law
in Maryland.”
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the hearing court concluded that the
respondent engaged in the professional misconduct, as charged by the petitioner and that each
of the charged Rule violations was established by his acts and omissions.  Specifically, the
court opined:
“This court concludes that the Respondent, after being engaged to provide legal
services to Sadie Gardner-Young, failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
carrying out that representation, thereby violating Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct
(MPRC) 1.3. After filing the divorce complaint on March 15, 2004, the Respondent failed to
keep Ms. Gardner-Young reasonably informed about the status of the representation and did
not respond to reasonable requests for information, thereby violating MRPC 1.4(a). The
Respondent also violated MRPC 1.4(b) by not explaining to her client the dismissal of her
complaint to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions
regarding the representation. The Respondent has clearly abandoned her law practice and her
clients, as in the case of Mr. Perales, as she has been, and still currently is, decertified for her
failure to pay her assessment to the Client Protection Fund and has not attempted to get
reinstated.
“The Respondent further violated MRPC 8.1(b) when she knowingly failed to respond
9Maryland Rule 16-759 (b) (2) (A) provides:
“(A) If No Exceptions Are Filed.  If no exceptions are filed, the Court may treat
the findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining appropriate
sanctions, if any.”
10Maryland Rule 16-759 (b) (1) provides:
“(1) Conclusions of Law.  The Court of Appeals shall review de novo the circuit
court judge's conclusions of law.”
7
to lawful demands for information from the office of Bar Counsel.  
“Taken in its totality, the Respondent’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration
of justice and therefore violated MRPC 8.4 (d).”
Neither the petitioner nor the respondent has taken exceptions to the hearing court’s
findings of fact or conclusions of law.  Indeed, the respondent, although notified of the
proceedings in this Court, did not file any pleadings or appear at oral argument. 
Consequently, for purposes of sanction, we treat the findings of fact as established.  Rule 16-
759 (b) (2) (A).9  See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Logan, 390 Md. 313, 319, 888 A.2d
359, 363 (2005). Moreover, upon our de novo review of the hearing court’s conclusions of
law, Rule 16-759 (b) (1),10 we are satisfied that they follow from, and are supported by, the
court’s factual findings, which, again, have been established.
That leaves for resolution the appropriate sanction.  The petitioner recommends
disbarment, submitting that, under the circumstances, it is the only viable sanction.  In its
Petitioner’s Recommendation For Sanction, the petitioner revisits the rules the respondent was
8
found to have violated, emphasizing the respondent’s failure to represent her client with
reasonable diligence and promptness, to keep her reasonably informed and advised, as well
as her failure to respond to her client’s requests for information concerning her case.  The
petitioner concludes, citing Logan, 390 Md. at 320, 888 A.2d at 363-364 and Attorney Griev.
Comm’n v. Velasquez, 380 Md. 651, 661, 846 A.2d 422, 428 (2004):
“For reasons unknown, the Respondent has chosen to ignore this Court’s
disciplinary authority over him, initially by not answering Bar Counsel’s
attempts to obtain a response to the Gardner-Young complaint and Perales
complaint, and thereafter by failing to file an answer in this proceeding.  It
appears that the Respondent has abandoned her law practice and her clients, as
in the case of Mr. Perales, as she has been decertified for her failure to pay her
assessment to the Client Protection Fund and has not attempted to get
reinstated.  The Respondent has not otherwise attempted to present any
explanatory information in response to the charges.  Having offered no
justification for a less severe sanction, the Respondent should be disbarred.”
We agree.   Here, the fact of the misconduct meriting the ultimate sanction has been
established and there has been no showing, or even an attempt at showing, that the misconduct
is mitigated.   The respondent is ordered disbarred.       
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
9
RULE 16-761, FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT
IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY
GRIEVANCE 
COMMISSION 
AGAINST
MELINDA PORCHER HODGSON.