Title: Attorney Grievance v. Hensley

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Samuel Edward Hensley, Misc. Docket 
AG No. 65, September Term 2018.  Opinion by Raker, J. (Senior Judge, Specially 
Assigned) 
 
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT – DISCIPLINE – DISBARMENT – Respondent Samuel 
Edward Hensley violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-
301.1, 19-301.3, 19-301.4, 19-301.5(a), 19-301.15(a) and (d), 19-301.16(d), 19-308.1(b), 
and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d), and Section 10-306 of the Maryland Business Occupations 
and Professions Article.  These violations arose from respondent’s misconduct in two 
separate client matters, in which respondent failed to appear at a meeting with a client and 
at the client’s court hearing; failed to inform the client about his absences; failed to respond 
to the two clients’ numerous attempts to contact him; failed to return his collected fee to a 
client after performing no legal service; failed to deposit a client’s retainer fee into an 
attorney trust account; failed to notify a client’s medical provider about settlement funds 
received and to distribute its portion; abandoned a client’s case without notice and without 
returning unearned fees; failed to respond to the Bar Counsel’s requests for information 
and documentation; and misrepresented to a client that he was licensed to practice law in a 
state where he was not.  The proper sanction for these violations is disbarment. 
 
 
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County 
Case No. CAE19-07923 
Argued: February 6, 2020 
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS  
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
Misc. Docket AG No. 65 
 
September Term, 2018 
______________________________________ 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISION OF 
MARYLAND 
 
v. 
 
SAMUEL EDWARD HENSLEY 
______________________________________ 
 
 
McDonald, 
 
Watts, 
 
Hotten, 
 
Getty, 
 
Booth, 
 
Biran, 
Raker, Irma S. 
        (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Raker, J. 
______________________________________ 
 
 
 
Filed:  March 27, 2020 
 
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act  
(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document 
is authentic.
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk  
Suzanne Johnson
2020-03-27 13:14-04:00
 
 
 
On February 21, 2019, the Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar 
Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against 
respondent Samuel Edward Hensley.  On February 6, 2020, we held oral argument in this 
matter and disbarred respondent by per curiam order dated that day.  In this opinion, we 
explain the reasons for that Order. 
The Commission charged respondent with violating the Maryland Business 
Occupations and Professions Article, Section 10-306 (Trust Money Restrictions) and the 
Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) 19-301.1 (Competence), 
19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-301.5(a) and (b) (Fees),1 19-
301.15(a) and (d) (Safekeeping Property), 19-301.16(d) (Declining or Terminating 
Representation), 19-308.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4(a), 
(c), and (d) (Misconduct).  On March 6, 2019, pursuant to Md. Rule 19-727, we referred 
the matter to Judge Cathy H. Serrette in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to 
make findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law.  Respondent failed to participate 
in the proceedings in any manner.2  On September 6, 2019, Judge Serrette held an 
                                              
1 The Commission subsequently withdrew its 19-301.5(b) charge. 
 
2 On May 2, 2019, pursuant to Md. Rule 19-723(b), respondent was served with the 
Writ of Summons by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Order of the Court of 
Appeals, Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, Petitioner’s Interrogatories, 
Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents, and Petitioner’s Request for 
Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documents.  On June 10, 2019, after receiving 
nothing from respondent, the Commission filed a Motion for Order of Default.  By Order 
entered on July 8, 2019, Judge Serrette granted the Commission’s motion and set an 
evidentiary hearing date for September 6, 2019.  Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-613, the court 
entered a notice of default, to which respondent did not respond. 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
evidentiary hearing, which respondent failed to attend,3 and found that respondent had 
violated MARPC 19-301.1, 19-301.3, 19-301.4, 19-301.5(a), 19-301.15(a) and (d), 19-
301.16(d), 19-308.1(b), and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d), and Section 10-306 of the Maryland 
Business Occupations and Professions Article.4  On February 6, 2020, this Court held oral 
argument in this matter, which respondent again failed to attend, and disbarred respondent 
by per curiam order. 
 
I. 
 
Judge Serrette made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 
“FINDINGS OF FACT[5] 
“The Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State 
of Maryland on December 17, 2014.  At all times relevant 
                                              
3 Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-424(b), Judge Serrette admitted and received as evidence 
each matter for which an admission was requested in Petitioner’s Request for Admissions 
of Facts and Genuineness of Documents. 
 
4 Judge Serrette found that respondent violated MARPC 19-301.2 (Scope of 
Representation).  The Commission, however, had not brought this charge in its Petition for 
Disciplinary or Remedial Action, despite later including it in its Proposed Findings of Fact 
and Conclusions of Law. 
 
5 “October 20, 2017, was the last contact with Respondent noted in the Request for 
Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documents.  Respondent was served through the 
Client Protection Fund when he could not be located otherwise.  These findings presume, 
in part, that Respondent is alive and was able to respond to Bar Counsel and the Request 
for Admissions of Fact and Genuineness of Documents.” 
 
 
3 
 
 
hereto, he maintained an office for the practice of law in Prince 
George’s County . . . and another . . . [in] Baltimore, Maryland.  
The Yemane Behere Matter 
 
“On July 14, 2016, Yemane Behere, a resident of 
Maryland, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 
Oklahoma in which he sustained injuries.  Upon his return to 
Maryland, Mr. Behere retained the Respondent to represent 
him in the matter.  Mr. Behere and the Respondent agreed to a 
contingency fee whereby the Respondent would receive one 
third of any funds recovered.  The Respondent is not now, nor 
has he ever been, admitted to the bar of the state of Oklahoma.  
The Respondent misrepresented to Mr. Behere that he was 
licensed to practice law in Oklahoma. 
 
“During the pendency of the matter, Mr. Behere 
received medical treatment from several different healthcare 
providers, including Omni Healthcare (“Omni”).  Mr. Behere 
and the Respondent signed a lien agreement to ‘deduct 
immediately from the proceeds of any settlement and/or 
judgment, any and all amounts due to and owing to OMNI[.]’  
On or about September 1, 2017, the Respondent, on behalf of 
Mr. Behere, settled the matter and received a settlement check 
 
 
4 
 
 
in the amount of $200,000.  In September 2017, Mr. Behere 
met with the Respondent and signed a settlement statement.  
The settlement statement provided that the Respondent would 
receive $56,636 for attorney’s fees, $73,364 would be paid to 
medical providers, and $70,000 remained for Mr. Behere. 
 
“On or about October 20, 2017, the Respondent 
provided Mr. Behere with a check in the amount of $70,000.  
The Respondent failed to advise Omni or any of the other 
healthcare providers that he was in receipt of the settlement 
funds.  The Respondent failed to disburse any funds to any 
healthcare providers.  Beginning in the fall of 2017, the 
healthcare providers began contacting the Respondent for 
payment of the outstanding debts.  Beginning in the fall of 
2017, Mr. Behere made several unsuccessful attempts to 
contact the Respondent.  Omni attempted to contact the 
Respondent several times but was unsuccessful.  The 
Respondent misappropriated the funds owed to Omni. 
Representation of John Mbawe 
 
“On March 5, 2017, John Mbawe was arrested and 
charged with second degree assault in the District Court of 
Maryland for Prince George’s County, State v. Mbawe, Case 
 
 
5 
 
 
No. 3E00600337.  The victim of the alleged assault also filed 
a petition in the District Court for a peace order against Mr. 
Mbawe.  A final peace order hearing was scheduled for March 
13, 2017. 
 
“On March 9, 2017, Mr. Mbawe retained the 
Respondent to represent him in both the criminal case and the 
peace order hearing.  Mr. Mbawe executed a retainer 
agreement and paid the Respondent $1,000 toward the $2,500 
retainer fee.  The retainer agreement provided that the 
remainder of the fee was to be paid on or before April 7, 2017.  
The Respondent failed to deposit and maintain Mr. Mbawe’s 
funds in an attorney trust account until earned. 
 
“Mr. Mbawe and the Respondent agreed to meet at the 
Respondent’s office in Upper Marlboro on March 12, 2017, to 
prepare for the peace order hearing.  On March 12, 2017, Mr. 
Mbawe arrived at the Respondent’s office at the designated 
time but the Respondent failed to appear for the meeting.  On 
March 12, 2017, Mr. Mbawe attempted to contact the 
Respondent, leaving several voicemail messages and text 
messages.  The Respondent failed to respond to Mr. Mbawe in 
any manner. 
 
 
6 
 
 
 
“On March 13, 2017, Mr. Mbawe appeared pro se in the 
District Court for the peace order hearing.  The Respondent 
failed to appear at the hearing.  The Respondent failed to advise 
Mr. Mbawe of his whereabouts on March 13, 2017.  At the 
conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a final peace order 
against Mr. Mbawe. 
 
“After the hearing, Mr. Mbawe made several attempts 
to contact the Respondent to request a refund of the retainer 
fee.  The Respondent failed to respond to Mr. Mbawe’s phone 
calls and text messages and failed to provide Mr. Mbawe a 
refund. On April 11, 2017, Mr. Mbawe retained successor 
counsel to represent him in the pending criminal case. 
Bar Counsel Investigation 
“On November 7, 2017, Rich Resigno filed a complaint 
with Bar Counsel on behalf of Omni Healthcare.  On 
November 17, 2017, Bar Counsel sent a letter to the 
Respondent’s Prince George’s County office with a copy of 
Mr. Resigno’s complaint and requested a written response no 
later than December 11, 2017.  The November 17, 2017 letter 
was returned to Bar Counsel as undelivered on December 1, 
2017. 
 
 
7 
 
 
“On December 14, 2017, Bar Counsel sent a letter to the 
Respondent’s Baltimore City address with a copy of Mr. 
Resigno’s complaint and requested a written response no later 
than January 8, 2018.  The Respondent failed to respond to Bar 
Counsel’s December 14, 2017 letter. 
“On December 11, 2017, Mr. Behere filed a complaint 
with Bar Counsel.  On January 2, 2018, Bar Counsel sent letters 
to the Respondent’s Prince George’s County and Baltimore 
City addresses with copies of Mr. Behere’s complaint and 
requested a written response no later than January 24, 2018.  
Both January 2, 2018 letters were returned to Bar Counsel. 
“On May 31, 2018, Mr. Mbawe filed a complaint with 
Bar Counsel.  On July 17, 2018, Investigator Jason Bogue 
attempted to make contact with the Respondent at his 
Baltimore City address, but no one answered the door.  On July 
17, 2018, Investigator Bogue left a note at the Respondent’s 
Baltimore City office requesting that the Respondent contact 
Bar Counsel.  That same day, Investigator Bogue also called 
the telephone number that the Respondent has listed with the 
Client Protection Fund and left a voicemail message asking the 
 
 
8 
 
 
Respondent to contact him.  The Respondent failed to respond 
to Bar Counsel. 
Mitigating Factors 
 
“No mitigating factors were presented. 
Aggravating Factors 
“The Court of Appeals has recognized the following 
aggravating factors: 
‘(1)  Prior disciplinary offenses; 
(2) 
A dishonest or selfish motive; 
(3) 
A pattern of misconduct; 
(4) 
Multiple offenses; 
(5) 
Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary 
proceeding by intentionally failing to 
comply with rules or orders of the 
disciplinary agency; 
(6) 
Submission of false evidence, false 
statements, or other deceptive practices 
during the disciplinary process; 
(7) 
Refusal to acknowledge the wrongful 
nature of conduct; 
(8) 
Vulnerability of victim; 
(9) 
Substantial experience in the practice of 
law; and 
(10) 
Whether he or she displayed indifference 
to making restitution.’ 
 
See Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Sperling, 434 Md. 658, 676–77, 76 
A.3d 1172, 1183 (2013) (citing Standard 9.22 of the American 
Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions). 
 
 
9 
 
 
 
“The Petitioner established the following aggravating 
factors: (2) dishonest or selfish motive; (3) pattern of 
misconduct; (4) multiple offenses; (5) bad faith obstruction of 
the disciplinary process; and (10) indifference to making 
restitution. 
 
“The Respondent demonstrated a dishonest or selfish 
motive when he misappropriated settlement funds in the 
Behere matter.  Having violated multiple Rules in both the 
Behere and Mbawe matters, Respondent has demonstrated a 
pattern of misconduct.  Throughout the investigation of this 
disciplinary matter, the Respondent failed to comply with Bar 
Counsel’s numerous requests for information.  Respondent has 
also shown an indifference to making restitution to Mr. Mbawe 
and the healthcare providers in the Behere matter. 
 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
 
“Petitioner established, by clear and convincing 
evidence, that the Respondent violated the following Maryland 
Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct: 
MARPC Rule 1.1. Competence [MARPC 19-301.1] 
 
“Rule 1.1 provides: 
 
 
10 
 
 
‘An 
attorney 
shall 
provide 
competent 
representation 
to 
a 
client. 
 
Competent 
representation requires the legal knowledge, 
skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably 
necessary for the representation.’ 
 
“The Respondent violated Rule 1.1 when he failed to 
attend the March 12, 2017 meeting with Mr. Mbawe and then 
failed to attend the March 13, 2017 peace order hearing. 
*** 
MARPC Rule 1.3. Diligence [MARPC 19-301.3] 
“Rule 1.3 provides: 
‘An attorney shall act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing a client.’ 
 
“Respondent violated Rule 1.3 for the same reasons 
discussed in relation to Rules 1.1 and 1.4. 
MARPC Rule 1.4. Communication [MARPC 19-301.4] 
“Rule 1.4 provides, in part: 
‘(a) An attorney shall: 
(1) promptly inform the client of 
any decision or circumstance with 
respect to which the client’s 
informed consent, as defined in 
Rule 1.0(f), is required by these 
Rules; 
(2) keep the client reasonably 
informed about the status of the 
matter; 
 
 
11 
 
 
(3) 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information; and  
(4) consult with the client about 
any relevant limitation on the 
attorney’s 
conduct 
when 
the 
attorney knows that the client 
expects assistance not permitted 
by the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules 
of Professional Conduct or other 
law. 
(b) An attorney shall explain a matter to the 
extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the 
representation.’  
 
“Respondent violated Rule 1.4(a) and (b) when he (1) 
failed to attend the March 12, 2017 meeting with Mr. Mbawe; 
(2) failed to inform Mr. Mbawe that he would not be attending 
the meeting; and (3) failed to inform Mr. Mbawe that he would 
not be attending the March 13, 2017 peace order hearing.  
Additionally, the Respondent violated Rule 1.4 by failing to 
respond to Mr. Mbawe’s and Mr. Behere’s numerous attempts 
to contact him. 
MARPC Rule 1.5[.] Fees[6] [MARPC 19-301.5] 
“Rule 1.5 provides, in part: 
‘(a) An attorney shall not make an agreement for, 
charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an 
unreasonable amount for expenses.  The factors 
                                              
6 “Petitioner withdrew its allegation that the Respondent violated Rule 1.5(b).” 
 
 
12 
 
 
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 of the 
attorney; 
(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 attorney or attorneys 
performing the services; and 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or 
contingent.’ 
 
“While the fee collected from Mr. Mbawe was not 
unreasonable at the outset of the representation, it became 
unreasonable and thus violative of Rule 1.5 (a), when the 
Respondent failed to perform any legal services of value for 
Mr. Mbawe.  See Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Monfried, 368 Md. 
373 (2002) (attorney’s fee was unreasonable as a matter of law 
in that he performed almost no services in return for the money 
 
 
13 
 
 
paid by the client’s mother); Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Guida, 
391 Md. 33 (2006) (finding that while the fee was not 
unreasonable on its face, it became unreasonable because the 
attorney did virtually no work after he received the fee). 
MARPC Rule 1.15. Safekeeping Property  
[MARPC 19-301.15] 
“Rule 1.15 provides, in part: 
‘(a) An attorney shall hold property of clients or 
third persons that is in an attorney’s possession 
in connection with a representation separate 
from the attorney’s own property.  Funds shall be 
kept in a separate account maintained pursuant to 
Title 19, Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules, and 
records shall be created and maintained in 
accordance with the Rules in that Chapter.  Other 
property shall be identified specifically as such 
and appropriately safeguarded, and records of its 
receipt and distribution shall be created and 
maintained.  Complete records of the account 
funds and of other property shall be kept by the 
attorney and shall be preserved for a period of at 
least five years after the date the record was 
created. 
 
*** 
 
(d) Upon receiving funds or other property in 
which a client or third person has an interest, an 
attorney 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, 
an attorney shall deliver promptly to the client or 
third person any funds or other property that the 
client or third person is entitled to receive and, 
 
 
14 
 
 
upon request by the client or third person, shall 
render promptly a full accounting regarding such 
property.’ 
 
“Respondent violated Rule 1.15(a) when he failed to 
deposit Mr. Mbawe’s $1,000 retainer fee into an attorney trust 
account.  Respondent violated Rule 1.15(d) as per Mr. Behere 
when he failed to notify the healthcare providers that he had 
received the settlement funds and failed to deliver the 
settlement funds owed to Omni and the other healthcare 
providers. 
MARPC Rule 1.16[.] Declining or Terminating 
Representation [MARPC 19-301.16] 
“Rule 1.16 provides, in part: 
‘(d) Upon termination of representation, an 
attorney shall take steps to the extent reasonably 
practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as 
giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing 
time for employment of another attorney, 
surrendering papers and property to which the 
client is entitled and refunding any advance 
payment of fee or expense that has not been 
earned or incurred.  The attorney may retain 
papers relating to the client to the extent 
permitted by other law.’ 
 
“Respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) when he abandoned 
Mr. Mbawe’s case, in essence terminating the representation 
of Mr. Mbawe without giving Mr. Mbawe notice.  
 
 
15 
 
 
Additionally, the Respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) when he 
failed to return unearned fees as discussed in reference to Rule 
1.5(a). 
MARPC Rule 8.1. Bar Admission and Disciplinary 
Matters [MARPC 19-308.1] 
“Rule 8.1 provides, in part: 
‘An applicant for admission or reinstatement to 
the bar, or an attorney 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.’ 
 
“The Respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) during Bar 
Counsel’s investigation by failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s 
lawful requests for information and documentation. 
MARPC Rule 8.4[.] Misconduct [MARPC 19-308.4] 
“Rule 8.4 provides, in part: 
‘It is professional misconduct for an attorney to: 
 
 
16 
 
 
(a) violate or attempt to violate the 
Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of 
Professional Conduct, knowingly 
assist or induce another to do so, or 
do so through the acts of another. 
 
*** 
 
(c) engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation; 
(d) engage in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of 
justice.’ 
 
 
“The Respondent violated Rule 8.4(a) by having 
violated several other Rules of Professional Conduct.  See Att’y 
Griev. Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359 (2009) (finding that 
when an attorney violated several other Rules of Professional 
Conduct, he necessarily violated Rule 8.4(a)). 
“The Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) when he 
misrepresented to Mr. Behere that he was licensed to practice 
law 
in 
Oklahoma. 
 
Additionally, 
the 
Respondent’s 
misappropriation of settlement funds owed to Omni in the 
Behere matter is an act of dishonesty in violation of Rule 
8.4(c).  See Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Somerville, 379 Md. 586 
(2004) (concluding that misappropriation of entrusted funds is 
an act infected with deceit and dishonesty). 
 
 
17 
 
 
“The 
Respondent 
violated 
Rule 
8.4(d) 
by 
misappropriating trust funds in the Behere matter and by 
abandoning the representation of Mr. Mbawe.  Taken as a 
whole, the Respondent’s conduct in this matter brings the legal 
profession into disrepute and is therefore prejudicial to the 
administration of justice.  See Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Landeo, 
446 Md. 294, 132 A.3d 196 (2016) (attorney violated Rule 
8.4(d) by failing to represent a client in an adequate manner 
and failing to keep a client informed about the status of a case). 
Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Article, 
Section 10-306 
“Section 10-306 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.’  The Respondent 
violated Section 10-306 when he failed to distribute settlement 
funds owed to the healthcare providers in the Behere matter as 
described in reference to Rule 1.15.  The Respondent has 
demonstrated an indifference to his obligations to maintain 
funds owed to third parties.” 
(Footnotes in original) (internal record citations omitted). 
 
 
 
18 
 
 
II. 
This Court has original and complete jurisdiction in attorney grievance matters and 
conducts an independent review of the record.  Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Ambe, 466 Md. 
270, 286, 218 A.3d 757, 765–66 (2019).  We accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact 
unless we conclude that they are clearly erroneous.  Id. at 286, 218 A.3d at 766.  If the 
hearing judge’s factual findings are based on competent material evidence, they are not 
clearly erroneous, and we will not disturb them.  Id.  On the other hand, we review the 
hearing judge’s conclusions of law de novo.  Id. 
Respondent did not file an exception to Judge Serrette’s findings of fact or 
conclusions of law.  Adopting the factual findings before her, we agree with Judge Serrette 
that respondent violated MARPC 19-301.1, 19-301.3, 19-301.4, 19-301.5(a), 19-301.15(a) 
and (d), 19-301.16(d), 19-308.1(b), and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d), in addition to Section 10-
306 of the Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Article. 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.1 when he failed to appear at a scheduled 
meeting with his client Mr. Mbawe and at Mr. Mbawe’s court hearing.  See Att’y Grievance 
Comm’n v. Lang, 461 Md. 1, 44, 191 A.3d 474, 500 (2018) (a complete lack of 
representation by an attorney violates the duty of competence); Att’y Grievance Comm’n 
v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534, 553–54, 16 A.3d 181, 192–93 (2011) (failure to appear at a 
client’s hearing, leaving the client to enter into a consent judgment without the aid of 
counsel, violates the duty of competence); Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Kwarteng, 411 Md. 
 
 
19 
 
 
652, 658, 984 A.2d 865, 868–69 (2009) (abandonment, in effect, of representation of client 
without informing the client violates the duty of competence). 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.4 when he failed to inform Mr. Mbawe about 
his absences at the meeting and the hearing and when he failed to respond to Mr. Mbawe’s 
and Mr. Behere’s numerous attempts to contact him.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. 
Haley, 443 Md. 657, 670, 118 A.3d 816, 823 (2015). 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.3 for the same reasons that he violated 
MARPC 19-301.1 and 19-301.4.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 451 Md. 55, 80, 
152 A.3d 639, 653 (2017) (holding that an attorney violates the duty to provide diligent 
and competent representation when he does nothing whatsoever to advance the client’s 
cause or endeavor); Atty Grievance Comm’n v. Sutton, 394 Md. 311, 327–28, 906 A.2d 
335, 344–45 (2006) (holding that an attorney’s conduct that included failure to 
communicate with a client violates his duty of competence and diligence, among others). 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.5(a) when he failed to perform any legal 
services of value for Mr. Mbawe after collecting a fee from him; the collected fee then 
became unreasonable and violative of the rule.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Monfried, 
368 Md. 373, 394, 794 A.2d 92, 104 (2002); Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 
33, 52–53, 891 A.2d 1085, 1096–97 (2006). 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.15(a) when he failed to deposit Mr. Mbawe’s 
$1,000 retainer fee into an attorney trust account.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Stillwell, 
434 Md. 248, 267, 74 A.3d 728, 739 (2013).  Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.15(d) 
 
 
20 
 
 
when he failed to notify Omni of Mr. Behere’s settlement funds and deliver its portion.  
See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Mungin, 439 Md. 290, 308–09, 96 A.3d 122, 132 (2014).  
 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.16(d) when he abandoned Mr. Mbawe’s case 
without notice and failed to return unearned fees.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. 
Costanzo, 432 Md. 233, 255, 68 A.3d 808, 821 (2013). 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-308.1(b) when he failed to respond to the Bar 
Counsel’s requests for information and documentation.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. 
Gracey, 448 Md. 1, 27, 136 A.3d 798, 814 (2016). 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-308.4(a) by violating several other provisions of 
the MARPC.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359, 411, 983 A.2d 434, 465 
(2009).  Respondent violated MARPC 19-308(c) when he misrepresented to Mr. Behere 
that he was licensed to practice law in Oklahoma when he was not and when he 
misappropriated settlement funds owed to Omni.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. 
Somerville, 379 Md. 586, 593, 842 A.2d 811, 815 (2004) (holding that misappropriation of 
entrusted funds is “an act infected with deceit and dishonesty”).  Respondent violated 
MARPC 19-308(d) when he misappropriated Mr. Behere’s settlement funds and 
abandoned representation of Mr. Mbawe.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Kum, 440 Md. 
372, 385, 102 A.3d 777, 784–85 (2014) (holding that misappropriation of client funds is 
dishonest conduct that is also prejudicial to the administration of justice); Att’y Grievance 
Comm’n v. Landeo, 446 Md. 294, 341–43, 132 A.3d 196, 224–25 (2016) (holding that 
 
 
21 
 
 
attorney violated MARPC 19-308(d) by failing to represent a client in an adequate 
manner). 
 
Lastly, respondent violated Section 10-306 of the Maryland Business Occupations 
and Professions Article, which provides that “[a] lawyer may not use trust money for any 
purpose other than the purpose for which the trust money is entrusted to the lawyer,” when 
he failed to distribute Mr. Behere’s settlement funds owed to Omni.  See Att’y Grievance 
Comm’n v. McLaughlin, 372 Md. 467, 503–05, 813 A.2d 1145, 1166–67 (2002). 
 
III. 
We now turn to the appropriate sanction to be imposed.  Bar counsel recommended 
disbarment for respondent’s violations of MARPC 19-301.15 and 19-308.4(c). 
The purpose of sanctioning an attorney is to protect the public rather than to punish 
the errant attorney.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips, 451 Md. 653, 677, 155 A.3d 
476, 490 (2017).  Furthermore, it serves as deterrence against similar misconduct.  Id.  The 
severity of the sanction depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, 
including consideration of any mitigating or aggravating factors.  See Att’y Grievance 
Comm’n v. Angst, 369 Md. 404, 416–18, 800 A.2d 747, 755 (2002). 
Respondent’s failures to safekeep funds and acts of dishonesty and 
misrepresentation each independently warrant disbarment absent compelling mitigating 
circumstances.  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Zimmerman, 428 Md. 119, 144, 50 A.3d 
1205, 1220 (2012) (failure to safekeep funds); Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 
 
 
22 
 
 
364 Md. 376, 418–19, 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001) (intentional dishonest conduct). 
Respondent did not participate in any part of this disciplinary proceeding.  He 
presented no evidence and no mitigating factors.  Respondent acted with a dishonest and 
selfish motive, exhibited a pattern of misconduct, engaged in multiple offenses of the 
Maryland Rules, acted in bad faith to obstruct the disciplinary process, and showed 
indifference to making restitution.  Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct. 
 
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 19-709, FOR WHICH 
SUM 
JUDGMENT 
IS 
ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE 
ATTORNEY 
GRIEVANCE 
COMMISSION 
AGAINST 
SAMUEL 
EDWARD 
HENSLEY.