Title: Attorney Grievance v. Sullivan

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
OF  MARYLAND
Misc. Docket (Subtitle  AG)
No. 28
SEPTEMBER TERM, 2001
________________________________________
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 
OF MARYLAND
                                      
V.
PATRICK LEWIS SULLIVAN
________________________________________
 
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
   
Raker
           
Wilner
           
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
JJ.
__________________________________________
          Opinion by Bell, C.J.
__________________________________________
             
FILED: June 26, 2002
 
1  Rule 16-709(a), which formerly governed the filing of statements of charges by Bar
Counsel,  stated that “[c]harges against an attorney shall be filed by the Bar Counsel acting
at the direction of the Review Board.”  Authorization to file charges in the Court of Appeals
now comes from the Attorney Grievance Commission.  See Maryland Rule 16-751, which
was adopted November 30, 2000, effective July 1, 2001. The filing of charges with the
Attorney Grievance Commission is governed by Rule 16-741, which provides as follows:
“(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.”
2  That section provides:
“Misconduct.–‘Misconduct’ means an act or omission by an attorney,
individually or in concert with any other person or persons which violates the
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Rule 16-812, whether
or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client
relationship.”
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, acting through Bar
Counsel and at the direction of the Review Board, see Maryland Rule 16-709,1 filed a
Petition for Disciplinary Action against Patrick Lewis Sullivan, the respondent, charging him
with misconduct, as defined by Rule 16-701.k,2 in connection with his handling, as co-
Effective July 1, 2001, the definition of “professional misconduct” is codified at Maryland
Rule 16-701(i), which adopts “the meaning set forth in  Rule 8.4,” in turn, adopted by Rule
16-812.  Professional misconduct “includes the knowing failure to respond to a request for
information authorized by this Chapter without asserting, in writing, a privilege or other basis
for such failure.”
3  That Rule requires a lawyer to “provide competent representation to a client.”  It
also states that “[c]ompetent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness
and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
4  The mandate of Rule 1.3 is that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client.” 
5  As relevant, that Rule provides:
“(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.”
6  Rule 8.1(b) 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:
*     *     *     *
“(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
2
personal representative of the estate of William Amoss, a former State Senator.   Specifically,
the petition alleged the violation, by the respondent, of the following Maryland Rules of
Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812: 1.1 (Competence);3 1.3
(Diligence);4 1.15 (Safekeeping Property);5 8.1 (Bar admission and disciplinary matters);6 and
Rule 1.6.”  
7  In part, Rule 8.4 provides that “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;…”  
8  Rule 16-711 (a) provides:
“Findings.  A written statement of the findings of facts and conclusions of law
shall be filed in the record of the proceedings and copies sent to all parties.”
See Rule 16-757, effective July 1, 2001.
9The Senator’s widow was appointed co-personal representative, but resigned in
January 1998, leaving the respondent as the sole personal representative.
3
8.4 (Misconduct).7 
We referred the case to the Honorable J. William Hinkel of the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County to conduct a hearing and to make findings of fact and draw conclusions
of law.  See 16-711.a.8  Following the hearing, the hearing court made findings of fact, from
which it concluded, as a matter of law,  that the respondent did, in fact, commit each of the
violations the petitioner charged.    
State Senator William H. Amoss died on October 8, 1997, leaving two wills, the first
dated April 29, 1996 and the second, October 6, 1997.   The respondent, who had represented
Senator Amoss in connection with various matters over some twenty years, was appointed
personal representative pursuant to the second will.9   When that will was voided as a result
of the caveat filed by Senator Amoss’s children, the respondent was again appointed personal
4
representative.    He was ordered to file an accounting.
Notwithstanding the order to file an accounting, the respondent failed to do so and
took no substantial action to administer the estate.    Consequently, a petition to remove the
respondent as personal representative was filed by Senator Amoss’s children.    That matter
was settled, however, when, with the approval of the Orphans’ Court, the parties executed
an agreement, under which the respondent promised to complete the administration of the
estate promptly and diligently, in return for which he was permitted to remain the personal
representative, entitled to twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) dollars reimbursement for his
services through the filing of the First Administration Account and an additional amount, up
to twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00), when the estate was closed.
Despite the settlement agreement, the respondent still took no action to administer the
estate.    Nor did he respond to the inquiries from the legatees and their counsel or provide
necessary information to the estate’s accountant.   Again the Amoss children petitioned the
Orphans’ Court to remove the respondent as personal representative.    And again the parties
reached a settlement, approved by the Orphans’ Court, by the terms of which the respondent
resigned immediately as personal representative and waived all commissions and
compensation for work done after the First Administration Account.    The Amoss children
were appointed successor personal representatives.
The estate records that the respondent turned over to counsel for the successor
personal representatives disclosed that the respondent had drawn twelve (12) to fifteen (15)
5
checks, totaling $50,500.00, on the estate account, payable to himself.  Thereafter, the
respondent was sued by the successor personal representatives.   Because the respondent did
not answer,  the Circuit Court for Harford County entered an Order of Default against him.
It subsequently entered judgment against the respondent in the amount of twenty-five
thousand five hundred dollars ($25,500.00), plus attorney’s fees of twenty three thousand
nine hundred and ninety nine dollars ($23,999.00).   The respondent failed to comply with
a subpoena, with which he had been served, to produce certain estate records at the hearing
to establish damages; he neither appeared nor produced the designated records.   He delivered
the records that he was ordered to produce only after again being ordered by the court to do
so and then literally at the last moment.
The respondent received three letters from Bar Counsel requesting that he respond to
the complaint and the numerous messages left by the petitioner’s investigator in an attempt
to interview him.   Nevertheless, the respondent  failed to respond to the written request of
Bar Counsel or to the attempts by the petitioner’s investigator to interview him.
The hearing court concluded that the respondent violated Rule 1.1, noting that the
respondent “took little or no action to administer the estate” and that “[h]is gross neglect of
his responsibilities ultimately led to his removal as personal representative.    Moreover, the
hearing court commented on the respondent’s delay in turning over to the successor personal
representatives estate records, necessitating their incurring substantial attorney’s fees.
Rule 1.15 (b) was violated, the hearing court determined, by the respondent’s failure
6
promptly to remit to counsel for the successor personal representatives estate funds and
property.  His failure to respond to letters from Bar Counsel and inquiries from an
investigator constituted, for the hearing court, a violation of Rule 8.1 (b).
As to the Rule 8.4 violation, the hearing court concluded:
“Respondent violated Rule 8.4 (b), (c) and (d) ... by taking funds from the
Amoss estate without the approval of the Orphans’ Court and contrary to his
agreement not to take compensation in excess of $25,000.00.    Mr. Sullivan
had no lawful claim to those funds and his taking of those funds for his
personal use was theft and a criminal act reflecting adversely on his honesty,
trustworthiness and fitness as an attorney.    His taking of those funds was
dishonest.   Respondent’s conduct throughout this matter, including his failure
to administer the estate promptly, his dishonest and unlawful taking of funds,
and his lack of communication with the successor personal representatives was
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
 
The petitioner has taken no exceptions to the findings of facts and conclusions of law.
Consequently, the only issue to be resolved is the appropriate sanction to be imposed.  It is
well settled in this State that misappropriation, by an attorney, of funds entrusted to his or her
care "is an act infected with deceit and dishonesty and ordinarily will result in disbarment in
the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser sanction."  In re
License of Thompson, 363 Md. 469, 478-79, 769 A.2d 905, 911 (2000);  Attorney Grievance
Comm'n of Maryland v. Sabghir, 350 Md. 67, 84, 710 A.2d 926, 934 (1998); Attorney Griev.
Comm'n v. Casalino, 335 Md. 446, 644 A.2d 43, 46 (1994); Attorney Griev.  Comm'n v.
White, 328 Md. 412, 417, 614 A.2d 955, 958 (1992); Attorney Griev.  Comm'n v. Bakas, 323
Md. 395, 403, 593 A.2d 1087, 1091 (1991); Attorney Griev.  Comm'n v. Ezrin, 312 Md. 603,
608-09, 541 A.2d 966, 969 (1988).   
7
The petitioner recommends as the appropriate sanction that the respondent be
disbarred, relying on  Attorney Griev.  Comm'n v. Williams, 335 Md. 458, 474, 644 A.2d
490, 497 (1994); Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Boehm, 293 Md. 476, 481, 439 A.2d 52, 54
(1982); Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Pattison, 292 Md. 599, 609, 441 A.2d 328, 333 (1982);
Attorney Griev.  Comm'n v. Burka, 292 Md. 221, 225, 438 A.2d 514, 517 (1981).The
petitioner  points out that the hearing court concluded that the respondent’s actions were
dishonest and constituted  theft of estate funds.    It suggests that there are no mitigating
circumstances.
We agree and, accordingly, adopt the petitioner’s recommendation.
 
 
I T  
I S  
S O  
O R D E R E D ;
RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL
COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK
OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING THE
COSTS OF ALL TRANSCRIPTS,
PURSUANT TO MARYLAND
RULE 16-715(c), FOR WHICH SUM
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN
FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY
GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF
MARYLAND AGAINST PATRICK
LEWIS SULLIVAN.