Title: Attorney Grievance v. Leatherman

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jennifer Lynn Leatherman, Misc. Docket 
AG No. 40, September Term, 2020.  Opinion by Hotten, J. 
 
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – DISBARMENT 
 
The Court of Appeals disbarred Respondent, Jennifer Lynn Leatherman, from the practice 
of law in Maryland.  Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional 
Conduct 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-
301.5 (Fees), 19-301.15 (Safekeeping Property), 19-301.16 (Declining or Terminating 
Representation), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4 
(Misconduct).  These violations stemmed from Respondent’s representation of two clients 
in separate immigration and family law matters.  Respondent accepted $2,500 and $2,000 
in retainers for each matter, but provided little to no legal services of value.  Respondent 
failed to deposit and maintain client funds in an attorney trust account until earned.  
Respondent knowingly and intentionally re-deposited a check that caused $2,500 to be 
fraudulently debited from a personal bank account of a client.  Respondent failed to 
propound discovery, failed to respond to opposing counsel’s discovery requests, failed to 
adequately communicate with clients about the status of their cases, failed to timely deliver 
a client file to successor counsel, and failed to timely execute a Substitution of Counsel.  
Respondent made knowingly and intentionally false statements to Bar Counsel, failed to 
timely and completely answer Bar Counsel inquiries, and failed to participate in 
disciplinary proceedings.  In aggregate, Respondent’s conduct warranted disbarment.  
 
 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No. 483878-V 
Argument waived/submitted on papers 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. Docket AG No. 40  
 
September Term, 2020 
 
__________________________________ 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 
COMMISSION OF MARYLAND 
v. 
JENNIFER LYNN LEATHERMAN 
__________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J., 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Getty, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
 
JJ. 
__________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Hotten, J. 
__________________________________ 
 
Filed: August 4, 2021 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
2021-08-04 14:00-04:00
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”), acting through 
Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) on October 
19, 2020 against Jennifer Lynn Leatherman (“Respondent”), in connection with two 
complaints filed by two former clients that she represented in an immigration and a family 
law matter.  In the Petition, Bar Counsel alleged that Respondent violated the following 
Maryland Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”): 19-301.1 (Competence), 
19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-301.5 (Fees), 19-301.15 
(Safekeeping Property), 19-301.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-308.1 
(Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4 (Misconduct). 
On October 20, 2020, pursuant to Md. Rules 19-722(a)1 and 19-727,2 this Court 
designated the Honorable Jeannie E. Cho of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
 
1 Maryland Rule 19-722(a) provides in pertinent part, “Upon the filing of a Petition 
for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the Court of Appeals may enter an order designating 
(1) a judge of any circuit court to hear the action, and (2) the clerk responsible for 
maintaining the record.” 
 
2 Maryland Rule 19-727 provides in pertinent part: 
 
(a) Evidence and Procedure Generally.  Except as otherwise provided by 
the Rules in this Chapter, the hearing of a disciplinary or remedial action is 
governed by the rules of evidence and procedure applicable to a non-jury trial 
in a civil action in a circuit court. 
*** 
(d) Findings and Conclusions.  The judge shall prepare and file a written 
statement which shall contain: (1) findings of fact and conclusions of law as 
to each charge; (2) findings as to any remedial action taken by the attorney; 
and (3) findings as to any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that 
exist. . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(continued . . .) 
 
 
 
2 
 
(“hearing judge”) to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to issue findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  Respondent was served with the Writ of Summons, Order of the Court 
of Appeals, the Petition, Petitioner’s Interrogatories, Petitioner’s Request for Production 
of Documents, and Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of 
Documents.  Respondent did not file a response.  On December 23, 2020, Petitioner filed 
a Motion for Order of Default, which the hearing judge granted on January 4, 2021.  The 
hearing judge scheduled a remote hearing for February 18, 2021.  Respondent did not 
respond to the Order of Default and did not appear for the remote hearing.  The hearing 
judge, pursuant to Md. Rule 2-424(b),3 deemed Petitioner’s Request for Admissions as 
admitted and received them as evidence.  On March 23, 2021, the hearing judge entered 
findings of facts and conclusions of law based upon the averments in the Petition, and the 
Petitioner’s request for admission and genuineness of documents with attached exhibits.  
Respondent neither filed exceptions, nor provided a recommendation regarding a sanction.  
Petitioner recommended disbarment. 
 
(. . . continued) 
(e) Time for Completion.  Unless extended by the Court of Appeals, the 
hearing shall be completed within 120 days after service on the attorney of 
the order entered under [Md.] Rule 19-722.  
 
3 Maryland Rule 2-424(b) provides in pertinent part:  
 
Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted 
unless, within 30 days after service of the request or within 15 days after the 
date on which that party’s initial pleading or motion is required, whichever 
is later, the party to whom the request is directed serves a response signed by 
the party or the party’s attorney. 
 
3 
 
This Court considered the matter on the papers submitted, without oral argument.4  
On May 27, 2021, we issued a per curiam order disbarring Respondent.  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Leatherman, 473 Md. 628, 251 A.3d 1156 (2021).  We explain in 
this opinion the reasons why. 
THE HEARING JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT 
We summarize the hearing judge’s findings of fact and the exhibits submitted at the 
hearing.  “As no exceptions have been filed, we treat the findings of fact as established.”  
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Davenport, 472 Md. 20, 26, 244 A.3d 1032, 1035 (2021) 
(citing Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A)). 
Background 
Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 13, 2000.  At all times 
relevant hereto, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Montgomery 
County.5 
 
 
 
4 Petitioner filed a request to waive oral argument on May 4, 2021.  Respondent 
neither responded to Petitioner’s request nor otherwise participated in the proceedings, 
including our show cause order directing Respondent to show cause why oral argument 
should be held.  With no response, we granted Petitioner’s request to waive oral argument 
on May 27, 2021. 
 
5 Respondent informed Bar Counsel that she moved out of her law practice on 
January 5, 2020.  The move occurred following the events that gave rise to this disciplinary 
matter.  We also note that the hearing judge’s findings of fact indicated that the law practice 
was in Howard County.  The record confirms that the law practice was located in 
Montgomery County. 
 
4 
 
Representation of Kaixin He 
Kaixin He retained Respondent to assist in establishing legal residency for her 
grandniece, a Chinese national residing in the United States.  On September 14, 2018, Ms. 
He delivered a personal check of $2,500 to Respondent for the retainer.  Respondent failed 
to deposit the check into an attorney trust account, and deposited the check into a personal 
account at Capital One Bank. 
Respondent advised Ms. He to establish legal guardianship of her grandniece.  
Based on the advice of others, Ms. He declined.  On January 15, 2019, Ms. He notified 
Respondent that she no longer required her services and terminated the representation.  On 
February 13, 2019, Ms. He requested a refund of the retainer, but Respondent failed to 
respond. 
On February 26, 2019, Respondent fraudulently re-deposited the September 14, 
2018 check into her personal account at Capital One Bank.  The re-deposit of the check 
debited an additional $2,500 from Ms. He’s personal bank account.  The hearing judge 
found that Respondent knowingly and intentionally misappropriated $2,500 of Ms. He’s 
funds for her own personal benefit and use. 
Ms. He made several additional attempts, via telephone and email, to contact 
Respondent about the refund.  Respondent failed to respond.  On April 5, 2019, Respondent 
emailed Ms. He, “I am nearly finished with your invoice and will send it to you shortly.  
As I stated to you, I will refund whatever remains of your retainer once my fee has been 
deducted.”  Respondent failed to provide an invoice or timely refund. 
 
5 
 
On September 19, 2019, Respondent provided Ms. He with a refund of $2,500.  
Respondent failed to acknowledge or repay the additional $2,500 that she misappropriated 
by re-depositing the check without authorization. 
Representation of Angelina N. Von-Jackson 
 
On March 19, 2019, Angelina N. Von-Jackson retained Respondent in a divorce 
proceeding against her husband, Patrick Von-Jackson.  The retainer agreement required an 
initial retainer of $2,000 and a fee of $150 per hour.  Ms. Von-Jackson paid Respondent 
$2,000 on or about March 19, 2019.  Respondent failed to deposit and maintain the funds 
in an attorney trust account until earned.6 
 
On April 1, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson submitted a draft of her financial statement to 
Respondent for review.  Respondent failed to respond to Ms. Von-Jackson’s request to 
review the financial statement.  On April 18, 2019, Respondent filed a Complaint for 
Absolute Divorce or, in the Alternative, Limited Divorce and other Equitable Relief in the 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County.  Respondent failed to propound discovery on behalf 
of Ms. Von-Jackson and failed to inform Ms. Von-Jackson that discovery had not been 
propounded.  Ms. Von-Jackson attempted to meet with Respondent in person to discuss 
the proceeding, but Respondent cancelled every scheduled meeting. 
 
Opposing counsel propounded interrogatories and requests for document production 
on August 9, 2019.  Respondent advised Ms. Von-Jackson that she would request a time 
extension from opposing counsel to respond to discovery.  Respondent failed to request 
 
6 The hearing judge did not make a finding as to where Respondent deposited the 
$2,000. 
 
6 
 
such an extension.  On September 6, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson texted Respondent about the 
time extension to which Respondent replied, “Yes-Please don’t worry-it’s fine-just get 
them to me when you can.  It’s ok.”  As of September 6, 2019, Respondent had neither 
requested nor received an extension from opposing counsel.  The hearing judge found that 
Respondent knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to Ms. Von-Jackson that she had 
received an extension to respond to the discovery requests.  
 
Ms. Von-Jackson provided Respondent with the information needed to respond to 
the discovery requests on September 23, 2019.  Respondent acknowledged receipt of the 
information, but failed to respond to opposing counsel’s discovery requests.  Respondent 
also failed to inform Ms. Von-Jackson that she failed to respond to opposing counsel’s 
discovery requests. 
 
Respondent and Ms. Von-Jackson agreed to meet on November 14, 2019, at 
Respondent’s office, to discuss the case.  Ms. Von-Jackson arrived at the designated time, 
but Respondent failed to appear.  Ms. Von-Jackson called Respondent’s cellular phone, 
sent an email and a text message, but Respondent failed to appear or respond in any manner.  
On November 18, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson still had not received a response from 
Respondent, and as a result, and sent her the following text message, “Good afternoon, 
please can you let me know what is going on?  Every attempt to reach you regarding my 
case is no avail [sic] why?”  
 
Respondent replied the next day, “I had complications overnight and have to go 
back to the hospital this morning.  Are you available Thursday or Friday?”  Ms. Von-
 
7 
 
Jackson and Respondent scheduled another meeting that week.  Respondent later canceled 
the meeting. 
 
On November 22, 2019, opposing counsel sent Respondent a letter noting that 
discovery responses were past due and requested responses no later than December 2, 2019.  
Respondent failed to respond to opposing counsel and failed to advise Ms. Von-Jackson 
that discovery was outstanding.  The hearing judge found that Respondent failed to keep 
Ms. Von-Jackson reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failed to promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to explain matters to an extent 
reasonably necessary to permit Ms. Von-Jackson to make informed decisions regarding 
representation. 
 
On November 26, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson terminated Respondent’s representation 
and retained Kathleen DeNobile, Esquire, as successor counsel.  Ms. Von-Jackson signed 
a release authorizing Respondent to release her client file, invoices, and unused retainer 
funds to Ms. DeNobile.  Later that day, Ms. DeNobile attempted to call Respondent’s 
office, but the office phone number was temporarily disconnected.  Ms. DeNobile also 
called Respondent’s cellular phone and left a voice message, but Respondent failed to 
respond. 
 
On November 27, 2019, Ms. DeNobile emailed Respondent notifying her that Ms. 
Von-Jackson retained her as successor counsel.  The email included the executed release 
and a proposed Substitution of Counsel.7  The email also requested that Respondent return 
 
7 Maryland Rule 2-132(a) states that “[a]n attorney may withdraw an appearance by 
filing a notice of withdrawal.” 
 
8 
 
an executed copy of the Substitution of Counsel and provide a copy of Ms. Von-Jackson’s 
client file. 
 
On December 2, 2019 at 9:29 a.m., Respondent replied to Ms. DeNobile’s email 
stating that the Substitution of Counsel did not include a signature line.  Respondent 
requested a revised version to sign “ASAP” because she was scheduled to return to the 
hospital that afternoon.  At 10:01 a.m., Ms. DeNobile emailed Respondent the revised 
version.  Respondent failed to respond. 
 
On December 4, 2019, Ms. DeNobile emailed Respondent asking whether she 
planned to appear at the pendente lite hearing scheduled for December 6, 2019, since 
Respondent had not returned the executed Substitution of Counsel.  The email reiterated 
the request for a copy of Ms. Von-Jackson’s client file and expressed concern about the 
status of discovery.  Respondent replied to Ms. DeNobile’s email on December 4, 2019 
and attached an executed copy of the Substitution of Counsel.  Respondent stated:  
Attached is the Sub of Counsel that I signed and a copy of the Interrogatories 
and Request for Production of Documents from the Defendant.  I did not 
receive documents from Ms. Von[-]Jackson.  Due to the circumstances of 
my illness and hospitalizations, I am sure the court will move the discovery 
deadline for you.  The only issue for the [pendente lite] hearing to my 
knowledge is child support and guidelines just need to be run with the parties’ 
incomes.  Have already discussed this with opposing counsel.  Custody and 
visitation are not at issue.  Ms. Von-Jackson had a copy of all of the pleadings 
in the file. 
 
(Emphasis in original). 
 
 
The hearing judge found that Respondent’s statement that she did not receive 
documents from Ms. Von-Jackson was a knowing and intentional misrepresentation.  Ms. 
 
9 
 
Von-Jackson provided Respondent with the information needed to respond to opposing 
counsel’s discovery requests on September 23, 2019. 
 
Ms. DeNobile replied to Respondent’s email the same day stating: 
If I can be candid here.  I went to the courthouse a little but a go [sic] and 
pulled the file for review, the [pendente lite] hearing is on access and child 
support so it[’]s a bit more than running the guidelines.  Frankly, the court 
might extend the discovery deadline and it might not.  The client is now 
facing substantial repercussions because you failed to take action in this case, 
namely serving discovery and responding to discovery in a timely manner.  
You’ve also failed to provide me with anything substantive in this case. 
 
I am going to do the best I can to mitigate the financial ramification for the 
client that have [sic] been caused by your inaction but honestly cannot do 
that without your assistance.  I need documentation of your medical 
condition and hospitalizations to take to court to prove that we need an 
extension of the discovery deadline.  I also need a copy of the client’s file, a 
copy of her trust statement and invoices, and all pertinent information by the 
end of the week.  If you cannot handle this, I am going to have to seriously 
question whether you should be representing clients at all and whether I have 
a duty to report this. 
 
 
Respondent failed to respond to Ms. DeNobile’s email, failed to provide Ms. 
DeNobile with documentation of her hospitalizations, failed to provide a copy of Ms. Von-
Jackson’s client file, invoice, and unused retainer funds.  The hearing judge found that 
Respondent knowingly and intentionally misappropriated Ms. Von-Jackson’s funds when 
she collected a $2,000 retainer, failed to provide her with any services of value, and failed 
to refund the unearned retainer funds. 
Bar Counsel Investigation 
 
On July 29, 2019, Ms. He filed a complaint with Bar Counsel.  On August 6, 2019, 
Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent, enclosed a copy of Ms. He’s complaint and requested a 
written response no later than August 27, 2019.  On September 19, 2019, Respondent 
 
10 
 
provided an untimely response to Bar Counsel.  The response failed to address any of the 
specific concerns raised in Ms. He’s complaint.  Respondent stated that she had struggled 
with recent illness and the death of her mother.  The response included a copy of a letter 
addressed to Ms. He and a copy of the check made payable to Ms. He that refunded the 
$2,500 retainer.  Respondent failed to acknowledge the additional $2,500 owed to Ms. He 
for re-depositing the retainer check. 
 
On October 28, 2019, Bar Counsel informed Respondent that Ms. He’s matter had 
been docketed for further investigation.  Bar Counsel requested that Respondent describe 
what legal services were provided and whether she deposited client funds in an attorney 
trust account and any associated financial records of client funds.  Respondent failed to 
respond in any manner. 
 
Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent again on November 21, 2019, with a copy of the 
October 28 request.  The letter was sent by certified mail and email.  Respondent failed to 
respond. 
 
On December 12, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson filed a complaint with Bar Counsel.  Bar 
Counsel wrote to Respondent on January 17, 2020 and enclosed a copy of Ms. Von-
Jackson’s complaint.  Bar Counsel requested a response no later than January 27, 2020.  
Respondent failed to respond. 
 
Bar Counsel Investigator, Cheryl A. Trivelli, visited Respondent’s residence on 
February 1, 2020.  Ms. Trivelli was unable to establish contact with Respondent.  Ms. 
Trivelli left her business card at the residence.  On February 3, 2020, Respondent emailed 
Ms. Trivelli stating: 
 
11 
 
My husband found your business card stuck in our front door on Saturday. 
Did you come to my house? 
 
I’m sorry, I have not received any letters or phone calls from you.  I shut 
down my practice at the end of the year and moved out of my office in 
Rockville . . . , MD [] on January 5, 2020.  I had my mail forwarded to my 
house but have not received anything from you.  John Garza, my landlord 
knew and knows all of my contact information.  It is also on the AIS system. 
*** 
I was hospitalized for a week in November and have been having health 
issues. 
 
Please contact me by either of my emails or my cell.8 
 
 
On February 5, 2020, Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent requesting Ms. He’s client 
file, copies of all associated financial documents, and an explanation for why she deposited 
Ms. He’s check on two different occasions.  On the same day, Bar Counsel sent Respondent 
another letter that enclosed Ms. Von-Jackson’s complaint, requested Ms. Von-Jackson’s 
client file and associated financial documents, and asked whether Ms. Von-Jackson’s funds 
were deposited in an attorney trust account.  Bar Counsel also emailed copies of the letters 
to the provided work email address.  Respondent failed to respond to either letter or email 
in any manner. 
 
Bar Counsel made several additional unsuccessful attempts to contact Respondent.  
On February 29, 2020, Ms. Trivelli visited Respondent’s residence and left copies of the 
February 5, 2020 letters.  On March 30, 2020, another Bar Counsel Investigator, William 
M. Ramsey, tried calling Respondent’s cellular number, but the voice mailbox was full.  
 
8 Respondent provided Bar Counsel with her cellular phone number, her work email 
address, her personal email address, her disconnected phone number, and her home 
address. 
 
12 
 
On April 10 and 13, 2020, Bar Counsel Investigator, Edwin P. Karr, called Respondent’s 
cellular phone number, leaving a message requesting that she contact him.  Mr. Karr also 
emailed Respondent with the same message.  On April 14, Mr. Karr left another message.  
Respondent returned the phone call a short time later, and Mr. Karr advised Respondent 
that she needed to provide responses no later than April 17, 2020.  Respondent replied that 
she was sick but, “would do the best I can.”  Respondent did not provide information about 
her illness or any substantive responses to Bar Counsel. 
THE HEARING JUDGE’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
By clear and convincing evidence, the hearing judge found that Respondent violated 
MARPC 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-
301.5 (Fees), 19-301.15 (Safekeeping Property), 19-301.16 (Declining or Terminating 
Representation), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4 
(Misconduct). 
MARPC 19-301.1: Competence 
 
 
MARPC 19-301.1 provides: 
 
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 hearing judge found that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.1, in each client 
matter, by failing to deposit and maintain Ms. He’s and Ms. Von-Jackson’s funds in an 
attorney trust account until earned.  The hearing judge also found that Respondent failed 
to satisfy MARPC 19-301.1 in the Von-Jackson matter by failing to propound discovery, 
 
13 
 
failing to request an extension for discovery, and failing to respond to opposing counsel’s 
request for discovery.  
MARPC 19-301.3: Diligence 
 
 
MARPC 19-301.3 provides: “An attorney shall act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client.” 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.3 for the 
same reasons discussed in relation to MARPC 19-301.1, supra, and MARPC 19-301.4, 
infra.   
MARPC 19-301.4: Communication 
 
MARPC 19-301.4 provides: 
 
(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 [MARPC] 19-301.0 (f) 
(1.0), is required by these Rules;  
 
(2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;  
 
(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 [MARPC] 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. 
 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.4(a) and (b) 
by failing to adequately and reasonably keep her clients informed about their matters and 
by failing to respond to her clients’ requests for information, opposing counsel’s discovery 
 
14 
 
requests, successor counsel’s request for the client case file and related information, and 
Bar Counsel’s numerous requests for information related to the representation of Ms. He 
and Ms. Von-Jackson.   
MARPC 19-301.5: Fees 
 
MARPC 19-301.5 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 to be 
considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: 
 
(l) 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. 
 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.5(a) by 
collecting fees without providing the clients with any services of value.  The retainers of 
$2,500 and $2,000 for Ms. He and Ms. Von-Jackson may have been reasonable at the outset 
of representation, but according to the hearing judge, these amounts became unreasonable 
when Respondent failed to provide any services of value.   
 
15 
 
MARPC 19-301.15: Safekeeping Property 
 
MARPC 19-301.15 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. 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.15 by 
failing to deposit client funds in an attorney trust account until earned.  
MARPC 19-301.16: Declining or Terminating Representation 
 
MARPC 19-301.16 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. 
 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.16 by 
failing to provide Ms. He with a timely refund, failing to deliver Ms. Von-Jackson’s unused 
retainer funds, and failing to Ms. Von-Jackson’s client file to successor counsel.  
Respondent also failed to timely strike her appearance and execute the Substitution of 
Counsel. 
 
 
16 
 
MARPC 19-308.1: Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters 
 
 
MARPC 19-308.1 provides in relevant 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 [MARPC] 19-301.6 (1.6). 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-308.1(b) by 
knowingly and intentionally failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s numerous requests for 
information and documentation.  The hearing judge noted that Respondent failed to timely 
and completely respond to Bar Counsel’s letter dated August 6, 2019, and failed to respond 
at all to Bar Counsel’s letters dated October 28, 2019, November 21, 2019, January 17, 
2020, and February 5, 2020. 
MARPC 19-308.4: Misconduct 
 
MARPC 19-308.4 provides in relevant part: 
It is professional misconduct for an attorney to: 
(a) violate or attempt to violate [MARPC], knowingly assist or induce 
another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; 
 
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as an attorney 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[.] 
 
 
17 
 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated sections (a), (b), (c), and (d) 
of MARPC 19-308.4.  According to the hearing judge, Respondent violated section (a) due 
to Respondent’s several violations of other rules of professional conduct.  See supra pages 
12–16. 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated section (b) of MARPC 19-
308.4 by fraudulently re-depositing a check pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law § 
7-104 and 18 U.S.C. § 1344.9  On February 26, 2019, Respondent re-deposited Ms. He’s 
check into the Respondent’s personal bank account, which the hearing judge found was for 
Respondent’s own use and personal benefit.   
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated section (c) of MARPC 19-
308.4 by knowingly and intentionally misappropriating Ms. He’s funds, knowingly and 
intentionally misrepresenting to Ms. Von-Jackson that Respondent received an extension 
for discovery, knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting to Ms. DeNobile that 
Respondent did not receive discovery documents from Ms. Von-Jackson, and knowingly 
 
9 Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law § 7-104(a) provides in pertinent part: “A person 
may not willfully or knowingly obtain or exert unauthorized control over property, if the 
person: (1) intends to deprive the owner of the property[.]”  18 U.S.C. § 1344 provides:   
 
Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or 
artifice — 
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or 
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or 
other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a 
financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, 
representations, or promises; shall be fined not more than 
$1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. 
 
18 
 
and intentionally misappropriating Ms. Von-Jackson’s funds by collecting $2,000 without 
providing any services of value or a refund. 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated section (d) of MARPC 19-
308.4 for intentionally misappropriating client funds, failing to represent a client in an 
adequate manner, and making intentional misrepresentations of a material fact to a client 
and another attorney.  Taken as a whole, the hearing judge found that Respondent’s conduct 
and indifference to the disciplinary process brought “the legal profession into disrepute and 
[was] therefore prejudicial to the administration of justice.”  (Citing Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Kum, 440 Md. 372, 385, 102 A.3d 777, 784–85 (2014); Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209, 222, 892 A.2d 533, 540–41 (2006)).  
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
We now address the conclusions of the hearing judge regarding the existence of 
aggravating and mitigating factors. 
In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494, 117 A.3d 38 (2015), we 
articulated the following aggravating factors that should be considered in an attorney 
disciplinary proceeding: 
(1) prior attorney discipline; (2) a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) a pattern 
of misconduct; (4) multiple violations of the M[A]RPC; (5) bad faith 
obstruction of the attorney discipline proceeding by intentionally failing to 
comply with the Maryland Rules or orders of this Court [ ]; (6) submission 
of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the 
attorney discipline proceeding; (7) a refusal to acknowledge the 
misconduct’s wrongful nature; (8) the victim’s vulnerability; (9) substantial 
experience in the practice of law; (10) indifference to making restitution or 
rectifying the misconduct’s consequences; (11) illegal conduct, including 
that involving the use of controlled substances; and (12) likelihood of 
repetition of the misconduct. 
 
19 
 
 
Id. at 506–07, 117 A.3d at 46 (alterations in original omitted).   
In the case at bar, the hearing judge found several aggravating factors attributable 
to Respondent.  The hearing judge found that Respondent (1) had prior attorney discipline 
resulting from an indefinite suspension ordered by this Court on August 25, 2009.  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Leatherman, 410 Md. 286, 978 A.2d 678 (2009).10  The hearing 
judge found (2) a dishonest and selfish motive for the fraudulent misappropriation of client 
funds for personal use and benefit and for intentional misrepresentations to Ms. Von-
Jackson regarding the discovery time extension.  Based on the above findings, the hearing 
judge also found (3) a pattern of misconduct and (4) multiple offenses.  Respondent’s 
failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel, failure to take remedial action, or failure to 
participate in proceedings prompted a finding of (5) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary 
process and (7) a refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct.  Due to 
Respondent’s admission to the Maryland Bar in 2000, the hearing judge found (9) 
substantial experience in the practice of law.  Finally, the hearing judge found (10) “a 
complete indifference to making restitution to Ms. He and Ms. Von-Jackson.”   
 
The hearing judge did not find any mitigating factors attributable to Respondent, 
nor did Respondent assert that any mitigating factors applied in this case. 
 
 
10 The hearing judge noted that Respondent was previously suspended for violating 
the predecessor to MARPC 19-301.15 (Safekeeping Property).  Respondent was also found 
to have violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 16-604, 16-607, and 
16-609.  These three rules concerning attorney trust accounts are re-codified at Maryland 
Rules 19-404, 19-408, and 19-410. 
 
20 
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
In proceedings involving attorney discipline, “this Court has original and complete 
jurisdiction and conducts an independent review of the record.”  Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Whitehead, 405 Md. 240, 253, 950 A.2d 798, 806 (2008).  “In our review of 
the record, the hearing judge’s findings of fact generally will be accepted unless they are 
clearly erroneous.”  Id., 950 A.2d at 806.  We review the hearing judge’s legal conclusions 
under a de novo standard of review.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moody, 457 Md. 90, 
110, 175 A.3d 811, 823 (2017); Md. Rule 19-741(b)(1) (“The Court of Appeals shall 
review [de novo] the circuit court judge’s conclusions of law.”).  We have “the ultimate 
authority to decide whether a lawyer has violated the professional rules.”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Harrington, 367 Md. 36, 49, 785 A.2d 1260, 1267 (2001) (internal 
citations and quotation marks omitted). 
DISCUSSION 
The hearing judge entered the findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the 
Petition and exhibits submitted by Petitioner.  Petitioner filed no exceptions.  “Respondent 
did not present exceptions to the hearing judge’s finding of fact and conclusions of law, 
nor did Respondent file anything in opposition to Petitioner’s averments.  We therefore 
accept the facts as presented.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Johnson, 462 Md. 422, 434, 
200 A.3d 811, 818 (2019).   
Conclusions of Law 
Based on our independent review of the record, we affirm the hearing judge’s legal 
conclusions that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.3 
 
21 
 
(Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-301.5 (Fees), 19-301.15 (Safekeeping 
Property), 19-301.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission 
and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4 (Misconduct). 
We stated in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Riely that 
 
[t]he rules of professional conduct require that a lawyer provide competent 
representation –i.e., apply the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation [MARPC 19-301.1]; 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client 
[MARPC 19-301.3]; and ensure that the client is reasonably informed about 
the status of the matter, comply with the client’s reasonable requests for 
information, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary for the 
client to make informed decisions [MARPC 19-301.4(a)-(b)].  Conduct that 
violates one of these three rules almost inevitably violates the others. 
 
471 Md. 458, 494, 242 A.3d 206, 227 (2020). 
 
Respondent failed to satisfy the professional standards of competence, diligence, 
and communication by failing to deposit and maintain Ms. He’s and Ms. Von-Jackson’s 
funds in an attorney trust account, failing to answer and propound discovery, and failing to 
adequately respond to her clients’ communications, opposing and successor counsel’s 
communications, and Bar Counsel’s requests.  In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, 
469 Md. 134, 229 A.3d 171 (2020), the attorney failed to propound discovery and to 
respond to discovery requests, and we concluded that the attorney violated the professional 
obligations of competent and diligent representation.  Id. at 147, 229 A.3d at 178.  The 
attorney’s failure to adequately prepare for client meetings, failure to keep clients informed 
about the status of the case, and failure to cooperate with opposing counsel and with Bar 
Counsel compounded the lack of competence and diligence while concurrently violating 
the attorney’s obligation of adequate communication.  Id., 229 A.3d at 178; Attorney 
 
22 
 
Grievance Comm’n v. Williams, 446 Md. 355, 374, 132 A.3d 232, 243 (2016) (concluding 
that an attorney who failed to timely respond to motions and propound discovery 
concurrently violated MARPC 19-301.1, 19-301.3, and 19-301.4).   
Similar to the attorney in Collins, Respondent consistently failed to exhibit 
competence, diligence, and adequate communication while representing Ms. He and Ms. 
Von-Jackson.  Respondent collected fees but provided little to no legal work in return.  
Respondent rarely replied to a communication from client, opposing counsel, successor 
counsel, and Bar Counsel, and when there was a response, it was often untimely, 
incomplete, or contained knowing and intentional misrepresentations.  The lack of attention 
and care demonstrated by Respondent in Ms. Von-Jackson’s case delayed discovery and 
could have harmed the client’s interests.  We conclude that Respondent violated MARPC 
19-301.1, 19-301.3, and 19-301.4. 
 
Respondent failed to charge reasonable fees pursuant to MARPC 19-301.5 by 
collecting retainers of $2,500 and $2,000 for Ms. He and Ms. Von-Jackson without 
providing the clients any services of value.  “For [client] fees to be reasonable, [pursuant 
to MARPC 19-301.5,] they must be ‘commensurate with the legal services provided.’  
Thus[,] a reasonable fee at the outset of a representation ‘can become unreasonable if the 
lawyer fails to earn it.’”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642, 701, 202 
A.3d 1200, 1233 (2019) (citations omitted).  The retainers of $2,500 and $2,000 for Ms. 
He and Ms. Von-Jackson may have been reasonable at the outset of representation.  These 
retainers became unreasonable when Respondent performed little to no work on Ms. He’s 
case and failed to propound and respond to discovery and delayed the transfer of Ms. Von-
 
23 
 
Jackson’s file.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 52–53, 891 A.2d 1085, 
1096–97 (2006) (concluding that a fee that was not unreasonable on its face became 
unreasonable when the attorney performed almost no work on the client’s case).   
The $2,000 retainer for Ms. Von-Jackson appeared more unreasonable given the 
potential harm caused to Ms. Von-Jackson’s case from Respondent’s lack of work, failure 
to timely transfer the client file, and failure to timely execute the Substitution of Counsel.  
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Miller, 467 Md. 176, 218, 223 A.3d 976, 1000 (2020) 
(concluding that the collection of a $2,500 retainer violated MARPC 19-301.5 by failing 
to file documents on behalf of the client or obtain any meaningful result for the client).  We 
conclude that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.5. 
Respondent failed to hold the clients’ money in trust as required by MARPC 19-
301.15.  “Attorneys violate [MARPC 19-301.15] if they deposit their clients’ money into 
their personal or operating account before the money is earned.”  Edwards, 462 Md. at 702, 
202 A.3d at 1234; MARPC 19-301.15, cmt. [1] (“All property of clients or third persons, . 
. . must be kept separate from the attorney’s business and personal property[.]”).  In 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stillwell, 434 Md. 248, 267, 74 A.3d 728, 739 (2013), we 
concluded that an attorney violated the predecessor to MARPC 19-301.15 by failing to 
deposit fees into an attorney trust account.  Similar to the attorney in Stillwell, Respondent 
failed to deposit the retainers from Ms. He and Ms. Von-Jackson into an attorney trust 
account before the money was earned.  The hearing judge also found that Respondent 
deposited the retainer from Ms. He directly into a personal bank account.  We conclude 
that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.15. 
 
24 
 
 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.16 by failing to withdraw from representation 
after becoming unable to provide adequate representation, and by failing to take steps to 
protect the clients’ interests upon termination of representation.  In Edwards, this Court 
noted that the obligation to withdraw from representation extends to situations in which 
“the attorney can no longer represent a client due to a physical condition.”  462 Md. at 703, 
202 A.3d at 1234; see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 546, 567, 903 
A.2d 895, 908 (2006) (“we reiterate that, if ill health indeed renders an attorney physically 
unable to perform his or her duties to the court and clients, he or she must promptly inform 
the court, clients, and other participating attorneys that his or her caseload cannot be 
managed and, without unreasonable delay, make necessary arrangements to protect clients’ 
interests, such as transferring cases to other attorneys”); MARPC 19-301.16(a)(2) (“an 
attorney . . . shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: . . . (2) the attorney’s 
physical or mental condition materially impairs the attorney’s ability to represent the 
client[]”).  An attorney may also violate MARPC 19-301.16 by failing to return unearned 
fees and papers.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 447 Md. 253, 269, 135 A.3d 390, 
399 (2016).   
In the case at bar, Respondent failed to provide Ms. He with a timely refund, failed 
to deliver Ms. Von-Jackson’s unused retainer funds, and failed to transfer Ms. Von-
Jackson’s client file to successor counsel.  Respondent also failed to timely strike her 
appearance and execute the Substitution of Counsel.  The fact that Respondent may have 
experienced health and personal challenges during the course of representation does not 
excuse Respondent’s violation of MARPC 19-301.16.  The rule requires an attorney to 
 
25 
 
notify the client and withdraw from representation when physical or mental challenges 
would impair an attorney’s ability to represent the client.  Respondent demonstrated her 
capacity to respond to communications on several, sporadic occasions, but failed to make 
any arrangements to transfer the case to successor counsel.  We conclude that Respondent 
violated MARPC 19-301.16. 
Respondent violated MARPC 19-308.1 by repeatedly failing to respond to Bar 
Counsel’s requests for information. “[A]n attorney violates [MARPC 19-308.1] if the 
attorney does not answer requests from [Bar Counsel] regarding a complaint in a potential 
disciplinary matter in a timely manner.”  Moore, 447 Md. at 269-70, 135 A.3d at 399.  
Respondent failed to timely and completely respond to Bar Counsel’s letters on August 6, 
2019, October 28, 2019, November 21, 2019, January 17, 2020, and February 5, 2020.  We 
conclude that Respondent violated MARPC 19-308.1. 
 
MARPC 19-308.4 states that “is professional misconduct . . . to . . . violate 
[MARPC], . . . [to] commit a criminal act that reflects on an attorney’s honesty, . . . engage 
in [dishonest or fraudulent] conduct[,] . . . [or] engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice[.]”  Respondent violated section (a) of MARPC 19-308.4 for 
several violations of other rules of professional conduct.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Foltz, 411 Md. 359, 411, 983 A.2d 434, 465 (2009) (“As we have held that respondent has 
violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, [respondent] necessarily violated [MARPC 
19-308.4(a)] as well[.]”) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gallagher, 371 Md. 673, 
710-11, 810 A.2d 996, 1018 (2002)). 
 
26 
 
 
Respondent violated section (b) of MARPC 19-308.4 by fraudulently re-depositing 
a check that caused an additional $2,500 to be debited from Ms. He’s checking account.  
“It is well established that a conviction is not required to find a violation of [MARPC 19-
308.4(b)]. . . .  The crux of [MARPC 19-30]8.4(b) analysis then becomes ‘whether an 
attorney’s criminal act reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects.’”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 
695, 729–30, 93 A.3d 262, 282 (2014) (citations and quotation omitted).  The hearing judge 
made a finding that was dispositive of a violation of MARPC 19-308.4(b).  On February 
26, 2019, Respondent re-deposited Ms. He’s check for the retainer into the Respondent’s 
personal account, which caused an additional $2,500 to be debited from Ms. He’s checking 
account.  The hearing judge found that the re-deposit was for Respondent’s own use and 
personal benefit.  “The record sufficiently supports this finding,” and without any 
exceptions by Respondent, “it is not clearly erroneous.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Powell, 328 Md. 276, 292, 614 A.2d 102, 110 (1992).   
 
Respondent exhibited multiple acts of dishonesty in violation of section (c) of 
MARPC 19-308.4.  “This Court has consistently found misappropriation of client funds 
and deceit to constitute a violation of [MARPC 19-308.4].”  Gallagher, 371 Md. at 712, 
810 A.2d at 1019 (citations omitted).  Respondent knowingly and intentionally 
misappropriated Ms. He’s funds by re-depositing a check.  Respondent knowingly and 
intentionally misrepresented to Ms. Von-Jackson that she had an extension for discovery.  
Respondent knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to successor counsel that she did 
not receive discovery documents from Ms. Von-Jackson, when Respondent had received 
 
27 
 
the documents almost three months prior.  Respondent knowingly and intentionally 
misappropriated Ms. Von-Jackson’s funds by collecting $2,000 without providing any 
services of value or a refund. 
 
Respondent violated section (d) of MARPC 19-308.4 for intentionally 
misappropriating client funds, failing to represent a client in an adequate manner, and 
making intentional misrepresentations of a material fact to a client and another attorney.  
“Generally, [MARPC 19-308.4(d)] is violated when [an attorney’s] conduct impacts 
negatively the public’s perception or efficacy of the courts or legal profession.  Misconduct 
that constitutes a violation of [MARPC 19-308.4(c)] may also violate [MARPC 19-
308.4(d)].”  Edwards, 462 Md. at 706, 202 A.3d at 1236 (citations and internal quotations 
omitted).  Respondent’s misappropriation of client funds, intentional misrepresentations, 
and failure to competently represent Ms. He and Ms. Von-Jackson “was directly harmful 
to the legal profession” by impairing the public’s confidence in receiving honest, diligent 
representation.  Gallagher, 371 Md. at 713, 810 A.2d at 1020. 
 
We conclude that Respondent violated sections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of MARPC 19-
308.4. 
Sanction 
“Attorneys are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate 
[MARPC.]”  MARPC 19-308.4, cmt. [1].  “In deciding the appropriate sanction, ‘[w]e are 
guided by our interest in protecting the public and the public’s confidence in the legal 
profession[.]’”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Portillo, 473 Md. 584, ___, 251 A.3d 1131, 
1143 (2021) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lewis, 437 Md. 308, 329, 85 A.3d 
 
28 
 
865, 877 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).  “As a result, our purpose 
in deciding the appropriate sanction is not to punish the lawyer, but to protect the public, 
and deter other lawyers from engaging in similar misconduct.”  Edwards, 462 Md. at 711, 
202 A.3d at 1239 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  “When determining the 
appropriate discipline, we consider the facts and circumstances of each case and order a 
sanction that is commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent 
with which they were committed.”  Id. at 712, 202 A.3d at 1239 (internal quotation marks 
and citation omitted). 
The hearing judge found the following violations of MARPC, which we affirmed, 
supra, upon independent review: 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 
(Communication), 19-301.5 (Fees), 19-301.15 (Safekeeping Property), 19-301.16 
(Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary 
Matters), and 19-308.4 (Misconduct).  The hearing judge also found clear and convincing 
evidence of eight aggravating factors: prior disciplinary offense, demonstrated a dishonest 
and selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple rule violations, 
demonstrated bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, refused to acknowledge the 
wrongful nature of her misconduct, had substantial experience in the practice of law, and 
showed indifference to making restitution.  Respondent presented, and the hearing judge 
found, no mitigating factors. 
We sustain the hearing judge’s finding of eight aggravating factors.  Respondent 
was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in 2009, in part, for violation of the 
predecessor to MARPC 19-301.15 (Safekeeping of Property).  We have noted that prior 
 
29 
 
discipline may be “particularly problematic if the attorney committed the same or similar 
misconduct after being sanctioned[.]”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 472 Md. 
561, 616, 248 A.3d 224, 255 (2021).  Respondent again violated MARPC 19-301.15 in the 
case at bar by failing to deposit client funds in an attorney trust account until the fees were 
earned.   
Respondent demonstrated a dishonest and selfish motive by re-depositing Ms. He’s 
check without offering an explanation for the conduct, let alone a refund.  Respondent also 
continued to misrepresent the status of discovery to Ms. Von-Jackson in an apparent 
attempt to conceal the lack of work performed in propounding or responding to discovery.  
These serial misrepresentations continued throughout Respondent’s representation of Ms. 
Von-Jackson and extended to interactions with Bar Counsel warranting the hearing judge’s 
finding of a pattern of misconduct, multiple rule violations, bad faith obstruction of the 
disciplinary process, and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct.   
Respondent had nearly two decades of experience in the practice of law, and even 
the most novice attorney would be expected to timely respond to client, opposing counsel, 
and Bar Counsel communications.  Respondent showed indifference to making restitution.  
While Respondent provided a refund of $2,500 to Ms. He, Respondent failed to refund 
unearned portions of Ms. Von-Jackson’s fee and failed to refund the re-deposited $2,500 
check.  Respondent offered no explanation to the clients or Bar Counsel for these 
omissions.  Respondent’s lack of participation in proceedings underscores the indifference 
to making restitution. 
 
30 
 
Based upon the underlying misconduct, the aggravating factors, and lack of 
mitigating or extenuating circumstances, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate 
sanction.  This Court has disbarred attorneys for similar conduct.  In Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Payer, 425 Md 78, 38 A.3d 378 (2012), we disbarred an attorney who failed to 
provide clients with competent and diligent representation, failed to safekeep client funds, 
and exhibited a pattern of dishonesty.  Id. at 95, 38 A.3d at 388.  In Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Sanderson, 465 Md. 1, 213 A.3d 122 (2019), we disbarred an attorney for 
failing to provide competent representation to clients, misappropriating client funds, 
making intentional and knowing misrepresentations, and failing to cooperate with Bar 
Counsel.  Id. at 68–69, 213 A.3d at 161.   
Similar to the disbarred attorneys in Payer and Sanderson, Respondent exhibited a 
pattern of misconduct and inadequate representation that jeopardized the interests of 
Respondent’s clients and brought disrepute to the legal profession as a whole.  Kum, 440 
Md. at 386, 102 A.3d at 785.  Respondent performed little to no work for her clients, despite 
collecting $4,500 in cumulative retainers.  Respondent failed to maintain the $4,500 in an 
attorney trust account until earned.  Respondent knowingly and intentionally 
misappropriated $2,500 from Ms. He for her own personal use.  Respondent failed to 
propound discovery or respond to opposing counsel’s request for discovery and then 
attempted to blame the lack of work on the client.  Respondent refused to cooperate with 
Ms. Von-Jackson’s successor counsel by failing to transfer the client file and made 
intentional misrepresentations about the contents of the file.  Respondent failed to 
participate in Bar Counsel’s investigation in any meaningful manner.  Respondent’s 
 
31 
 
conduct, taken as a whole, brings the legal profession into disrepute and prejudices the 
administration of justice. 
For these reasons, on May 27, 2021, we issued the per curiam order disbarring 
Respondent.11 
 
11 Respondent was ordered “to pay all costs as taxed by the Clerk of this Court, 
including the costs of all transcripts, pursuant to [Md.] Rule 19-709, for which sum 
judgment is entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland. . . .”  
Leatherman, 473 Md. at ___, 251 A.3d at ___.