Title: Attorney Grievance v. Jones

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cotie W. Jones, Miscellaneous Docket AG No. 9,
September Term, 2009
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE–SANCTIONS-DISBARMENT: Court of Appeals disbarred
the respondent, Cotie W. Jones, for intentional misappropriation of trust money, the use of
this money for personal expenses, failure to properly designate his attorney trust account
checks, and failure to respond to the petitioner’s lawful demands for information which, it
concluded, violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15, 8.1 and 8.4, as
adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812; Md. Rules 16-606, 16-607, and 16-609; and Maryland
Code, Business Occupations and Professions Article, §§ 10-306.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket AG
No. 9
September Term, 2009
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 
OF MARYLAND
v.
COTIE W. JONES
Bell, C.J.
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
*Murphy
Adkins
Barbera,
JJ
Per Curiam
Filed: August 27, 2012
*Murphy, J., now retired, participated in the
hearing and conference of this case while an
active member of this Court; he did not participate
in the decision and adoption of this opinion.
1 Maryland Rule 16-751, as relevant, provides:
“(a)  Commencement of disciplinary or remedial action. (1) Upon approval or
direction of Commission.  Upon approval or direction of the Commission, Bar
Counsel shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court
of Appeals.”
2 Rule 1.15 of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) provides:
“(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a
lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the
lawyer’s own property.  Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained
pursuant to Title 16, Chapter 600 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 lawyer and shall be preserved for a period of at least five years after the
date the record was created.
“(b) A lawyer may deposit the lawyer’s own funds in a client trust account
only as permitted by Rule 16-607 b.
“(c) Unless the client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, to a
different arrangement, a lawyer shall deposit legal fees and expenses that have
been paid in advance into a client trust account and may withdraw those funds
for the lawyer’s own benefit only as fees are earned or expenses incurred.
“(d) 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 deliver promptly 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 render promptly a full
accounting regarding such property.
“(e) When a lawyer in the course of representing a client is in possession of
I.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“AGC”), the petitioner, acting
pursuant to Md. Rule 16-751,1 filed, through Bar Counsel, a Petition for Disciplinary or
Remedial Action against Cotie W. Jones, the respondent.  In the Petition, the petitioner
alleged that the respondent violated Rules 1.15 Safekeeping Property,2 8.1 Bar Admission
property in which two or more persons (one of whom may be the lawyer)
claim interests, the property shall be kept separate by the lawyer until the
dispute is resolved.  The lawyer shall distribute promptly all portions of the
property as to which the interests are not in dispute.”
3 MRPC 8.1 provides:
“An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or a lawyer in
connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a
disciplinary matter, shall not:
“(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or
“(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the
person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful
demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except
that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected
by Rule 1.6.”
4 MRPC 8.4 provides, in relevant part, that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to
. . . (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,” or “(d)
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
5 Maryland Rule 16-606 states:
“An attorney or law firm shall maintain each attorney trust account with a title
that includes the name of the attorney or law firm and that clearly designates
the account as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow Account,’ or
‘Clients’ Funds Account,’ on all checks and deposit slips.  The title shall
distinguish the account from any other fiduciary account that the attorney or
law firm may maintain and from any personal or business account of the
attorney or law firm.”
6 Maryland Rule 16-607 (a) states: “An attorney or law firm may deposit in an attorney trust
account only those funds required to be deposited in that account by Rule 16-604 or
permitted by section b. of this Rule.”
-2-
and Disciplinary Matters,3 and 8.4 Misconduct4 of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of
Professional Conduct (“MRPC”), as adopted by Md. Rule 16-812; Maryland Rules 16-606
Name and Designation of Account,5 16-607 Commingling of Funds,6 16-609 Prohibited
7 Maryland Rule 16-609 (a) provides:
“An attorney or law firm may not borrow or pledge any funds required by the
Rules in this Chapter to be deposited in an attorney trust account, obtain any
remuneration from the financial institution for depositing any funds in the
account, or use any funds for any unauthorized purpose.”
8 Maryland Code (1989, 2010 Repl. Vol., 2011 Supp.) Business Occupations and Professions
Article (“BP”) § 10-306 prohibits a lawyer from using trust money “for any purpose other
than the purpose for which the trust money is entrusted to the lawyer.”
9 BP § 10-606 is the penalty provision for violation of BP § 10-306.  It provides:
“(b) Attorney trust accounts.  – A person who willfully violates any provision
of Subtitle 3, Part I of this title, except for the requirement that a lawyer
deposit trust moneys in an attorney trust account for charitable purposes under
§ 10-303 of this title, is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject
to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or both.”
Although listed with the Rule and statues violated and apparently charged, it is clear that it
is not a substantive provision.
10 MRPC 8.5 provides, in relevant part:
“(a) Disciplinary authority.
“(1) 
A lawyer admitted by the Court of Appeals to practice in this State
is subject to the disciplinary authority of this State, regardless of
where the lawyer’s conduct occurs.
“(2) 
A lawyer not admitted to practice in this State is also subject to the
disciplinary authority of this State if the laywer:
“(i) 
provides or offers to provide any legal services in this State,
“(ii)
holds himself or herself out as practicing law in this State, or
“(iii)
has an obligation to supervise or control another lawyer
practicing law in this State whose conduct constitutes a violation
of these Rules.”
-3-
Transactions;7 and § 10-3068 of the Maryland Code (1989, 2010 Repl. Vol., 2011 Supp.)
Business Occupations and Professions Article (“BP”), thus subjecting him to BP § 10-606
(b) Penalties.9  He is thus, it submits, subject to this Court’s disciplinary authority pursuant
to MRPC 8.5 (a).10
11 Maryland Rule 16-752 (a) provides:
“Order.  Upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the
Court of Appeals may enter an order designating a judge of any circuit court
to hear the action and the clerk responsible for maintaining the record.  The
order of designation shall require the judge, after consultation with Bar
Counsel and the attorney, to enter a scheduling order defining the extent of
discovery and setting dates for the completion of discovery, filing of motions,
and hearing.”
12 Maryland Rule 16-757, which prescribes the procedure for a judicial hearing, held upon
the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, provides, in relevant part:
“(b) Burdens of proof.  The petitioner has the burden of proving the averments
of the petition by clear and convincing evidence.  A respondent who asserts an
affirmative defense or a matter of mitigation or extenuation has the burden of
proving the defense or matter by a preponderance of the evidence.
“(c) Findings and conclusions.  The judge shall prepare and file or dictate into
the record a statement of the judge’s findings of fact, including findings as to
any evidence regarding remedial action, and conclusions of law.  If dictated
into the record, the statement shall be promptly transcribed.  Unless the time
is extended by the Court of Appeals, the written or transcribed statement shall
be filed with the clerk responsible for the record no later than 45 days after the
conclusion of the hearing.  The clerk shall mail a copy of the statement to each
party.”
-4-
Pursuant to Md. Rule 16-752 (a),11 we transmitted this matter to the Hon. Toni E.
Clarke of  the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, for hearing, pursuant to Rule 16-
757.12  Although served with the Petition by the petitioner, the respondent neither filed an
answer to the petition nor moved to vacate the Order of Default that the petitioner obtained
13 Md. Rule 2-613 (b) states:
“Order of default.  If the time for pleading has expired and a defendant has
failed to plead as provided by these rules, the court, on written request of the
plaintiff, shall enter an order of default.  The request shall state the last known
address of the defendant.
14 Md. Rule 16-754 provides, in relevant part:
“(a) Timing; contents.  Within 15 days after being served with the petition,
unless a different time is ordered, the respondent shall file with the designated
clerk an answer to the petition and serve a copy on the petitioner . . . .
*  *  *  *
“(c) Failure to answer.  If the time for filing an answer has expired and the
respondent has failed to file an answer in accordance with section (a) of this
Rule, the court shall treat the failure as a default and the provisions of Rule 2-
613 shall apply.”
-5-
pursuant to Md. Rules 2-613 (b)13 and 16-75414 (c).  Following a hearing, at which the
respondent failed to appear and testimony and documentary evidence were received, the
hearing court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-757 made findings of fact, by the clear and
convincing standard, and drew conclusions of law, as follows:
“Respondent was originally admitted to the Bar of the Court of Appeals of Maryland
on June 21, 1995.  He has maintained a law practice at 1009 Folcroft Lane, Largo, Maryland.
On April 6, 2009, by Order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, Respondent was
temporarily suspended and prohibited from the further practice of law in the State of
Maryland for nonpayment of his annual assessments to the Client Protection Fund.
“On or about March 28, 2008, Respondent received a check in the amount of $1,000
from his client, World of Hardwoods, Inc. for payment of legal fees.  Respondent deposited
the $1,000 funds to his attorney trust account on the same day.  After the deposit was made,
-6-
Respondent’s attorney trust account had a balance of $1,149.76.  Also on March 28, 2008,
Respondent deposited a check in the amount of $230.00 from ‘Nichelle Owens-Jones’ for
payment of Respondent’s ‘bar’ dues, totaling Respondent’s attorney trust account balance
to $1,379.76.
“Subsequently, from March 28, 2008 through April 15, 2008, Respondent issued
several checks totaling $1,385.00 to himself ‘Cotie W. Jones’, his wife, and to other third
parties on behalf of himself for payment of his personal and/or business expenses as follows:
Date
Check
Amount of
Payable to
of check
Nos.
check
3/28/08
1455
$40.00
Cotie W. Jones
3/28/08
1457
$50.00
Cotie W. Jones
3/29/08
1458
$150.00
Cotie W. Jones
3/28/08
1456
$210.00
Client Protection Fund for
“Bar Dues”
4/03/08
1459
$60.00
Cotie W. Jones
4/04/08
1460
$250.00
Nichelle D. Owens-Jones
4/07/08
1461
$125.00
Comcast for “internet/cable”
4/08/08
1462
$200.00
Cotie W. Jones
4/13/08
1463
$125.00
Nichelle D. Owens-Jones
for “bill”
4/14/08
1464
$175.00
Cotie W. Jones
“On the checks issued to ‘Comcast’ and ‘Client Protection Fund’, the words ‘Client
Escrow’ on Respondent’s Client Escrow Account checks were scratched off, presumably by
Respondent.  After the presentment of Check No. 1463 in the amount of $125 to ‘Nichelle
D. Owens-Jones’ on April 15, 2008, to the bank, there were insufficient funds to cover the
amount of the check.  Bank of America, nevertheless, honored the check, resulting in an
overdraft on Respondent’s attorney trust account and a negative balance of $-5.24.  No other
-7-
monies were deposited to Respondent’s attorney trust account until April 21, 2008.
“According to the bank records of Respondent’s attorney trust account and the
analysis provided by Paralegal of the Attorney Grievance Commission, John Debone,
Respondent withdrew $5.24 more than he was permitted for his own benefit as fees earned
after depositing the $1,000 funds from his client World of Hardwoods, Inc. as payment for
his legal fees, thereby causing the overdraft on his attorney trust account.
“On or about April 21, 2008, Bar Counsel received an Overdraft Report dated April
16, 2008, from Bank of America of Respondent’s attorney trust account.  The report advised
that an overdraft was created on April 15, 2008, in the amount of (negative) -$5.24.  On April
29, 2008, Deputy Bar Counsel, Glenn Grossman, sent a letter to Respondent via certified
mail requesting his written response to the April 16, 2008, overdraft notice of his attorney
trust account from Bank of America, including copies of his client ledger cards, deposit slips,
canceled checks, and monthly bank statements of his escrow account from the period
‘January 2008 to the present’.  The certified mail return receipt shows that Respondent signed
for and received Deputy Bar Counsel’s April 29, 2008, letter on or about May 13, 2008.
Respondent did not respond to that letter.
“On June 18, 2008, Deputy Bar Counsel sent another letter to Respondent requesting
his written response to the overdraft notice from Bank of America of his attorney trust
account.  Respondent did not respond to that letter.  On July 1, 2008, Deputy Bar Counsel
sent a third letter to Respondent requesting his written response to the overdraft notice from
Bank of America of his attorney trust account.  Respondent did not respond to that letter.
-8-
Consequently, Petitioner subpoenaed relevant bank records, including copies of monthly
bank statements, canceled checks, and deposit slips, of Respondent’s attorney trust account.
“The subpoenaed records show that from the period March 2008 through August
2008, Respondent used his attorney trust account for personal and business matters.  For
instance, Respondent made payments to Comcast, Client Protection Fund, and his wife,
Nichelle D. Owens-Jones.  The records further show that Respondent does not have the
proper name and designation on his trust account checks as required by Md. Rule 16-606.”
On the basis of these findings, the hearing court concluded that the respondent
violated each of the charged violations.  As to MRPC 1.15 (a) and 8.4 (c), Md. Rule 16-609,
and BP §§ 10-306 and 10-606, it found that the respondent’s withdrawal, from his attorney
trust account, of more funds for his own benefit than he had earned as fees, constituted those
violations.  Md. Rule 16-607 was violated, the hearing court concluded, when the respondent
used these funds for the payment of his personal and business debts.  The hearing court, in
addition, determined that the respondent’s failure to designate his trust account checks
properly was a violation of Md. Rule 16-606, and his willful failure to respond to the
petitioner’s lawful requests for information and an explanation violated MRPC 8.1 (b).  The
hearing court concluded, on balance, that the respondent’s conduct was prejudicial to the
administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4 (d). 
15 Maryland Rule 16-759 (b) (1) provides: “(1) Conclusions of Law.  The Court of Appeals
shall review de novo the circuit court judge's conclusions of law.”
-9-
II.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland “has complete jurisdiction over attorney discipline
proceedings” in this state.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nwadike, 416 Md. 180, 192, 6
A.3d 287, 294 (2010) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 409 Md. 121, 147,
973 A.2d 185, 200 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted).  “In our independent review
of the record, we accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact as prima facie correct unless
shown to be clearly erroneous.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stern, 419 Md. 525, 556,
19 A.3d 904, 925 (2011); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185, 205,
9 A.3d 37, 49 (2010); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Boyd, 333 Md. 298, 303, 635 A.2d
382, 384 (1994).  In those cases “where neither the petitioner nor the respondent files
exceptions to the findings of fact, as is the case here, this Court ‘may treat the findings of fact
as established for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions, if any.’” Attorney
Grievance Comm’n v. Goodman, 426 Md. 115, 124, 43 A.3d 988, 993 (2012) (quoting Md.
Rule 16-759 (b) (2) (A)); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Logan, 390 Md. 313, 319, 888
A.2d 359, 363, (2005).  While the “trier of fact may elect to pick and choose which evidence
to rely upon,” Attorney Grievance v. Nothstein, 300 Md. 667, 684, 480 A.2d 807, 816
(1984), pursuant to Md. Rule 16-759 (b) (1),15 our review of the Circuit Court’s conclusions
of law, based upon its survey of that evidence, is conducted de novo.  Goodman, 426 Md. at
124, 43 A.3d at 993.
-10-
Upon our de novo review of the hearing court’s conclusions of law, we are satisfied
that they follow from, and are supported by, the court’s factual findings, which have been
established.  
Although not stated in these terms, the hearing court has found facts, from which it
concluded that the respondent misappropriated client funds.  Indeed, that ordinarily is the
effect of violations of MRPC 1.15, Rule 16-609 and BP 10-306.  
Misappropriation is defined as “any unauthorized use by an attorney of a client’s
funds entrusted to him or her, whether or not temporary or for personal gain or benefit.”
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448, 484, 671 A.2d 463, 481 (1996)
(quoting In re Harrison, 461 A.2d 1034, 1036 (D.C. App. 1983)) (internal quotation marks
omitted).  The respondent’s withdrawal of funds from his trust account for personal,
unauthorized purposes, thus amounted to misappropriation. 
Accordingly, all that remains is determining the appropriate sanction.
This Court is authorized to impose sanctions for attorney misconduct pursuant to
MRPC 8.5 (a).  Such disciplinary authority is necessary “to protect the public and its
confidence in the legal profession.”  Goodman, 426 Md. at 131, 43 A.3d at 997.  In that
regard, we reiterate what we stated in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1,
741 A.2d 1143 (1999):
“Because an attorney’s character must remain beyond reproach, this Court has
the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the
integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer
from bringing its image into disrepute.  Disciplinary proceedings have been
established for this purpose, not for punishment, but rather as a catharsis for
-11-
the profession and a prophylactic for the public.” 
Id., 357 Md. at 27, 741 A.2d at 1157 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Deutsch, 294
Md. 353, 368-69, 450 A.2d 1265, 1273 (1982)).  Additionally, “disciplinary proceedings and
the sanctions imposed have the goal . . . of ‘deterring other lawyers from engaging in similar
conduct.’” Goodman, 426 Md. at 132, 43 A.3d at 998 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n
v. Stein, 373 Md. 531, 537, 819 A.2d 372, 375 (2003)).
When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, “we consider the nature of the
ethical duty violated in light of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.”  Attorney
Grievance Comm’n v. Nussbaum, 401 Md. 612, 643, 934 A.2d 1, 19 (2007) (citing Attorney
Grievance Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586, 598-99, 911 A.2d 440, 447-48 (2006)).
Indeed, the public interest is safeguarded “when sanctions are imposed that are
commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they
were committed.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gore, 380 Md. 455, 472, 845 A.2d 1204,
1213 (2004).  
The petitioner recommends that the respondent be disbarred.  In support of that
recommendation, it emphasizes the gravity of the respondent’s misconduct, the
misappropriation of client funds, as well as the respondent’s failure to acknowledge this
Court’s disciplinary authority, having failed to respond, in any way, to these proceedings.
We adopt that recommendation. 
It has been our long-held and consistent position that the “entrustment to [attorneys]
of the money and property of others involves a responsibility of the highest order,” and
16 Rule 16-759 (b) (2) (A) states that “[i]f no exceptions are filed, the Court may treat the
findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions, if any.”
-12-
further, that “[a]ppropriating any part of those funds to their own use and benefit without
clear authority to do so cannot be tolerated.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Owrutsky, 322
Md. 334, 345, 587 A.2d 511, 516 (1991); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cherry-
Mahoi, 388 Md. 124, 161, 879 A.2d 58, 81 (2005).  Thus, we long have been clear,
“[m]isappropriation, by an attorney, of funds entrusted to his or her care is an act infected
with deceit and dishonesty and, in the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances
justifying a lesser sanction, will result in disbarment.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
Spery, 371 Md. 560, 568, 810 A.2d 487, 491-92 (2002); see also Goodman, 426 Md. at 132,
43 A.3d at 998; Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. at 161, 879 A.2d at 81; Attorney Grievance Comm’n
v. Sperling, 380 Md. 180, 191, 844 A.2d 397, 404 (2004); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
Vanderline, 364 Md. 376, 410, 773 A.2d 463, 482 (2001).  
The respondent has failed to present any extenuating circumstances – indeed, he has
failed to present any explanation for his conduct at all –  never mind compelling ones, which
would cause this Court to deviate from this oft enunciated principle.  He did not ever respond
to Deputy Bar Counsel’s requests for information, and he has not participated in these
proceedings.  We have stated that where, as is the case here, a respondent does not file any
exceptions, “we treat the findings of fact as established.” Rule 16-759 (b) (2) (A).16
Furthermore, we are satisfied, upon review pursuant to Rule 16-759 (b) (1), supra note 15,
that the Circuit Court’s conclusions of law, in light of its factual findings, represent a sound
-13-
and proper interpretation of the governing rules. 
The respondent shall be disbarred.
IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL
PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK
OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING COSTS OF
ALL TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO
MARYLAND RULE 16-761, FOR WHICH
SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR
OF 
THE 
ATTORNEY 
GRIEVANCE
COMMISSION AGAINST COTIE W. JONES.