Title: Attorney Grievance v. Olver

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket  AG  No. 64 
September Term, 2002
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v. 
DENNIS  G.  OLVER
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
JJ.
Opinion by Bell, C.J.
File: August 28, 2003
1Until June 30, 2001, Maryland Rule 16-709, as relevant, provided:
“a. Who may file.  Charges against an attorney shall be filed by the Bar
Counsel acting at the direction of the Review Board.”
Maryland Rule 16-741 now governs the filing of petitions for disciplinary actions, now
characterized as statements of charges.   Adopted November 30, 2000, effective July 1,
2001, it provides:
“(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.”
Although pursuant to the Rules Order, the new rules became effective July 1, 2001, the
Rules Order excepted “any matter pending before an Inquiry Panel, the Review Board, or
the Court of Appeals pursuant to charges, a petition, or an application pending as of June
30, 2001,” which, it provided, “shall continue to be governed by the Rules in effect on
June 30, 2001.”
 
  The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel,
acting at the direction of the Review Board,  see Maryland Rule 16-709,1 filed a Petition For
Disciplinary Action against Dennis G. Olver, the respondent, charging him with misconduct,
consisting of violations of several of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted
2Rule 1.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer to
“provide competent representation to a client,” which the Rule defines as consisting of
“the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the
representation.”
3Pursuant to Maryland Rule 1.3, “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client.”  
4Rule 1.4 provides:
“(a)  A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.  
“(b)  A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to
permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”
5Pursuant to Rule 8.4 (d), “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... engage
in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”  
6Maryland Rule 16-711.a provides:
“a. 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.
2
by Maryland Rule 16-812.    The petition alleged, in particular, that the respondent violated
Rules: 1.1, Competence;2 1.3, Diligence;3 1.4, Communication;4 and 8.4 (d), Misconduct.5 
We referred the case to the Honorable Edward R. K. Hargadon, of the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, for hearing and to find facts and draw conclusions of law, see 16-711.a,6
which, following the hearing, the hearing court did.   Neither party excepted to the findings
of fact or the conclusions of law.
With this Court’s adoption, with substantial amendment, on November 30, 2000, of
the 144th  Report of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective
July 1, 2001, the Maryland Rules for the first time contained a conditional diversion rule. 
7Rule 16-771, titled “Disciplinary or remedial action upon conviction of crime,”
requires Bar Counsel to file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court of
Appeals when he learns and verifies that an attorney has been convicted of a serious
crime.   The Rule further provides that, after a hearing, this Court may suspend the
attorney from the practice of law until final disposition of the disciplinary or remedial
action if it determines that the attorney has been convicted of a serious crime. 
 
8Rule 16-773 addresses reciprocal discipline or inactive status cases in which 
the attorney who is the subject of the petition, in another jurisdiction, is disbarred,
suspended, or otherwise disciplined,  resigns from the bar while disciplinary or remedial
action is threatened or pending in that jurisdiction, or  is placed on inactive status based
on incapacity.
9Rule 16-774 involves attorneys “summarily placed on inactive status for an
indefinite period if the attorney has been judicially determined to be mentally incompetent
or to require a guardian of the person for any of the reasons stated in Code, Estates and
Trusts Article, § 13-705 (b), or, in accordance with law, has been involuntarily admitted
to a facility for inpatient care treatment of a mental disorder.”
3
Maryland Rule 16-736.    
That rule permits Bar Counsel to 
“agree to a Conditional Diversion Agreement if Bar Counsel concludes that: 
“(1) the attorney committed professional misconduct or is
incapacitated;  
“(2) the professional misconduct or incapacity was not the result
of any wilful or dishonest conduct and did not involve conduct
that could be the basis for an immediate Petition for Disciplinary
or Remedial Action pursuant to Rules 16-771,[7] 16-773,[8] or
16-774[9];  
“(3) the cause or basis of the professional misconduct or
incapacity is subject to remediation or resolution through
alternative programs or mechanisms, including (A) medical,
psychological, or other professional treatment, counseling, or
assistance, (B) appropriate educational courses or programs, (C)
mentoring or monitoring services, or (D) dispute resolution
programs; and  
“(4) the public interest and the welfare of the attorney's clients
10Rule 16-736 (h) (3) requires Bar Counsel, upon the Commission’s approval of a
conditional diversion agreement, to inform the complainant only of that fact and that
disciplinary or remedial proceedings have been stayed in favor of the agreement and will
be terminated  if the attorney complies with the Agreement, the proceeding. “The
complainant shall also be notified of the potential for and consequences of
noncompliance.” Id.  
4
and prospective clients will not be harmed if, instead of the
matter proceeding immediately with a disciplinary or remedial
proceeding, the attorney agrees to and complies with specific
measures that, if pursued, will remedy the immediate problem
and likely prevent any recurrence of it.”
Rule 16-736 (a).    Such an agreement, when approved by the Commission, which is a
requirement of the validity of a conditional diversion agreement, Rule 16-736 (d), “does not
constitute discipline,” Rule 16-736 (h) (1), and its contents are “ confidential and may not be
disclosed,”10 Rule 16-736 (h) (2), except upon revocation of the agreement,  Rule 16-736 (h)
(4), discussed infra, or “when relevant to a subsequent complaint based on similar
misconduct.” Rule 16-736 (h) (5).    Moreover, “[n]either the fact that an Agreement was
proposed, rejected, or not approved nor the contents of the Agreement may be admitted into
evidence.”  Rule 16-736 (b).    
 
The Rule  provides that the agreement is voluntary, specifying that “[n]either Bar
Counsel nor an attorney is required to propose or enter into a Conditional Diversion
Agreement.”   Rule 16-736 (b).  When, however, a conditional diversion agreement is entered
into, it requires that the agreement “shall state that the attorney voluntarily consents to its
terms and promises to pay all expenses reasonably incurred in connection with its
5
performance and enforcement.”  Id.   In addition to “be[ing] in writing and signed by Bar
Counsel, the attorney, and any monitor designated in the Agreement,” Rule 16-736 (c) (1), 
“(2) The Agreement shall recite the basis for it, as set forth in section (a) of this
Rule. By signing the Agreement, the attorney (A) acknowledges that the
attorney has engaged in conduct that constitutes professional misconduct or is
currently incapacitated, and (B) warrants that the attorney has not concealed
from or misrepresented to Bar Counsel any material facts pertaining to the
attorney's conduct or the Agreement.  
“(3) The Agreement shall state the particular course of remedial action that the
attorney agrees to follow and a time for the performance or completion of that
action. The Agreement is expressly conditioned on the attorney's not engaging
in any further conduct that would constitute professional misconduct and may
provide for any program or corrective action appropriate under the
circumstances, including:  
“(A) mediation or binding arbitration of a fee dispute;  
“(B) restitution of unearned or excessive fees in a stipulated
amount;  
“(C) public apology to designated individuals;  
“(D) law office management assistance, including temporary or
continuing monitoring, mentoring, accounting, bookkeeping,
financial, or other professional assistance, and completion of
specific educational programs dealing with law office
management;  
“(E) completion of specific legal education courses or curricula,
including courses in legal ethics and professional responsibility;
“(F) agreement not to practice in specific areas of the law (i)
unless the attorney associates himself or herself with one or more
other attorneys who are proficient in those areas, or (ii) until the
attorney has successfully completed a designated course of study
to improve the attorney's proficiency in those areas;  
“(G) specific course of treatment for emotional distress, mental
disorder or disability, or dependence on alcohol or other drugs;
and  
“(H) stipulated number of hours of pro bono legal services.  
“(4) The Agreement shall provide for a stay of any disciplinary or remedial
proceeding pending satisfactory performance by the attorney. The Agreement
may designate either a private monitor engaged at the attorney's expense or Bar
Counsel to supervise performance and compliance. The Agreement shall
11 Paragraph (d) (3) also provides: “If Bar Counsel and the attorney accept the
amendments, they shall notify the Commission of the acceptance, and the Commission
shall then approve the Agreement. If either party rejects a proposed amendment, the
Agreement shall be deemed disapproved.”
A conditional diversion agreement is subject to amendment “from time to time in a
writing signed by Bar Counsel and the attorney and approved by the Commission.” Rule
16-736 (e).
6
authorize the monitor to request and receive all information and inspect any
records necessary to verify compliance and, if a private monitor is selected, to
report any violation or noncompliance to Bar Counsel. The Agreement shall
specify the fees of any private monitor and the method and frequency of
payment of those fees.”
Rule 16 - 736 (c) (2) - (4).  
 As noted, “[a] Conditional Diversion Agreement is not valid until approved by the
Commission.”  Rule 16-736 (d).   After receipt of “any explanatory material that [the
Commission] believe[s] relevant, and any further information that the Commission requests,”
the Commission must decide  to approve or disapprove the agreement based on whether it is
satisfied or convinced that it is reasonable and in the public interest or to “recommend
amendments to the Agreement as a condition of approval, which the parties may accept or
reject.”  Id. at (d) (1) - (3).11      The Commission may also revoke the agreement, Rule 16-736
(f), or terminate the disciplinary or remedial proceedings upon the satisfaction of the
agreement.  Rule 16-736 (g).   Revocation of the agreement may occur when, upon petition
of  Bar Counsel alleging professional misconduct committed while the attorney was subject
to the agreement,  wilful misrepresentation or concealment of  facts material to Bar Counsel’s
recommendation of the agreement, or a material breach of the agreement, the attorney, having
12“If the Commission concludes that the attorney is in material default of the
Agreement, it shall revoke the Agreement, revoke the stay of the disciplinary or remedial
proceeding, and direct Bar Counsel to proceed in accordance with Rule 16-751, or as
otherwise authorized by the Rules in this Chapter.”  Rule 16-736 (f) (3).  
7
been  afforded a reasonable opportunity to do so, fails to refute the allegations.  Rule 16-736
(f) (1) and (2).12
We shall not consider the merits of these proceedings, preferring to address, as a
preliminary issue, whether this is the kind of case, contemplated by the Lawyer Discipline
Rules which took effect July 1, 2001, as appropriate for diversion before initiation of
disciplinary proceedings or at least prior to their conclusion.   This case seems to fall within
the Rule, to be the kind of case that the Court had in mind when it approved a diversion
alternative to be administered outside of, and without the supervision of,  judicial proceedings
- the Comment to Rule 16-736 (a) lists “emotional stress or crisis or abuse of alcohol or other
drugs” as an “[e]xample[] of conduct that may be susceptible to conditional diversion.” 
The conduct of the respondent, alleged as misconduct and which the hearing court
concluded violated the Rule violations charged, can only be characterized as unusual and
strange.   Indeed, in the Complaint, the petitioner indicated that the respondent’s “unusual and
odd behavior ... stemmed from one or more psychiatric disorders” and submitted that the
respondent was “unable to render adequate legal services by reason of mental illness or
infirmity.”  The petitioner’s witness, Board certified in general psychiatry and forensic
psychiatry, testified that the respondent suffers from Major Depression, a chronic illness,
13The respondent’s witness opined that the respondent may also be suffering from
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), but because the respondent had not, for financial
reasons, been tested for that disorder, he could not be sure or render a professional
opinion or diagnosis to that effect.    The witness noted, in addition, that ADD is
characterized by two symptoms, disorganization and difficulty in concentrating, that are
symptoms of depression and, so, may be masked by severe depression and, on the other
hand, persist when the severe depression recedes.   Although acknowledging an inability
to find as a fact that the respondent suffered from ADD, the hearing court observed that
“there is certainly enough evidence to conclude that many of the present behaviors of
Respondent, such as difficulty in concentrating, disorganization and forgetfulness, are
symptoms of ADD.   These behaviors currently exist despite the fact that Respondent is
not currently exhibiting signs of severe depression.”
8
punctuated by episodes of severe depression, and a Personality Disorder, “a lifelong condition
resulting in the [respondent] experiencing persistent and consistent interactions that will get
the patient into difficult situations, diagnoses with which the respondent’s psychiatric witness
agreed13 and the existence of which the hearing court found as a fact.   She concluded that the
respondent’s mental condition caused him to act as he did in his representation of the
complainant in 2000 and that the respondent is not capable of rendering adequate legal
services.   If, however, he were to take his medication, remain in psychiatric therapy and be
supervised weekly, he may be able to practice, she submitted.   The hearing court agreed,
finding that the respondent 
“has not proven by a preponderance of evidence that he is presently capable of
rendering adequate legal services without his recovery and his practice being
monitored.   Respondent virtually conceded at the hearing before this Court that
he needed monitoring of his practice and his recovery in order to continue
practicing law.”
It then found as a fact that the respondent, through the testimony of the Lawyers Assistance
14The other examples listed are:  unfamiliarity with proper methods of law office
management, record-keeping, or accounting,  unfamiliarity with particular areas of law or
legal procedure,  negligent management of attorney trust accounts or other financial
matters,  negligent failure to maintain proper communication with clients and negligent
failure to provide proper supervision of employees. 
9
Project witnesses, had proven that monitoring by that program “would allow him to render
adequate legal services, or at least impose adequate safeguards to the public in the event
Respondent should relapse into his depression or otherwise exhibit unprofessional conduct
or behavior indicating that he is then suffering from a mental illness.” 
   We are aware that the Rules Order adopting the Attorney Discipline Rules made them
effective  July 1, 2001 and provided that any matter pending before an Inquiry Panel, the
Review Board, or the Court of Appeals pursuant to charges, a petition, or an application
pending as of June 30, 2001 shall continue to be governed by the Rules in effect on June 30,
2001.    Nevertheless, we are aware, as well, that the purpose for promulgating the diversion
rule was to give Bar Counsel and the Commission the flexibility to resolve or remediate
certain kinds of misconduct or incapacity, without resort to the full panoply of resources
required for resolution of formal disciplinary proceedings.14  
Nor are we unaware that neither Bar Counsel nor the respondent is obliged to propose
or enter into a conditional diversion agreement.    When this case was filed, there was no
diversion rule and the case proceeded pursuant to the Rules in effect on June 30, 2001.   Those
Rules did not contemplate that a diversion agreement could be proposed or entered into.   The
Rule now so provides.  Moreover, inasmuch as the petitioner does not disagree with the
15Maryland Rule 16-774 provides:
“(a)  Grounds.- An attorney may be summarily placed on inactive status for
an indefinite period if the attorney has been judicially determined to be
mentally incompetent or to require a guardian of the person for any of the
reasons stated in Code, Estates and Trusts Article, § 13-705 (b), or, in
accordance with law, has been involuntarily admitted to a facility for
inpatient care treatment of a mental disorder.  
“(b)  Procedure.-   
“(1) Petition for summary placement; confidentiality.- Bar
Counsel, with the approval of the Commission, may file in
accordance with Rule 16-751 a petition to summarily place an
attorney on inactive status. The petition shall be supported by
a certified copy of the judicial determination or involuntary
admission. The petition and all other papers filed in the Court
of Appeals shall be sealed and stamped "confidential" in
accordance with Rule 16-723 (b) (8).  
“(2) Service.- The petition and all papers filed with the
petition shall be served upon the attorney in accordance with
Rule 16-753 and, in addition, upon any guardian of the person
of the attorney and the director of any facility to which the
attorney has been admitted. Proof of service shall be made in
10
hearing court’s finding that the respondent was suffering from a mental condition that caused
the misconduct and the respondent, consistent with the court’s findings and conclusions,
recommends a suspension, subject to conditions designed to monitor that condition and
protect the public, the necessity for which the petitioner also acknowledges, there appears to
be little debate as to the nature of the misconduct or disability or the way in which to resolve
or remediate it.   Therefore, we think it appropriate that, as the Rule now contemplates, Bar
Counsel, the respondent and the Commission first should consider the matter of whether there
should be diversion in this case or whether the respondent should be placed on inactive status.
See Rule 16-774, Summary placement on inactive status.15  Accordingly, we remand the
accordance with Rule 2-126.  
“(c)  Order of the Court of Appeals.- Upon consideration of the petition and
any answer, the Court of Appeals may immediately place the attorney on
inactive status for an indefinite period pending further order of the Court,
may enter an order designating a judge in accordance with Rule 16-752 to
hold a hearing in accordance with Rule 16-757, or may enter any other
appropriate order. The provisions of Rule 16-760 apply to an order that
places an attorney on inactive status. Copies of the order shall be served
upon Bar Counsel and each person named in the proof of service of the
petition.  
“(d)  Effect on disciplinary or remedial proceeding.- If a disciplinary or
remedial proceeding for alleged misconduct is pending against the attorney,
the entry of an order under this section shall stay the proceeding until the
further order of the Court.  
“(e)  Termination of inactive status.- When an attorney who has been placed
on inactive status under section (c) of this Rule is judicially determined to
be competent or is judicially released after involuntary admission, the Court
of Appeals shall terminate the inactive status and either dismiss the petition
or enter an order designating a judge in accordance with Rule 16-752 to
hold a hearing in accordance with Rule 16-757.”  
 
11
case to the Commission in order that Bar Counsel may determine whether to propose a
conditional diversion agreement or inactive status.
IT IS SO ORDERED.