Title: Attorney Grievance v. Olujobi

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
 Misc. Docket AG
No. 28
September Term, 2008
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE
COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
v. 
ADEKUNLE B. OLUJOBI (AWOJOBI)
Bell, C.J.
         Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
Murphy
Adkins
Barbera,
JJ.
Opinion by Bell, C.J.
   Filed: December 4, 2009
 
1Maryland Rule 16-751, as relevant, provides:
“(a)  Commencement of disciplinary or remedial action. (1) Upon approval 
of the Commission.  Upon approval or direction of the Commission, Bar
Counsel shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the
Court of Appeals.” 
2Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 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:
*     *     *     *
“(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 dis closure of
information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.”
3 Md. Lawyer's R. Prof'l Conduct 8.4, as relevant, provides:
“It is professional  misconduct for  a lawyer to: 
                                          *     *     *     *
“(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects;
“(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;
“(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice[.]”
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel,
acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial
Action against Adekunle B. Olujobi (Awojobi), the respondent.   The petition charged,
consistent with the complaint of John Walker-Turner, Esquire, counsel for one of the parties
to the sale of real property that the respondent conducted, that the respondent violated Rule
8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters,2 and 8.4, Misconduct,3 of the Maryland Rules
4 Md. Rule 16-609 provides:
“(a) Generally. An attorney or law firm may not borrow or pledge any funds
required by these 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.  
“(b) No cash disbursements. An instrument drawn on an attorney trust
account may not be drawn payable to cash or bearer.” 
5 Md. 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.”
6Md. Rule 16-757 (c) provides:
“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
(continued...)
2
of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Md. Rule 16-812, Md. Rule 16-609, Prohibited
Transactions,4 and Maryland Annotated Code (1989, 2004 Repl. Vol.) § 10-306 of the
Business Occupations and Professions Article, pursuant to which "[a] lawyer may not use
trust money for any purpose other than the purpose for which the trust money is entrusted to
the lawyer."
We referred the case, pursuant to Md. Rule 16-752 (a)5, to the Honorable Thomas P.
Smith, of  the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, for hearing pursuant to Md. Rule
16-757 (c).6  Following  a hearing, at which the respondent neither appeared nor participated,
6(...continued)
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.”
7 Md. Rule 16-757 (b) provides:
“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.”
3
the hearing court found facts, by the clear and convincing standard, Md. Rule 16-757 (b),7
as follows (record references and footnotes omitted): 
“1.
On November 17, 2005, the Circuit for Prince George’s County appointed respondent,
Adekunkle Olujobi, a. k. a. Adekunkle Awojobi, as trustee for the sale of 3519
Roundhill Lane, Forestville, Maryland ... . The property was owned by Cleo M.
Johnson and Shawn T. Johnson, who were divorced by order of the court dated
January 3, 2001. ...
“2.
On May 30, 2006, respondent conducted an auction sale at the Prince George’s
County courthouse.   The high bidder was Legacy Funding, LLC, which purchased
the property for $230,500. ...
“3.
On June 14, 2006, respondent filed a report of sale. ...
“4.
On March 2, 2007, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, entered a final order
of ratification for the sale of the Johnsons'  house. ...
“5.      On March 18, 2007, settlement on the property took place at respondent's law office
4
at  6411 Ivy Lane. ...
“6.
The sale was audited on June 13, 2007 and the audit was ratified on June 26, 2007.
...
“7.
Respondent did not distribute the proceeds of the sale to either party and on July 2,
2007, Cleo Johnson and Shawn Johnson, through their respective counsel, filed a
Joint Motion To Distribute Settlement Proceeds. ...
“8.
On August 10, 2007, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County ordered respondent
to distribute $41,077.40 to Cleo Johnson and $41,077.09 to Shawn T. Johnson in care
of  his attorney, John Walker-Turner, Esquire. ...
“9.
Respondent did not distribute the funds to Shawn T. Johnson.
“10.
In November 2007, complainant sent an e-mail to respondent asking respondent to
contact him immediately in order to arrange for the delivery of Mr.  Johnson's check.
Complainant stated that if he did not hear from respondent by close of business on
November 15, 2007, he would file a complaint with the Attorney Grievance
Commission. ...
“11.
On November 18, 2007, respondent sent complainant an e-mail asking for ‘professional
courtesy and indulgence until the end of the month’ when he would be back in the
United States to take care of the disbursement. He further stated that his office in the
United States was ‘practically shut down for a Dubai office’. ...
“12.
Complainant replied that respondent had until close of business on November 20, 2007
5
to send a check to his office. ...
“13.
On the afternoon of November 20, 2007, respondent sent an e-mail to complainant
saying that his failure to pay Mr. Johnson must have been an oversight and that it was
impossible to get a check to him until he got back. ...
“14.
On November 21, 2007, complainant sent an e-mail to respondent asking for clarification
about a payment of $ 1,700 respondent had made in disbursing the proceeds of the sale
of the house. ...
“15.
On November 22, 2007, respondent replied that he had no control over the disbursement
and that he had just followed the auditor's instructions. He further advised complainant
that he would ‘get your check before the close of work the following Monday i.e.
December 3rd.   ...’
“16.
On December 4, 2007, complainant e-mailed respondent that he had yet to receive the
check and again advised respondent that he would inform petitioner the next day. ...
“17.
On December 4, 2007, respondent e-mailed complainant that he was sorry but that he
was  still out of town and would make arrangements to pay before he got back. He said
that he had asked his attorney, Rand Gelber, Esquire, to get in touch with complainant.
 ...
“18.
Subsequently, complainant received a phone call from Mr. Gelber stating that
respondent did not have the money and that he hoped to obtain the necessary funds.
“19.
On December 17, 2007, complainant filed a complaint with petitioner and advised that
respondent had failed to disburse funds due his client. ...
8 Although a recommendation by the hearing judge is not required or even
solicited, see Md. Rule 16-757, one was tendered: “Respondent's actions merit
disbarment.”
9 This statement seems inconsistent with the hearing judge’s finding at No. 8,
stating “the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County ordered respondent to distribute
$41,077.40 to Cleo Johnson and $41,077.09 to Shawn T. Johnson. ...”  Although this is
not the “same amount,” the error is not substantial enough to affect the hearing judge’s
findings or this Court’s treatment of them. 
6
“20.
Bar Counsel's investigator attempted to locate respondent to interview him regarding
the complaint and was unsuccessful. ...
“21.
As of January 31, 2009, respondent had not disbursed any funds to Shawn T. Johnson.
“22.
There is no evidence of any remedial action taken by respondent.”
On these facts, the hearing judge concluded that the respondent violated each of the charged
violations, except the Rule 8.1 violation.
8   As  to Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Md. Rule
16-609, and  §10-306 of the Bus. Occ. & Prof.  Article, the judge reasoned:
“The evidence shows that respondent received the proceeds from the sale of the Johnsons'
house pursuant to the settlement on March 18, 2007.  On August 10,2007, this court
ordered that $41,077.40 be distributed to Cleo Johnson and the same amount be
distributed to Shawn T. Johnson[9]. While it appears from the evidence that respondent
may have paid Ms. Johnson, he did not pay Mr. Johnson.
“The e-mail correspondence between complainant and respondent shows that four
months after the order, respondent acknowledged that he had not distributed the money
to Mr. Johnson. As of the date of the trial, almost 18 months after the order to disburse,
respondent had yet to distribute the funds. He admitted through Mr. Gelber that he no
longer had the funds. Even without this last piece of evidence, it is inferable from
respondent's failure to disburse to Mr. Johnson his share of the proceeds that respondent
has used Mr. Johnson's  money for his  own purposes.  Attorney  Grievance Commission
v. Duvall, 863 A.2d 291, 294 (Md.2004) (court infers that respondent failed to hold trust
money in trust from passage of time and from respondent's failure to account to the client
for the funds). Therefore, petitioner contends that it is established by clear and convincing
evidence that respondent has appropriated funds belonging to Mr. Johnson to his own use.
7
“This act is a violation of Md. Bus. Occ. & Prof. Code Ann., § 10-306, which prohibits
attorneys from using ‘trust money’, such as the funds from the sale of the house, for a
purpose other than that for which the money was entrusted to the lawyer. Respondent's
conduct also violates Rule16-609,which  prohibits attorneys from borrowing or otherwise
misusing money which is required to be deposited in their trust account, as these funds
should have been. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brown, 846 A.2d 428, 432 (Md.
2004) (misappropriation  of  client funds violates  Md. Bus. Occ. & Prof. Code Ann., § 10-
304 and Rule 16-609).
“Lastly, respondent's conduct violates Rules 8.4(b), (c) and (d). His actions constitute theft
in violation [of] Md.  Crim. Law  Code Ann.,  §7-104 (a) (2002) because he has taken Mr.
Johnson's money and used it for his own purposes.  In committing theft, he has violated
Rule 8.4((b), (c) and (d). Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kapoor, 894 A.2d 502, 515,
517 (2006) (stealing client funds violates Rules 8.4(b), (c), and (d)).”
The petitioner filed no exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings, either of fact or conclusions of law.
The petitioner did file, however, its recommendation for sanction.  Noting the hearing judge’s findings and
conclusion from those findings that the respondent committed theft of funds entrusted to him and, thereby
violated Rule 8.4 (b), (c) and (d), Md. Rule 16-609 and Md. Bus. Occ. & Prof. Code Ann., § 10-306, the
petitioner submits that the respondent should be disbarred.
As indicated, the respondent did not participate in these proceedings and, so, has neither excepted to
the findings or conclusions nor presented anything remedial or mitigating.
Md. Rule 16-759, as relevant, provides:
“(b) Review by Court of Appeals. (1) Conclusions of law. The Court of Appeals shall review
de novo the circuit court judge's conclusions of law.
“(2) Findings of fact. (A) If no exceptions are filed. If no exceptions are
filed, the Court may treat the findings of fact as established for the
purpose of determining appropriate sanctions, if any.”
Thus, since no exceptions have been filed challenging the hearing judge’s findings of fact, we  accept them
as established.  Moreover, those facts support the conclusions of law drawn by the court. See Attorney
Grievance Comm'n v. Hall, 408 Md. 306, 322, 969 A.2d 953, 962 (2009); Attorney Grievance Comm'n
8
v. Goff, 399 Md. 1, 28, 922 A.2d 554, 570 (2007).   Accordingly, we proceed to the determination of the
appropriate sanction.
We recently confirmed, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. West, ___ Md. ___, ___, ___ A. 2d
___, ___ , 2009 Md. Lexis 738, *43 (2009), that, notwithstanding the benign goal of attorney discipline,
“the protection of the public, rather than the punishment of the erring attorney,” citing Attorney Grievance
Comm’n v. Hall, 408 Md. 306,  335, 969 A.2d  953,  970 (2006), the default sanction for ethical violations
involving intentional “misappropriation, or other intentional dishonest conduct, see Attorney Grievance
Comm'n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418, 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001),” is disbarment.  Only where
compelling extenuating circumstances are shown to justify it, will a lesser sanction be imposed in such
cases.  Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Nussbaum, 401 Md. 612, 644, 934 A.2d 1, 20 (2007), and cases
cited therein.   Here, as we have seen, no evidence of such circumstances was presented to the hearing judge
and, not surprisingly, none was found.   It follows that the petitioner’s recommendation that the respondent
be disbarred is justified and, therefore, we accept it.
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 ADEKUNLE
B. OLUJOBI (AWOJOBI).