Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mark Howard Allenbaugh , Misc. Docket AG No s . 9 & 25 ,

September Term, 20 15 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

– SANCTIONS

– DISBARMENT

– Court of Appeals disbarred lawyer who failed to competently represent clients in two separate matters by failing to file a brief in an appeal and failing to obtain visa s for a client and family in an immigration case, failed to communicate with a client, failed to perform work for which he had been paid, failed to keep a client’s funds in an attorney trust account, delayed proceedings in an appeal, knowingly failed to respond to Bar Counsel , and engaged in conduct that would negatively impact the perception of the legal profession of a reasonable member of the public

. Such conduct violated Maryland Lawyers ’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“ MLRPC ”) 1.1 (Competence) , 1.3 (Diligence) , 1.4(a)(2) (Comm unication) , 1.5(a) (Reasonable Fees) , 1.15(a), 1.15(c) (Safekeeping Property) , 3.2 (Expediting Litigation) , 3.4(c) (Fairness to Parties and Opposing Counsel) , 8.1(b) (Disciplinary Matters) , 8.4(d) (Conduct That i s Prejudicial to Administration of Justice) and 8.4(a) (Violating the MLRPC ).IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No s . 9 & 25 September Term, 20 15

____________ __________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

OF MARYLAND

v. MARK HOWARD ALLENBAUGH

__________ ____________________________

Barbera , C.J. Greene Adkins McDonald Watts Hotten Getty , JJ.

____________ __________________________

Opinion by W atts , J.

__________ ____________________________

Filed: October 27, 2016 Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 31172

- M Argued: October 7, 2016This attorney discipline proceeding involves a lawyer who failed to competently

represent clients in two separate matters by failing to file a brief in an appeal and failing to obtain visa s for a client and family in an immigration case, failed to communicate with a client, failed to perform work for which he had been paid, failed to keep a client’s funds in an attorney trust account, delayed proceedings in an appeal, knowingly failed to res pond

to Bar Counsel, and engaged in conduct that would negatively impact the perception of the legal profession of a reasonable member of the public. Mark Howard Allenbaugh (“Allenbaugh”), Respondent, faces disciplinary action
for two distinct instances o f misconduct. The first matter is a r eciprocal discipline case (“the reciprocal discipline matter”). On April 16, 2015, Bar Counsel, on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission, Petition er, filed with this Court a “ Petition for Disciplinary or Remedia l Action, ” alleging that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“ the Fourth Circuit”) had suspended Allenbaugh from the practice of law
before the Fourth Circuit for two years , based on his failure to competently and diligently represent a clien t and to respond to court orders. In the p etition, Bar Counsel alleged that Allenbaugh’s misconduct before the Fourth Circuit violated the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“M L RPC” ) 1 and sought reciprocal discipline. This p etition

1 Effective July 1, 2016, the MLRPC were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules o f Professional Conduct , or MARPC, and renumbered. The revised Rules relevant to AG No. 9 and AG No. 25 are now numbered as follows: Maryland Rule 19

- 301.1 (Competence), Maryland Rule 19

- 30 1.3 (Diligence), Maryland Rule 19

- 30 1.4 (Communication), Maryland Rule 19

- 301.5 (Fees), Maryland Rule 19

- 301.15 (Safekeeping Property), Maryland Rule 19

- 303.2 (Expediting Litigation), Maryland Rule 19

- 303.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), Maryland Rule 19

- 308.1 (Disciplinary- 2

-

initiated AG No. 9 in this Court. On April 16, 2015, this Court ordered the parties to show cause why this Court should no t impose reciprocal discipline. On June 1, 2015, Bar Counsel filed in this Court a response to the show cause order, requesting that this Court suspend Allenbaugh from the practice of law in Maryland for two years. On June 2, 2015, Allenbaugh filed in this Court a response to the show cause order, requesting that this Court dismiss the request for reciprocal discipline , or, in the alternative, that this Court impose a sanction that would be less severe than suspension, i.e. , a sanction without any suspension

. On June 23, 2015, this
Court designated the Honorable Anne K. Albright (“the hearing judge”) of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to hear AG No. 9

. The second matter (“the Raphael matter”) arose when Alexander Raphael (“Raphael”), a client of Allenbaugh and a citizen of Canada, filed a complaint again st Allenbaugh. 2 On March 13, 2012, Raphael retained Allenbaugh to assist him in obtaining immigrant visas and permanent re sident benefits for himself, his wife , and his two daughters

. Allenbau gh accepted an up

- front f ee of $5,000 from Raphael , and informed Raphael that he would put together an application for an L

- 1 visa. 3 Raphael, however, was ineligible for an L

- 1 visa, as he was not employed by an employer who could p etition the

Matters), and Maryland Rule 19

- 308.4 (Misconduct)

. We will refer to the MLRPC because the misconduct at issue occurred before this change.

2 Raphael filed the complaint with the State Bar of California, which forwarded the complaint to Maryland Bar Counsel.

3 An L

- 1 visa is a non

- immigrant, temporary visa that allows an alien to live in the United States while working for a foreign firm that does business in the United States. See In re Application of Sasson v. Sasson , 327 F. Supp. 2d 489, 492 n.5 (D.N.J. 2004); 8 U .S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L).- 3

-

United States Department of Homeland S ecurity (“DHS”) on his b ehalf. After receiving advice from Allenbaugh’s assistant, Raphael’s wife and two daughters subsequently
entered the United States on non

- immigrant, temporary visas, as Raphael had. Raphael’s wife returne d to Canada to visit family. She was barred fro m re - entering the United States w hen she arrived at the border. DHS declared her inadmissible to the United States because she had overstayed her temporary visa. Raphael attempt ed to obtain assistance from Allenbaugh , but his attempt went unanswered. Raphael and his two daughters eventually returned to Canada. Allenbaugh never filed any paperwork with DHS on Raphael’s behalf and never sought work authorization for Raphael from the United
States Department of Labor. Despite having performed no legal s ervices for Raphael, Allenbaugh retained the $5,000 that Raphael had paid him

. On July 9, 2015, Bar Counsel filed in this Court a second “Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action” against Allenbaugh, charging him with violating M L RPC 1.1 (Competence) , 1.4(a)(2) (Communication), 1.5(a) (R easonable Fees), 1.15(a), 1.15 (c) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Terminating Representation) , 4 8.1(b) (Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(d) (Conduct That i s Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice), and 8.4(a) (Violating the M L RPC) in representing Raphael

. This p etition initiated AG No. 25 in this Court, and did not concern the conduct that was at issue in AG No. 9. On July 13, 2015,

4 In the petition filed in the Raphael matter, Bar Counsel charged Allenbaugh with violating MLRPC 1.16(d). In its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted to the hearing judge, Bar Counsel did not mention MLRPC 1. 16(d). In its opinion, the hearing judge did not discuss MLRPC 1.16(d) in either the findings of fact or conclusions of law. Bar Counsel does not except to the lack of a conclusion of law concerning MLRPC 1.16(d). Accordingly, we do not address the matt er.- 4

-

this Court designated the hearing judge to hear AG No. 25

. On September 2, 2015, Bar Counsel filed in this Court a motion to consolidate the two pending attorney discipline proceedings against Allenbaugh (AG Nos. 9 and 25). On September 3, 2015, this Court granted the motion to consolidate. The hearing judge held motions hearin gs on November 9, 2015, December 14, 2015, and January 14, 2016 , concerning Bar Counsel ’s motion for an order of default, Allenbaugh’s motion to vacate the order of default, and Bar Counsel ’s motion for sanctions against Allenbaugh for failure to respond to discovery requests , respectively. The hearing judge scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 4, 5, and 6, 2016. On April 4, 2016, Allenbaugh did not attend the scheduled hearing. On May 19, 2016, the hearing judge filed in this Court an opinion including findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluding that ,

a s to the reciprocal discipline matter, Allenbaugh had violated MLRPC 1.1 , 1.3, 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.1(b) , 8.4(d), and 8.4(a). A s to the Raphael matter, the hearing judge concluded that Allenba ugh had violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.4 (a)(2) , 1.5 (a) , 1.15 (a), 1.15(c) , 8.1 (b) , 8.4(d) , and 8.4(a)

. 5 Oral argument in this Court was scheduled on October 7, 2016 ; Allenbaugh failed to appear; and this Court issued a per curiam order in which we disbarred Allenbaugh. See

5 There is a discrepancy in the hearing judge’s o pinion regarding which MLRPC Allenbaugh was found to have violat ed. The hearing judge indicated multiple times that Allenbaugh violated the above MLRPC; however, i n the “Summary” section of the hearing judge’s o pinion, the hearing judge listed only MLRPC that pertain to the reciprocal discipline matter. Given that the violations not discussed in the Summary section are discussed by the hearing judge in detail elsewhere in the hearing judge’s opinion , na mely, in the hearing judge’s conclusions of law , we view the inconsistency as an inadvertent error .- 5

-

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mark Howard Allenbaugh , ___ Md. ___, ___ A.3d ___,
No s. 9 & 25, Sept. Term 2015, 2016 WL 5867218, at *1 (Md. Oct. 7, 2016). We now explain the reasons for Allenbaugh’s disbarment. BACKGROUND After the consolidation of the reciprocal discipline matter and the Raphael matter, the hearing judge conducted a hearing and found the following facts, which we summarize. On December 12, 2000, this Court admitted Alle nbaugh to the Bar of Maryland. At the time that the following conduct occurred, Allenbaugh was also a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia, the Virginia State Bar , and the Criminal Justice Ac t (“CJA”)
Panel for the Fourth Circuit.
The Reciproca l Discipline Matter On September 11, 2014, the Fourth Circuit issued an order suspending Allenbaugh from the practice of law for two years. The Fourth Circuit also imposed a fine of $1,000 against Allenbaugh for abandoning a client and an additional fine of $1,000 for repeatedly ignoring orders of the court. The Fourth Circuit ’s sanctions arose as the result of Allenbaugh’s repeated inaction on behalf of a client, Monterio Riley (“Riley”), whom Allenbaugh was appointed to

r epresent in the matter of United States v. Riley , No. 13

- 4766, pursuant to his membership
on the CJA Panel. On December 13, 2013, the Fourth Circuit directed Allenbaugh to file a brief and joint appendix on or before January 17, 2014. Allenbaugh filed a motion requesting an extension to March 21, 2014, whi ch the Fourth Circuit granted. On March 21, 2014, Allenbaugh moved to further extend t he deadline to March 24, 2014. The Fourth- 6

-

Circuit deferred action on the motion pending the filing of the brief and joint appendix by March 24, 2014

. Allenbaugh did not file the brief or appendix. On April 7, 2014, the Fourth Circuit issued a notice under Local Rule of the Fourth Circuit 46(g) , stating that it would refer Allenbaugh’s failure to comply with the brie fing
order to the Fourth Circuit’s Standing Pan el on Attorney Discipline (“the Standing Panel”) unless Allenbaugh filed the brief a nd appendix by April 22, 2014. On April 22, 2014, Allenbaugh filed a motion to extend t he deadline to April 25, 2014. The Fou rth Circuit denied the motion. Allenbaugh subsequently informed the Clerk of the Court that he would file the brief and appendix by May 9, 2014. Allenbaugh failed to file the brief and appendix by that date , but informed the Clerk of the Court that he would file by May 19, 2014. Allenbaugh , ultimately, never filed the brief or joint appendix

. On June 13, 2014, the Standing Panel ordered Allenbaugh to show cause why he should not be struck as CJA appointed counsel in United States v. Riley

. Addition ally, the Standing Panel ordered Allenbaugh to show cause why his membership on the CJA Panel should not be revoked . Allenbaugh failed to file a response to the order to show cause by the due date of July 14, 2014. On July 28, 2014, the Standing Panel s truck Allenbaugh’s appointment in United States v. Riley and revoked hi s membership on the CJA Panel. Additionally, the Standing Panel directed Allenbaugh to show cause why additional discipline shou ld not be imposed against him. Allenbaugh again failed to respond to the show cause orde r. In an order dated September 11, 2014, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Allenbaugh had violated Rule 1.3 (Diligence) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 30(a) ( Appendix to the- 7

-

Briefs ) and 31(a) ( Serving and Filing Briefs ) of the Federal Rules of Appe llate Procedure, Local Rule of the Fourth Circuit 31(a) ( Shortened Time for Service and Filing of Briefs in Criminal Cases ), and the Fourth Circuit’s briefing order in Riley

. B y virtue of the same order, the Fourth Circuit suspended Allenbaugh for two years from the practice of law before the Fourth Circuit and fined Allenbaugh $1,000 for abandoning Riley and another $1,000 for repeatedly failing to respond to court orders. In its order, which was admitted into evidence by the hearing judge, the Standing Panel made the following findings :

Allenbaugh failed to represent his client with reasonable diligence and failed to respond to directives of the Court. His violation of these duties was knowing and delayed his client ’ s appeal. Allenbaugh has not provided any reason for the repeated lapses or any mitigating factor. Allenbaugh’ s statement to the Clerk that, in retrospect, he should have requested a continuance of the briefing schedule pen ding action by the Sentencing Commission on retroactive guideline amendments suggests only that counsel preferred to file the brief and appendix on his own schedule and fails to explain his repeated failure to follow Court orders. 6

6 [In a footnote immediately following the above sentence, the Standing Panel stated:] Allenbaugh did not offer this or any other justification in a formal response to the Court’s show cause orders, and the explanation is at odds with his actual motions to continue, which indicated that he was about to file his brief and appendix. For example, his March 14, 2014, “Final Motion to Continue Briefing Sch edule” requested an extension to March 17, 2014, which the Court granted. His March 17, 2014, “Final Motion to Continue Briefing Schedule” requested an extension to March 21, 2014, which the Court granted. His March 21, 2014, “Final Motion to Continue Br iefing Schedule” requested an extension to March 24, 2014, which the Court deferred pending filing of the brief and appendix by March 2 4, 2014. After he was notified[] that his failure to file the brief and appendix would be referred to the Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline if not remedied by April 22, 2014, Allenbaugh filed yet another “Final Motion to Continue- 8

- Suspension is generally the appropriate sanction when “a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client.” ABA Standards § 4.42(a). Allenbaugh’s failure to respond to two orders to show cause why he should not be disciplined for this misconduct was a further “serious breach of the attorney’s professional obligations to the Court and the public,” In re Warbaugh , 644 F.3d 173, 176 (2d Cir. 2011), and a factor aggravating his original misconduct.
We find that Allenbaugh’s persistent failure to represent his client and comply with orders of the Court, and his failure to respond to the Panel’s orders to show cause, warrant imposition of a fine and suspension from practice before this Court. The Panel fines Mr. Allenbaugh $1,000.00 for abandoning his client and an additional $1,000.00 for repeatedly ignoring orders of the Court, for a total fine of $2,000.00. The fine is payable by certified check to the Clerk of Court within 30 days of the date of thi s order. The Court also suspends Allenbaugh from practice before this Court for two years. Allenbaugh may apply for reinstatement after the suspension period, premised on his showing “familiarity with, and willingness to conform to, this court’s rules an d [his] obligations to clients, and [proof of] payment of any outstanding fines with interest from the due date.” In Re Flannery , 186 F.3d 143, 146 (2d Cir. 1999). (Alterations and footnote in original). Allenbaugh subsequently failed to report to Bar C ounsel that he had been san ctioned by the Fourth Circuit. Allenbaugh’s sanction by the Fourth Circuit came to the attention
of Bar Counsel as a result of information provided by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the District of Columbia, which instituted a reciprocal discipline proceeding against Allenbaugh in the District of Columbia following the Fourth Circuit ’s sanctions against him.

Briefing Schedule” to April 25, 2014, which the Court denied. Allenbaugh had not filed the brief and appendix or made any response to the ord er to show cause at the time the Court terminated his representation on July 28, 2014.- 9

- The Raphael Matter In September 2011, Allenbaugh met Raphael, a citize n of Canada. Raphael told Allenbaugh that he and his wife and two daughters were interested in immigrating to the United States

. Allenbaugh informed Raphael that he could obtain v isas, permanent residency, and Social S ecurity cards if Raphael invested $2 5,000 in a particular bail bonds business. Allenbaugh informed Rap hael that the fee for these service s would be $5,000. Raphael subsequently came to the United States on a non - immigrant, temporary visa. Raphael then met with Allenbaugh in Allenbaugh’s office in Costa Mesa, California and paid the $5,000 fee in a cashier ’s check to retain Allenbaugh. Allenbaugh did not place the funds in an attorney trust account, despite the fact that Raphael had not con sented in writing to having his funds kept in an account other than an attorney trust account

. The retainer agreement between Allenbaugh and Raphael specified that Allenbaugh

w ould o btain an L

- 1 visa for Raphael. This particular visa, however, was inapp licable to Raphael, as it requires an immigrant to be working for a foreign firm that does business in the United States

. See supra Note 3. At some point, Raphael informed Allenbaugh that he had not invested $2 5,000 in the bail bond company. Raphael asked Allenbaugh whether he could still bring h is family to the United States. Allenbaugh told Raphael that his assi stant would follow up with him. Later, Allenbaugh’s assistant informed Raphael that “all would be taken care of” and that Raphael could br ing his family to the United States. Allenbaugh failed to advise Raphael of the type of visa that his family needed to enter the United States. In July 2012, Raphael’s wife and daughters came to the United States on non

-- 10

-

immigrant, temporary visas t hat wer e valid for six months. In March 2013, Raphael’s wife returned to Canada to visit family and was subsequently denied re

- entry into the United
States

. DHS denied Raphael’s wife entry into the United States because she did not have the proper type of visa and because she had stayed in the United States after her prior visa
had expired.
R aphael contacted Allenbaugh requesting assistance , and forwarded his wife’s
documents from DHS. Allenbaugh provided no assistance to Raphael regarding Raphael’s wife’s in admis sibility to the United States. Because Raphael’s wife was unable to re

- enter the United States, Raphael and his daughters returned to Canada. If Raphael and his daughters attempt to re

- enter the United States, they too may be found inadmissible beca u se they also overstayed their temporary visas and lack proper visas for those seeking to immigrate. After returning to Canada, Raphael requested that Allenbaugh continue assisting
him and his family in imm igrating to the United States. Allenbaugh’s ass istant assured Raphael that Allenbaugh would file the necessary paperwork so that Raphael and his family

cou ld re

- enter the United States. In a subsequent conversation, Allenbaugh advised Raphael to find a job in California that paid a six

- figure salary t o facil itate the immigration
process. After July 6, 2013, Allenbaugh did not respond to Raphael’s requests for updates

. Allenbaugh never drafted any documents on behalf of Raphael or his family for submission to D HS or the Department of Labor. Despite having conducted no meaningful legal work on Raphael’s case, Allenbaugh did not refund any of the $5,000 that Raphael had paid him

. Allenbaugh also failed to provide Raphael with any accounting of the fu nds- 11

-

or any billing statements. In October 2013, Raphael filed a complaint against Allenbaugh with t he State Bar of California. Because Allenbaugh was not licensed to practice law in California, t he State Bar of California forwarded Raphael’s complaint to Maryland Bar Counsel

. On March 21, 2014, Bar Co unsel forwarded Raphael’s complaint to Allenbaugh an d requested a response within fifteen days. Allenbaugh requested and was granted an extension until May 5, 2 014. Allenbaugh failed to respond by the deadline. In a letter dated May 27, 2014, Bar Couns el again requested a response to Raphael’s complaint. In a letter dated June 25, 2014, Allenbaugh briefly summarized his representation of Raphael a nd requested another extension to respond

. In a letter dated July 8, 2014, Bar Counsel informed Allenbaugh that the Raphael matter had been docketed, and that his respon se to Raphael’s complaint was due on July 29, 2014. Allenbaugh failed

to respond

. In a letter dated August 5, 2014, Bar Counsel reque sted a response within seven days. Once aga in, Allenbaugh failed to respond

. In a letter dated August 19, 2014, Bar Counsel yet again requested a response

. In a letter dated August 28, 2014 , that was nearly identical to his June 25, 2014 letter, Allenbaugh again briefly summarized his representation of Raphael

. On September 12, 2014, Bar Counsel sent Allenbaugh ten specific questions, including two in which Bar Counsel sought Allenbaugh’s trust account records and time sheets relating to his representation of Raphael. Allenbaugh did not respond. As part of the investigation conducted by Bar Counsel, an investigator made two appointments with Allenbaugh in September and October 2015. Allenbaugh did not keep either appointment.- 12

- Procedural History On April 16, 2015, Bar Counsel, on behalf of the A ttorney Grievance Commission, filed with this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, alleging that Allenbaugh’s misconduct before the Fourth Circuit also violated the MLRPC

. On the same day, this Court issued a Show Cause Order, ordering th e parties to show cause in writing why this Court should not impose corresponding discipline. On June 1, 2015, Bar Counsel filed a response to the Show Cause Order, requesting that this Court impose discipline equal to that imposed by the Fourth C ircuit and enter an

o rder suspending Allenbaugh from the practice of law in Maryland for two years. On Ju ne 2, 2015, Allenbaugh filed a response and requested dismiss al of the request for reciprocal discipline

. In the alternative, Allenbaugh requested a “far less severe sanctio n

— one without any suspension[.]” In his response, Allenbaugh asserted that a suspension from the practice of law in Maryland w as inappropriate for three reasons. First, Allenbaugh contended that the Fourth Circuit is not “another juri sdiction” within the meaning of Maryland Rule 16

- 773(a) becau se the Fourth Circuit is not a S tate. Second, Allenbaugh argued that his due process rights were violated because he did not receive a hearing prior to being sanction ed by the Fourth Circuit , an d Allenbaugh claimed that he was not given actual notice regarding the severit y of the sanctions that he faced. Third, Allenbaugh maintained that his conduct before the Fourth Circuit would not be grounds for a two

- year suspension in Maryland. Regarding potential mitigating factors, Allenbaugh asserted that he suffered anxiety and depression around the time of United States v. Riley , which affected his ability to represent- 13

-

Riley

. Allenbaugh indicated in his response that he had sought treatment and that his anxiety and depression are under control

. Allenbaugh also asserted that Riley had no meritorious grounds for appeal. 7 On June 8, 2015, Bar Counsel filed a reply to Allenbaugh’s response, maintaining that this Court ha s jurisdiction to impose reciprocal discipline and contesting Allenbaugh’s due process claims. On July 9, 2015, Bar Counsel filed with this Court the second Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action , thus initiating the Raphael matter

. On September 2 , 2015, Bar Counsel filed in this Court a Motion to Consolidate the reciprocal discipline matter and the Raphael matter. This Court granted the motion. On September 8, 2015, Bar Counsel filed a Motion for an Order of Default in the reciprocal discipline matter, which the hearing judge granted on September 25, 2015. Bar Counsel also filed a Motion for an Order of Default in the Raphael matter. On November 9, 2015, both parties appear ed before the hearing judge for a hearing on the motion for an

7 Allenbaugh characterizes his conduct as “failing to file an Anders brief that otherwise did not prejudice the client in any material way[.]” Allenbaugh maintains that he believed that there was no meritorious issue for the Fourth Circuit to consider in United States v. Riley and that he should have filed an Anders bri ef to withdraw his appearance. An Anders brief, also known as a “no

- merit brief,” is [a] brief filed by a court

- appointed defense attorney who wants to withdraw from the case on appeal based on a belief that the appeal is frivolous. [] In an Anders brief, the attorney seeking to withdraw must identify anything in the record that might argu ably support the appeal. The court then decides whether the appeal is frivolous and whether the attorney should be permitted to withdraw. Anders Brief, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Anders briefs are named after Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).- 14

-

order of default

. Allenbaugh appeared , but had not file d a responsive pleading

. During the hearing, Allenbaugh requested an extension so that he could seek assistance of counsel , which the hearing judge denied . The hearing judge granted the motion for an order of d efault in the Raphael matter, but informed A llenbaugh that he could file a m otion t o vacate the order of d efault. On December 8, 2015, Allenbaugh filed a motion to vacate the order of default. On December 14, 2015, following a hearing, the hearing judge granted the motion to vacate the order of default in the Raphael ma tter. The hearing judge set deadlines for discovery and scheduled three days for the evidentiary hearing : April 4, 5, and 6, 2 016. On December 23, 2015, Bar Counsel moved for sanctions based on Allenbaugh’s failure to respond to Bar Counsel’ s discovery requests. T he hearing judge ordered that all of Bar Counsel’s Requests for Admission s of Fact and Genuin en ess of Documents were deemed
admitted , and Allenbaugh was precluded from introducing evidence or testimony that had been sought by Bar Counsel during discovery. Allenbaugh failed to submit a prehearing

statement ; and on April 4, 2016, Allenbaugh did not appear for the schedul ed evidentiary hearing

. The hearing judge took the matter under advisement and offered both parties the opportunity to file proposed findings o f fact and conclusions of law. Allenbaugh did not submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

. STANDARD OF REVIEW Neither party excepts to any of the hearing judge’s findings of fact; thus, we “treat the findings of fact as established[.]” Md. R. 19

- 741(b)(2)(A). In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews without deference a hearing judge’s conclusions of law.
See Md. R. 19

- 741(b)(1) (“The Court of Appeals shall review de novo the [hearing] judge’s- 15

-

conclusions of law.”). This Court determines whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that a lawyer violated an MLRPC

. See Md . R. 19

- 727(c) (“ Bar Counsel has the burden of proving the averments of the Petition [for disciplinary or remedial action] by clear and convincing evidence.”). As to reciprocal discipline cases, in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Burghardt , 442 Md. 151, 157

- 5 8, 110 A.3d 703, 707 (2015), we explained:

In reciprocal discipline cases, pursuant to [Maryland] Rule 16

- 773(g), [now Maryland Rule 19

- 737] the factual findings of the originating jurisdiction are treated ordinarily as conclusive evidence of an attorney’s misconduct. . . . When imposing a sanction, we have the discretion to impose a discipline consistent with the sister jurisdiction’s factual findings and conclusions, or to order a different or more serious alternative based on the existence of e xceptional circumstances under [Maryland] Rule 16

- 773(e). (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Maryland Rule 16

- 773(e), in turn, provided as follows: Reciprocal discipline shall not be ordered if Bar Counsel or the attorney demonstrates by c lear and convincing evidence that: (1) the procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (2) there was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to a clear conviction that the Court, consistent with its duty, cannot accept as final the determination of misconduct; (3) the imposition of corresponding discipline would result in grave injustice; (4) the conduct established does not constitute misconduct in this State or it warrants substantially different discipline in this State; or (5) the reason for inactive status no longer exists. (Paragraph breaks omitted). We have explained that Maryland “Rule 16

- 773(f) does not require us to impose identical discipline; rather, the Court has the long

- established duty to impose discipline that is consistent with our attorney discipline jurisprudence by assessing, independe ntly, the propriety of the sanction imposed by a sister jurisdiction, as well as the- 16

-

sanction recommended by Bar Counsel.” Burghardt , 442 Md. at 158, 110 A.3d at 707 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). As such, “the sanction imposed depends not only on the decision of the sister jurisdiction, but also on the specific facts of each case, balanced against Maryland precedent.” Id. at 158, 110 A.3d at 707 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). DISCUSSION ( A ) Conclusions of Law Neither party excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. For the below reasons, we uphold the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. MLRPC 1.1 (Competence) “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation require s the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness [,] and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” MLRPC 1.1. Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1.1 in representing Riley in the reciprocal discipline matter

. Allenbaugh rep eatedly failed to file a brief and appendix in Riley’s appeal , even after being granted an extensio n. Although, in response to this Court’s show cause order, Allenbaugh claim ed he believed that Riley had no meritorious claims to bring on appeal in the Fourth Circuit

— and, thus, that his inaction did not prejudice Riley

— such excuses do not undermine the hearing judge’s findings with respect to Allenbaugh’s violation of MLRPC
1.1. Allenbaugh delayed fil ing the brief and appendix for six months, and even failed to follow through after promising the Clerk of the Court that he would file the brief and joint- 17

-

appendix by certain dates

. Further, “the factual findings of the originating jurisdiction are

treate d ordinarily as conclusive evidence of an attorney’s misconduct.” Burghardt , 442 Md. at 157, 110 A.3d at 707 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion
that Allenba ugh violated MLRPC 1.1 in representing Raphael. Specifically, Allenbaugh failed to identify the proper type of visa for which Raphael and his family might qualify, instead advising Raphael to obtain an L

- 1 visa , for which Raphael was ineligible. After
Al lenbaugh’s assistant provided advice to Raphael that Raphael’s wife could immigrate to the United States, Allenbaugh failed to advise Raphael regarding the type of visa that he and his family would need and how to avoid violating immigration laws . As a re sult, Raphael’s wife was su b sequently deemed inadmissible to the United States by DHS, and Raphael and his daughters eventually left the United States because his wife could not

return. Further , the h earing j udge specifically noted that i f Raphael and his daughters seek

to re

- enter the United States, they may be deemed inadmissible also because they , like Raphael’s wife, overstayed their temporary visas. MLRPC 1.3 (Diligence) “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness i n representing a client.” MLRPC 1.3. Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1.3 in representing Riley. Over a six

- month period, Allenbaugh failed to file a brief and appendix on Riley’s behalf, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so.- 18

- MLRPC 1.4 (a)(2) (Communication) “A lawyer shall .

. . keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter[.]” MLRPC 1.4(a)(2). Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearin g judge’s conclusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1.4 (a)(2) in representing Raphael. Allenbaugh provided no substantive information regarding the visa application to Raphael, but rather deferred to his assistant , who told Raphael that Allenbaugh would “ take [] care of ” Raphael’s visa application , while providing no further details. When Allenbaugh spoke with Raphael directly, the extent of his legal advice was to suggest that Raphael obtain a job in California with a six

- figure salary. Allenbaugh was al so un responsive to Raphael’s request for assistance when Raphael’s wife was denied re

- entry into the United States. And, a fter July 6, 2013, Allenbaugh stopped communicating with Raphael entirely. MLRPC 1.5(a) (Reasonable Fees) MLRPC 1.5(a) stated , in relevant part: A lawyer 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: (1) 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 lawyer; (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 rel ationship with the- 19

- client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. “[I]t is well established that a fee arrangement is unreasonable if the attorn ey fails to perform any meaningful work on behalf of the client in exchange for the fee.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Chapman , 430 Md. 238, 275, 60 A.3d 25, 48 (2013)

. Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that
All enbaugh violated MLRPC 1.5 (a) in representing Raphael. Raphael paid Allenbaugh $5,000 f or assistance with obtaining immigrant visa s and permanent residence for Raphael and his family. Allenbaugh never drafted any immigration documents o n Raphael’s behalf to submit to DHS. Allenbaugh also never drafted application s for labor certification from the Department of Labor. In sum, despite having been paid, Allenbaugh never performed any work for Raphael or his family’s immigration to the Un i ted States. Furthe rmore, Allenbaugh failed to send billing statements to Raphael and provided no accounting of how the funds were applied to work on Raphael’s case. To date, Allenbaugh has still not refunded the $5,000.

MLRPC 1.15 (a) and 1.15(c) ( Safekeeping Property ) MLRPC 1.15 stated , in relevant part: A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in an attorney’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account mainta ined pursuant to Title 16, Chapter 6 00 of the Maryland Rules, [ 8 ] and records shall be created and maintained in accordance with the Rules in that Chapter. Other property shall be identified

8 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Rules that govern attorney trust accounts were relocated to Title 19, Chapter 400.- 20

-

specifically as such and appropriately safeguarded, and records o f 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.
“MLR PC 1.15(a) requires an attorney to maintain client funds in a trust account, separate from the attorne y ’s personal and operating funds. . . . A lawyer’s failure to maintain his or her trust account separately from his or her personal funds is a violation o f MLRPC 1.15(a).” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Landeo , 446 Md. 294, 332, 132 A.3d 196, 218 (2016) (citation, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). MLRPC 1.15(c) provided: 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 l awyer’ s own benefit only as fees are earned or expenses incurred. “A client has given ‘i nformed consent’ for payments not to be deposited into a client trust account only if the lawyer communicate[s] the risks associated with a fee arrangement that varies from the standard escrow arrangement.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Davy , 435 Md. 674, 704, 80 A.3d 322, 339 (2013) (citation and some internal quotation marks omitted). Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1.15 (a) and 1.15 (c) in representing Raphael. Allenbaugh did not deposit Raphael’s payment into a client trust account and did not obtain written consent to place the funds in an account other than an attorney trust account

. Additionally, during the investigation of the Raphael matter, Bar Counsel re quested Allenbaugh’s trust account records and time sheets relating t o his representation of Raphael; Allenbaugh did not- 21

-

respond. MLRPC 3.2 (Expediting Litigation) “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the
intere sts of the client.” MLRPC 3.2. “An attorney violates [MLRPC 3.2] by delaying to take fundamental litigation steps in pursuit of the client’s interest.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett , 427 Md. 209, 226, 46 A.3d 1169, 1179 (2012). Clear and convin cing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 3.2 in representing Riley. Rather than expediting litigation to pursue Riley ’s interest s , Allenbaugh fail ed to file a brief and appendix , which significantly delayed the resolution of Riley’s appeal . Furthermore, Allenbaugh’s repeated
failure to file the brief and joint appendix eventually led the Standing Pa nel to remove him
from the case

.

MLRPC 3.4 (c) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney) “A lawyer shall not . .

. knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of the tribunal except for open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists[.]”
MLRPC 3.4(c). This Court has held that a lawyer violates MLRPC 3.4 (c) when he or she “repeatedly fail[s] to appear in court and to produce documents as directed by court order.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mininsohn , 380 Md. 536, 570, 846 A.2d 353, 373 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

. Clear and co nvincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 3.4(c) in his representation of Riley. Allenbaugh repeatedly disobeyed the Fourth Circuit’s order s to file the brief and appendix in Riley’s case.- 22

- MLRPC 8.1 (b) (Disci plinary Matters) “[A] lawyer in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not . . . 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 inf ormation from an admissions or disciplinary authority[.]” MLRPC 8.1(b). This C ourt has repeatedly held that a lawyer who knowingly fails to respond to Bar Counsel violates MLRPC 8.1(b). See Garrett , 427 Md. at 226, 46 A.3d at 1179 (“It goes without saying that [the lawyer]’s failures to respond to Bar Counsel’s requests for information in connection with any of the nine investigations constitute nine separate violations of [MLRPC] 8.1.”); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
Kremer , 432 Md. 325, 336, 68 A.3d 862, 869 (2013) (“Bar Counsel asked repeatedly [for the lawyer ] to respond to the Petition , but he did not. . . . [The lawyer]’s conduct is in violation of MLRPC 8.1(b).”). Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conc lusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 8.1(b) in the Raphael matter . Allenbaugh repeatedly failed

to respond to Bar Counsel’s requests for information regarding his representation of Raphael. Initially, Allenbaugh failed to respond to Raphael’s complai nt within fifteen days and was granted an extension to respond, but failed to respond by the new deadline as well. Subsequently, Allenbaugh responded to Raphael’s complaint , but the response lacked specificity and merely summarized his representation of Raphael. After receiving Allenbaugh’s response, on July 8, 2014, Bar Counsel wrote Allenbaugh requesting a response to Raphael’s complaint by July 29, 2014; Allenbaugh failed to respond. By letter dated August 5, 2 014, Bar Counsel again requested a response to Raphael’s complaint, and- 23

-

Allenbaugh failed to respond. In a letter dated August 19, 2014, Bar Coun sel yet again requested a response to Raphael’s complaint

. On August 28, 2014, Allenbaugh submitted a response that was nearly identical to the earlier response summarizing his representation of Raphael

. On September 12, 2014, Bar Counsel forwarded to Allenbaugh ten questions, including two in which it sought Allenbaugh’s trust account records and time sh eets relating to his representation of Raphael. Allenbaugh did not respond. As part of the investigation conducted by Bar Counsel, an investigator made two appointments with Allenbaugh in September and October 2015. Significantly, Allenbaugh did not kee p either appointment. 9
MLRPC 8.4(d) (Conduct That i s Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice) “It is professional mi sconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that is

9 The hearing judge also concluded that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 8.1(b) in the reciprocal discipline matter by failing to respond to the Standing Panel’s show cause orders. Pursuant to Local Rule of the Fourth Circuit 46(g)(9) , the Standing Panel acts on the Fourth Circuit’s behalf by issuing show cause orders, considering all responses to show cause orders, and presidi ng ov er disciplinary hearings. Pursuant to Local Rule of the Fourth Circuit 46(g)(8) , the Standing Panel is comprised of three active Fourth C ircuit judges. Although MLRPC 1.0 (Terminology) does not define “disciplinary authority,” this Court has applied MLRPC 8.1(b) to failure s to respond to a request by Bar Counsel for information, as opposed to failure s to respond to a court’s show cause order. For example, in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Williams , 446 Md. 355, 375, 132 A.3d 232, 244 (2016), this Court conc luded that, “in failing knowingly to respond to Bar Counsel’s letters demanding information about this case, Respondent violated MLRPC 8.1(b).” Given that, in the reciprocal discipline matter, the hearing judge’s findings of fact indicate that Allenbaugh f ailed to respond to a show cause order from a three

- judge panel, rather than that A llenbaugh failed to respond to Bar Counsel or a similar authority, we shall refrain from finding that clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion o f law that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 8.1(b) by failing to respond to the Standing Panel’s show cause orders

. This circumstance does not change the outcome of th e case.- 24

-

prejudicial to the administration of justice[.]” MLRPC 8.4(d). “Generally, a lawyer
violates M L RPC 8.4(d) where the lawyer’s conduct would negatively impact the perception of the legal profession of a re asonable member of the public. ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shuler , 443 Md. 494, 505, 117 A.3d 38, 45 (2015) (brackets, citation, ellipsis, and internal quotation marks omitted). This Court has held that failing to communicate with clients and failing to respond to requests from Bar Counsel constitute violations of MLRPC 8.4(d). See Kremer , 432 Md. at 337, 68 A.3d at 869. Clear and convincing evidence support s the h earing judge’s conclusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 8.4(d) in his representation of Riley. Allenbaugh failed to take any action on Riley’s behalf for over six months, which is conduct that wo uld negatively impact the perception of the legal profession of a reasonable member of the public

. Similarly, c lear and convincing evidence support s the hearing judge’s conclusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 8.4(d) in his representation of Raphael. Allenbaugh charged Raphael $5,000 for legal services and then failed to take any action on Raphael’s behalf. Allenbaugh provided Raphael with incorrect information regarding Raphael’s eligibility for an L

- 1 visa , and was unresponsive to Raphael’s request for assistance when Raphael’s wife was deemed inadmissible by DHS and barred from re

- entering the United
States. Overall, Allenbaugh’s failure to competently assist Raphael jeopardized Raphael’s
and his family’s ability to successfully immigrat e to the United States

. As the hearing j udge aptly observed , “it is prejudicial to the administration of justice when a lawyer places a client in greater legal jeopardy through lack of competence and lack of communication. ”- 25

- MLRPC 8.4(a) (Violating the ML RPC ) “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to[] violate . . . the” MLRPC

. MLRPC 8.4(a). Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 8.4(a). As discussed above, Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) (2) , 1.5(a), 1.15 (a) , 1.15 (c), 3.2, 3.4 (c) , 8.1(b), and 8.4(d). (B) Sanction Bar Counsel recomme nds that we disbar Allenbaugh. Bar Counsel initially recommended that this Court impose reciprocal discipline against Allenbaugh based on his conduct before the Fourth Circuit, in addition to his default and failure respond to Bar Counsel during the penden cy of the current proceedings. Considerin g the circumstances
of the reciprocal discipline matter and the Raphael matter in the aggregate, however, Bar Counsel now recommends disbarment. In making this recommendation, Bar Counsel specifically notes that this Court has disbarred lawyers who flagra ntly neglected their clients’ affairs by failing to respond to requests from clients or to inquiries from Bar
Counsel. Apart from his response to this Court’s show cause order in the reciprocal discipline matter , Allenbaugh did not make a recommendation w ith respect to the appropriate sanction. Bar Counsel is correct that this C ourt has disbarred lawyers for such violations. In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas , 440 Md. 523, 558, 103 A.3d 629, 650 (2014), this Court held that disbarment was the proper sanction for a lawyer who “failed to communicate with his client, failed to complete any of the work that he was retained to- 26

-

complete, and failed to participate in [the attorney discipline ] proceedings in any way.” In circumstances similar to the present case, a client retained the lawyer for assista nce with an immigration issue. See i d

. at 531

- 32, 103 A.3d at 634. The lawyer engaged in misconduct by relaying ina ccurate information about the immigration proceedings, failing to appear at his clients ’ hearing, failing to inform his client of the status of his case and that his client had been ordered removed from the United States, and accepting payment for work tha t he was not undertaking. See i d. at 552

- 53, 103 A.3d at 646. This Court concluded that the lawyer had violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b) , 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation), and 8.4 (d). See i d. at 551

- 56, 103 A.3d at 645

- 48. Determining that “[d]isbarment is warranted in cases involving flagrant neglect of client affairs,” this Court concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction

. Id. at 558, 103 A.3d at 649. Similarly, i n Attorney Grievance Comm ’ n v. De La Paz , 418 Md. 534, 557

- 58, 16 A.3d 181, 195 (2011), this Court disbarred a lawyer who violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d). The lawyer clearly neglected his clients, leaving one client to fend for himself at his own hearing and the oth er to lose his cause of action entir ely for failure to prosecute. [The lawyer] also repeatedly ignored his clients’ inquiries into the status of their cases, and then moved his practice without informing his clients of his new contact information. He the n later dec lined to respond to Bar Counsel’ s requests for information. Id. at 558, 16 A.3d at 195. This Court did not note any aggravating factors, and observed that there were no mitigating factors. See id. at 558, 16 A.3d at 195. This Court explained : “We previously have found disbarment to be appropriate when attorneys repeatedly neglect- 27

-

client affairs.” Id. at 557

- 58, 16 A.3d at 195 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lara , 418 Md. 355, 367, 360, 14 A.3d 650 , 658, 654 (2011), this Court disbarred a lawyer after he accepted payment from clients but then failed to complete any me aningful work on their behalf. As in the present case, the lawyer also failed to deposit these payments into a client trust a ccount and never obtained written consent from his clients allowing him to keep the funds in an account other than an attorney

trust account

. See i d. at 360, 14 A.3d at 65 3

- 5 4. The lawyer failed to return any of these fees to his clients, even after aban doning his law practice. See i d. at 365, 14 A.3d at 656. Additionally, in conduct very similar to Allenbaugh ’s , the lawyer was unresponsive to Bar Counsel during the attorney discipline proceedings and failed to appear for the hearing. Id. at 365, 359 , 14 A.3d at 656 , 653 . This Court determined that the lawyer had violated
MLRPC 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 1.15(a), (c), and (d); 1.16(d); 8.1(b); and 8.4(a) and (d)

. See
i d

. at 364, 14 A.3d at 656. Considering these serious violations, this Court held that the lawyer’s “ conduct warrant[ed] the gravest sanction, disbarment, for the protection of the public.” Id. at 367, 14 A.3d at 658.
In Shuler , 443 Md. at 506

- 07, 117 A.3d at 46, this Court stated: This Court sanctions a lawyer not to punish the lawyer, but instead to protect the public and the public’s confidence in the legal profession. This Court accomplishes these goals by: (1) deterring other lawyers from engaging in similar misconduct; and (2) suspending or disbarring a lawyer who is unfit to continue t o practice law. In determining an appropriate sanction for a lawyer’s misconduct, this Court considers: (1) the M L RPC that the lawyer violated; (2) the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the injury that the lawyer’s misconduct caused or could have- 28

-

caused; and (4) aggravating factors and/or mitigating factors. Aggravating factors include: (1) prior attorney discipline; (2) a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) a pattern of misconduct; (4) multiple violations of the M L RPC; (5) bad faith obstruction of the attorney dis cipline proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with [rules or orders of the disciplinary agency] ; (6) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the attorney discipline proceeding; (7) a refusal to acknowledg e 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 u se of controlled substances; and (12) likelihood of re p etition of the misconduct. Mitigating factors include: (1) the absence of prior attorney discipline; (2) the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) personal or emotional problems; (4) timely go od faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify the misconduct’s consequences; (5) full and free disclosure to [Bar Counsel] or a cooperative attitude toward the attorney discipline proceeding; (6) inexperience in the practice of law; (7) character or r eputation; (8) a physical disability; (9) a mental disability or chemical dependency, including alcoholism or drug abuse, where: (a) there is medical evidence that the lawyer is affected by a chemical dependency or mental disability; (b) the chemical depen dency or mental disability caused the misconduct; (c) the lawyer’s recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and (d) the recovery arrested the misconduct, a nd the misconduct’s recurrence is unlikely; (10) delay in the attorney discipline proceeding; (11) the imposition of other penalties or sanctions; (12) remorse; (13) remoteness of prior violations of the M L RPC; and (14) unlikelihood of re p etition of the mi sconduct. (Brackets, citation, and ellipses omitted). Indeed, when making a determination regarding sanctions, “[w]e look not to the number of rules broken, but to the lawyer’s conduct.”
Thomas , 440 Md. at 556, 103 A.3d at 649 (citation omitted)

. Here, in the reciprocal discipline matter, Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.2,- 29

-

3.4 (c) , and 8.4 (d) by failing to file a brief and appendix on his client’s behalf in an appeal

. 10 This conduct showed a disregard for his client’s interests and demonstrate d noncompliance with the Fourth Circuit’s orders

. Because Allenbaugh failed to do the very wo rk that he was appointed to do

— i.e. , file a brief and appendix

— Allenbaugh’s behavior raises concern about the need to protect potential future clients. Allenbaugh’s conduct in the Raphael matter , which occurred prior to his conduct in the reciprocal discipline matter, increases the concern regarding the need to protect the public from such conduct in the future . Specifically, Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1. 1,
1.4 (a)(2) , 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d), demonstrating a lack of competence,

a failure to communicate with Raphael , the charging of unreasonable fees, a failure to place unearned fees in trust, and a failure to respond to Bar Counsel . I n the aggregate, such conduct reveals that Allenbaugh flagrantly neglected Raphael’s affairs. Indeed , Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1.4 (a)(2) and 1.5 (a) by failing to respond to Raphael and by retaining the $5,000 that Raphael had paid him . Allenbaugh’s conduct was injurious to Raphael and his family. If Raphael and his family seek to re

- enter the United States, they
may be prevented from doing so by DHS because of having overstayed their previous visas.

10 By order dated September 11, 2014, the Fourth Circuit suspended Allenbaugh from the pr actice of law before the Fourth Circuit for two years. Although, in response to this Court’s show cause order, Allenbaugh alleged that the two

- year suspension constituted a violation of due process, the record reflects that, prior to imposing the two

- year suspension, the Standing Panel directed Allenbaugh to show cause as to why discipli ne should not have been imposed, and Allenbaugh failed to respond. Accordingly, Allenbaugh has not demonstrated that the Fourth Circuit “ procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitu te a deprivation of due process[.]” Md. R. 16

- 773(e)(1).- 30

-

In short, Allenbaugh failed to pe rform meaningful legal work for Raphael and has endangered Raphael’s and his family’s ability to immigrate to the United States. The hearing judge found the following aggravating factors: (1) a pattern of misconduct; (2) multiple offenses; (3) “bad faith obstruction of the attorney disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the Commission”; (4) a refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; (5) vulnerability of victim; (6) substantial experience in the practice of law; and (7) indifference to making restitution. In addition to the serious misconduct discussed above, upon our independent review, we note the same seven aggravating factors: (1) a pattern of misconduct; (2) multiple violations of the MLRPC ; (3) bad faith obstruction of the attorney discipline proceeding; (4) a refusal to acknowledge the misconduct’s wrongful nature; (5) the victim’s vulnerability; (6) substantial experience in the practice of law; and (7) indifference to making restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s consequences. To begin , there is a pattern of misconduct. In both the reciprocal discipline matter and the Raphael matter , Allenbaugh did not represent his client competently. Both matters involve instances in which Allen baugh failed to take action on behalf of a client when he was obligated to do so.
Next , Allenbaugh engaged in multiple violations of the MLRPC . In the reciprocal discipline matter, Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.2, 3.4(c), and 8.4(d). In the Raph ael matter, Allenbaugh violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.4(a)(2), 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 1.15 (c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d). Allenbaugh’s repeated failure to respond to Bar Counsel constitutes an obstruction- 31

-

of the a ttorney disciplinary proceeding . Allenbaugh failed to respond to Raphael’s

c omplaint when forwarded by Bar Counsel during the investigation in the instant case, failed to attend two scheduled appointments with Bar Counsel’s investigator , and failed to respond to discovery requests by Bar Counsel

. Allenbaugh has not acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct in the Raphael matter. In his response to this Court’s show cause order in the reciprocal discipline matter, Allenbaugh stated that there was no excuse for his behavior and characterized it as “unfortuna te and eminently regrettable.” Allenbaugh, however, has not acknowledged in any way the wrongful nature of his misconduct in the Raphael matter, nor has he demonstrated any remorse. Raphael’s status as an immigrant rendered him particularly vulnerable to
Al lenbaugh’s misconduct. See Thomas , 440 Md. at 558, 103 A.3d at 649 (“We have recognized previously the special vulnerability of immigrants as clients.”); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brisbon , 422 Md. 625, 642, 31 A.3d 110, 120 (2011) (The General Assembly enacted the Maryland Immigration Consultant Act “to offer simple protection to extremely vulnerable people, largely unable or unwilling as a practical matter to defend themselves, from being preyed on [

. ] ” (Internal quotation marks omitted) ). Allenbaugh w as admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 12, 2000. Thus, he has over fifteen year s of exp erience in the practice of law, and had over a decade of experience at the time of the misconduct in the reciprocal discipline matter and the Raphael matter,

const ituting substantial experience in the practice of law

— an aggravating factor. Finally, Allenbaugh has not attempted to rectify his wrongdoing. He continues to- 32

-

retain the $5,000 that he charged Raphael and refuses to account for the funds. Additionally, Al lenbaugh has continued to be unresponsive to Bar Counsel throughout this attorney discipline proceeding

. The h earing j udge found that Allenba ugh pr ovided no evidence of mitigating
factors

. As this Court observed in Thomas , 440 Md. at 557, 103 A.3d at 649, “[m]itiga tion is not on the table . . . without the attorney providing supporting evidence of t he existence of such factors.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We are aware that Allenbaugh contended in his response to this Court’s sho w cause o rder that his misconduct stemmed from a depressive episode , for which he stated that he has sought treatment.
A ttached as an exhibit to Allenbaugh’s response to this Court’s show cause order was a letter, dated March 27, 2015, from a psychiatrist stating that Allenbaugh had been diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder , and was being treated with medication. The p sychiatrist’s letter does not mention the reciprocal discipline matter, does not provide a date with r espect to the onset of the alleged disorders, and does not indicate that Allenbaugh’s ability to practice law was impacted in any way. Allenbaugh failed to appear for the scheduled evidentiary hearing and failed to submit any evidence with respect to the alleged mental health disorder s , and , as such, has failed to demonstrate that the disorder s affected his conduct in the reciprocal discipline matter. Notably, in the Raphael matter, Allenbaugh failed to file an answer to the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action or to present any mitigating evidence whatsoever with respect to his misconduct. Although a diagnosis of depression and/or anxiety at the time of a lawyer’s misconduct may be a mitigating factor, in this case, the hearing judge is- 33

-

corre ct that Allenbaugh presented no mitigating evidence as to either the reciprocal discipline matter or the Raphael matter

. Allenbaugh has not l ink ed the diagnosis of depression and/or an xiety to his misconduct in the reciprocal d iscipline matter , or attempted to address his mis conduct in the Raphael matter

. Accordingly, w e discern no mitigating factors

. T aken together, the flagrancy of Allenbaugh’s miscondu ct in the reciprocal discipline matter and the Raphael matter , along with the multitude of
agg ravating factors, warrant disbarment. For the above reasons, o n October 7, 2016, we disbarred Allenbaugh and awarded costs against him

.