Opinion ID: 2321650
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Online Access to Bank Records

Text: Respondent excepts to Judge Greenberg's finding that [t]ypically, the respondent did not retain monthly IOLTA statements from the bank, and for the period 2006-2008 did not identify the source of funds on deposit tickets he prepared for his IOLTA. Respondent does not contend that either of these statements is untrue, but argues, essentially, that the failure to keep proper records was less severe than it sounded because the statements were available online, and Respondent reviewed them regularly and was able to identify the source of funds deposited and was able to identify which fees were earned. It is well established that, although we conduct an independent review of the complete record relating to a disputed finding, a hearing judge's factual findings are considered prima facie correct and will not be overruled unless they are clearly erroneous. Attorney Grievance v. Harris, 366 Md. 376, 388, 784 A.2d 516, 523 (2001). See also, Attorney Grievance v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 17, 741 A.2d 1143, 1152 (1999); Attorney Grievance v. Kemp, 303 Md. 664, 674, 496 A.2d 672, 677 (1985). We have emphasized that the hearing judge `may elect to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon,' Harris, 366 Md. at 388-89, 784 A.2d at 523 (quoting Kemp, 303 Md. at 675, 496 A.2d at 677), because the hearing judge is in the best position to assess first hand a witness's credibility. Harris, 366 Md. at 389, 784 A.2d at 523 (quoting Sheridan, 357 Md. at 17, 741 A.2d at 1152). Here, Respondent points only to his own testimony at the hearing to establish that the availability of online statements was part of his record-keeping procedure. Judge Greenberg found that Respondent failed to maintain records for receipt and distribution of trust funds, as required by [MRPC] 1.15(a). According to the judge's finding, to this day, [Respondent] has not been able to identify what happened to the first $750 paid by [Subedi]. Although Respondent posits that he could access his account statements online, this contention overlooks Respondent's obligation to maintain records for receipt and distribution of trust funds in order to explain, verify, or corroborate his handling of client funds when requested by Bar Counsel to do so. The exception is overruled.