Opinion ID: 2302582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complaint of William Wallace/Action Business Systems, Inc.

Text: In 2003, Respondent filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County a lawsuit on behalf of Action Business Systems, Inc. (ABS). The defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In the federal court, the defendant filed a third-party complaint against William Wallace, president and primary shareholder of ABS. On 26 April 2005, the defendant served upon Respondent interrogatories, a request for production of documents, and a notice of deposition of Wallace. Respondent failed to respond to the defendant's discovery requests. As a result, on 18 October 2005, the federal court issued a memorandum opinion and order, granting the defendant's motion for sanctions and entering a default judgment against ABS on each of the defendant's claims. Respondent filed a motion to reconsider the discovery sanctions. In his motion, Brown admitted to his failure to respond to the defendant's discovery requests, blaming a series of physical illnesses and non-physical setbacks that caused him to miss large amounts of time from [his] office. The court denied his motion because it was filed untimely. As the case unraveled, Respondent failed to advise Wallace about the status of the matter. Wallace learned for the first time of Respondent's neglect in January 2006, when the federal court entered an order of judgment, in excess of one million dollars, against Wallace and ABS. In addition to offering up physical illness as an excuse for his dilatory conduct in the Wallace/ABS matter, Respondent explained to Judge Cavanaugh that the deaths of people close to [him] impaired his representation. Respondent did not substantiate or provide corroborating evidence of these claimed deaths or setbacks, explaining merely during oral argument before this Court that he lost five people close to [him] within about a seven-month period. [14] On 18 October 2005, Judge Nickerson, who presided over the ABS/Wallace case in the federal court, alerted Petitioner to Respondent's problematic representation of Wallace and ABS. As a result of this complaint, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a conditional diversion agreement, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-736(a). [15] In the agreement, Respondent admitted to professional misconduct during his representation of Wallace/ABS. On 28 April 2008, Petitioner received a letter from U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey reproaching Respondent's conduct in a different matter. Petitioner and Respondent entered temporarily another conditional diversion agreement. Shortly thereafter, a number of Respondent's former clients contacted Petitioner with additional, separate complaints about Respondent (discussed infra ). Respondent failed to respond to Petitioner's requests for information about his representation of those clients. As a result, Petitioner revoked the conditional diversion agreements. [16] Judge Cavanaugh rendered the following conclusions of law regarding Respondent's representation of Wallace/ABS. Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in providing legal services, violating MLRPC 1.3. Respondent failed to keep Wallace apprised sufficiently of the status of his case, violating MLRPC 1.4(a) and (b). Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, consistent with the interests of Wallace/ABS, which violated MLRPC 3.2. Respondent failed to respond to inquiries from Petitioner for information about his representation of Wallace/ABS, violating MLRPC 8.1(b). Finally, the totality of Respondent's conduct amounted to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, within the meaning of MLRPC 8.4(d).