Opinion ID: 1904851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commission's Exceptions

Text: Because it would be unfair to require that a busy lawyer who is up to the elbows in a trial or in a transaction must drop everything and work on nothing else until completing his or her response to Bar Counsel's request for information, the lawyer who receives such a request can comply with the requirements of Rule 8.1(b) by (1) acknowledging receipt of Bar Counsel's request, (2) explaining why he or she needs an extension of time to file a response, and (3) requesting that Bar Counsel consent to an extension for a reasonable period of time. The case at bar, however, involves a December, 2006 request for information that was not acknowledged until April of 2007. The record includes a stipulation that Respondent did not obtain counsel until March of 2007. During Respondent's cross-examination, he conceded that he received the Commission's first request for information, which was made in a letter dated December 11, 2006, and that he received three more written requests in letters dated January 31, 2007, February 28, 2007, and March 16, 2007-before his counsel responded on his behalf in a letter dated April 5, 2007. In Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Tolar, 357 Md. 569, 745 A.2d 1045 (2000), this Court agreed with the hearing court's conclusion that the [r]espondent violated Rule 8.1(b) by knowingly failing to respond to Bar Counsel's requests in this matter from approximately November 20, 1997, until February 12, 1998. Id. at 582, 745 A.2d at 1052. We therefore agree with the Commission that an April 5, 2007 acknowledgment of a December 6, 2006 request for information constitutes a violation of Rule 8.1(b). Had Respondent not made (in the words of the hearing judge) a principled effort to ensure that Ms. Abarza was fairly and fully compensated[,] we would have sustained the Commission's exception to the hearing judge's finding that the negligent handling of Ms. Abarza's case was not prejudicial to the administration of justice. [1] In light of the hearing judge's non-clearly erroneous factual findings, however, each of the other exceptions is hereby overruled. [2]