Opinion ID: 2376283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: complainant: colleen curran bromwell

Text: By complaint dated May 22, 2000 Petitioner was notified of the Complainant's efforts to obtain funds in payment of a funeral bill where the Respondent had met with her and stated simply that she would be paid in time. The Complainant contended the Maryland State Board of Morticians required a signed contract for the funeral, which the Respondent refused to execute, but more importantly, she complained the Respondent had not remitted an outstanding bill for services that went back to August 11, 1999. By letter dated May 26, 2000 Petitioner sought information from the Respondent in inquiry file number XXXX-X-XXXX. Within that letter the Respondent was placed on notice that Petitioner `... must determine, initially, whether this matter should be classified as a formal docketed complaint or is one which is not, in [Petitioner's] opinion, disciplinary in nature.' The Respondent was asked to provide his response to the allegations in writing to enable petitioner to `make this decision.' The Respondent was given fifteen days to respond. He failed to do so. By certified letter dated June 21, 2000 the Respondent was provided an additional copy of the earlier May 26th correspondence and the original complaint. He was asked to respond within ten days. Delivery was evidenced to have taken place on June 23, 2000 indicated by the signature of Heather R. Wittstadt on the return receipt. No response was forthcoming. Thereafter on July 17, 2000 the matter, previously dealt with as an inquiry file, was docketed due in major part to Respondent's failure to provide the information requested. The matter was docketed as BC Docket Number XXXX-XX-XX-X and the Respondent was notified of that activity by letter dated July 17, 2000. Respondent was provided with a copy of all earlier correspondence, including the original complaint, asked to provide his response within fifteen days of that letter, and additionally provide a response or explanation as to why he had failed to respond to the two previous requests in the inquiry file. A second written request for information was sent certified mail by letter dated August 7, 2000, in the docketed file. The Respondent was again reminded of his obligation under Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1 and given ten days to respond. He was provided with all previously indicated requests, and the original complaint. The delivery of that certified letter was verified by the signature of Krista Warfield on the return receipt evidencing delivery on August 9, 2000. The Respondent failed to respond. An inquiry panel was convened to consider the allegations of the Complainant and the conduct of the Respondent on September 27, 2000. During that hearing, necessitated by Respondent's failure to respond to the numerous requests for information by a disciplinary agency, it was ascertained the underlying allegation of misconduct did not constitute a disciplinary matter. Based upon the above Findings of Fact this Court [2] concludes the Respondent, in each separate matter as set forth below, violated the following Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct then in effect: In BC Docket No. 99-615-10-6, where the Complainant is William H. Mariner, the Court finds the Respondent violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 by his failure to diligently pursue the legal matter which he undertook on behalf of his client and Rule 1.4(a)(b) for failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information about a legal matter by a client and failing to fully and truthfully explain his actions, or more accurately in this case inaction, to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Further, the Court concludes the Respondent violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(d) by effectively terminating the representation of Mr. Mariner but failing to take such steps to reasonably protect his client's interest, such as giving his client notice of his termination of representation, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and further the Court concludes the Respondent violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) by his failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in connection with the investigation of the complaint of Mr. Mariner. The Court concludes these violations, particularly the Respondent's failure to participate in the disciplinary investigation, constitutes violations of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In BC Docket No. 2000-187-10-6, where the Complainant is Patricia R. Taylor, the Court finds, and does conclude, the Respondent violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 by his failure to diligently pursue the legal malpractice case of his client, and in violation of Rule 1.4(a)(b) failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her legal matter and his failure to promptly respond to reasonable requests for information by the client as well as his failure to explain his actions, or more appropriately in this matter, inactions, so as to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. The Court further finds the Respondent violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) by his failure to respond to lawful demands for information in connection with a disciplinary investigation and that the Respondent violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) by committing professional misconduct when he engaged in dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation by leading his client to believe he had filed a law suit on her behalf, when in fact he had not, and accounted for the delay because he was `waiting for a court date.' Further, the Court finds the Respondent's misconduct as set forth herein, and particularly his persistent failure to [cooperate] with a disciplinary investigation, constitutes a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Finally the Court concludes that in BC Docket No. 2001-23-10-6, where the Complainant is Colleen Curran Bromwell, the Respondent violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) by his apparently habitual failure to assist and cooperate with a disciplinary investigation and, by that failure, he violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) as committing conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. [Emphasis added.] [Some alterations added.]