Opinion ID: 2156685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: James' Exceptions Regarding the Findings of Fact.

Text: We have reviewed the record and conclude that Judge Jackson's findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Mr. James urges remand to take additional evidence citing various exceptions, each of which we will address, overruling each of them. [21] Exception 1.b The Findings of Fact indicate that Respondent never sent Mr. Kazim any written communications throughout the representation, without regard for the retainer agreement or billing statement introduced into evidence by Petitioner. The evidence adduced at the hearing clearly and unequivocally establishes that no written communication was sent to Mr. Kazim throughout Mr. James's representation, including the retainer agreement, Petitioner's Exhibit 7B, and billing statement, Petitioner's Exhibit 11. Mr. Kazim testified that he saw Exhibit 7B in Mr. James's office and that he signed it in the apartment to retain [Mr. James] and further the first time I'm seeing this, this billing worksheet was at the hearing. Mr. Kazim further iterated on direct examination by Mr. James, I've never received a statement from you, I've never received anything from you. You have never sent me any correspondence in the mail. I've never, ever seen this sheet but this moment here, Your Honor, that he has presented me this sheet. The lack of any written correspondence was corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Marc Fielder, the investigator with the Attorney Grievance Commission, who reviewed Mr. James's client file on Mr. Kazim and did not see any correspondence to anyone in the file. Mr. James also told Mr. Fielder that he provided the billing statement to Mr. Kazim at a meeting. This exception is denied. Exception 2. The Findings of Fact filed on 8 November 2004 notes that three checks were presented on 22 April 2002 causing an overdraft. The Findings of Fact however, do not note either that the account in question was closed prior to 22 April 2002 upon the advice of Marc Fielder (an investigator for and representative of the Office of Bar Counsel), that the checks were honored, or that all sums due concerned said checks were immediately satisfied by Respondent. No testimony or exhibit was introduced to reflect any of the alleged facts. Mr. James certainly has argued that the events occurred in this sequence, but adduced no evidence to support these additional findings when he had the opportunity to do so. This exception is denied. Exception 3.a. The Findings of Fact reference a violation of Rule 1.1 indicating a lack of action in researching and a failure to exhibit the legal knowledge, skill thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. There was no evidence presented by Petitioner as to the legal research conducted and Respondent was precluded from introducing evidence on the issue. Mr. Fielder testified only as to the causes of action initially considered by the Defendant. Exception 3.b. The Findings of Fact indicate that no cause of action existed against Mr. Fleckinger because recovery could not be had for the act of adultery. Although the act of adultery was not a viable action, the adulterous acts were actionable under claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lack of legal research testified to by Mr. Fielder, the AGC investigator, is belied by Mr. James's contention in his exceptions and during argument before this Court, that although the act of adultery was not a viable action, the adulterous acts were actionable under claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Essentially, James argues that violation of the criminal statute prohibiting adultery, Md.Code (2002, 2004 Cum.Supp.) § 10-501 of the Criminal Law Article, is in and of itself a cause of action somehow related to the negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. However, even cursory research on Mr. James's part would have revealed that in Doe v. Doe, 358 Md. 113, 747 A.2d 617 (2000), Judge Eldridge, speaking for this Court, emphasized that, This Court decided twenty years ago that public policy would not allow tort damages based upon adultery. See Kline v. Ansell, 287 Md. 585, 414 A.2d 929 (1980). That decision should not be ignored simply because the plaintiff has employed different labels and named a different defendant. Id. at 127, 747 A.2d at 624. This exception is denied.