Opinion ID: 3163201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The hearing judge found the following facts, which we summarize. On or about June 21, 2000, this Court admitted Thomas to the Bar of Maryland. At all relevant times, Thomas was a solo practitioner in Allegany County. Thomas’s Representation of Lee In or about October or November 2013, Lee was injured during an altercation with Kameron Kamp (“Kamp”). Lee’s injuries included a broken jaw, and necessitated that Lee have his jaw wired shut and have his arm placed in a sling. Lee and his family incurred 4 Thomas failed to attend oral argument or file anything in this Court. Thus, Thomas has not asked us to review, and we do not review, the propriety of the hearing judge’s issuance of the preliminary injunction that prohibited Thomas from practicing law. -3- medical expenses as a result of his injuries. Lee pressed criminal charges of assault against Kamp, and Kamp pressed criminal charges of assault against Lee. On or about January 6, 2014, Lee’s mother, Renée Walker (“Walker”), retained Thomas to represent Lee in the defense of the criminal charge against him. Thomas charged a flat fee of $750, which was paid in full. Thomas told Walker also that it would be possible for Lee to sue Kamp in an attempt to obtain compensation for Lee’s medical expenses. Walker provided Thomas with a list of people who could testify on Lee’s behalf. Thomas failed to interview or subpoena any of the people. A hearing in Lee’s criminal case was scheduled for March 4, 2014. On the night of March 3, 2014, Walker telephoned Thomas. This was the first time that Lee or Walker had communicated with Thomas since January 2014. Thomas told Walker that he could not attend the hearing for personal reasons. Thomas failed either to offer to find another lawyer who could attend the hearing or raise the possibility of requesting a postponement. On March 4, 2014, without Thomas, Lee and Walker attended the hearing, at which they learned that the State planned to dismiss the charges against both Lee and Kamp. Lee and Walker never heard from Thomas again, despite Walker’s attempts to discuss a possible civil action against Kamp and/or a refund of Thomas’s fee.5 Thomas’s Representation of Sines In November 2010, Sines separated from her then-husband. Sines retained Thomas 5 At the evidentiary hearing in this attorney disciplinary proceeding, Walker testified that, in the complaint that she filed against Thomas with the Commission, Walker stated that Thomas “told [her that] he would do a civil case, but nothing [] happened. He d[id]n’t return any of [her] phone calls.” -4- to represent her for purposes of her separation and to obtain a divorce when she had been separated for one year. Thomas charged Sines a flat fee, which Sines paid in full. Thomas drafted a separation agreement, gave it to Sines, and told Sines to give it to her then-husband.6 Thomas also made inquiries on Sines’s behalf regarding title to some Holstein cattle.7 These were the only two services that Thomas ever performed as to Sines’s divorce matter; Thomas never filed a complaint for divorce on Sines’s behalf. In or about July 2011, Sines learned that her then-husband may have molested her daughter, a vulnerable adult with a disability. Sines retained Thomas to represent her for purposes of becoming her daughter’s guardian. Thomas charged Sines a fee of approximately $1,000, which Sines paid in full. Two doctors evaluated Sines’s daughter and provided the two medical/psychiatric opinions that were necessary for the appointment of a guardian of the person of a disabled person under Maryland Rule 10-202(a).8 Thomas 6 The hearing judge found that Thomas “gave [Sines] some documents relating to the separation[,] which she was to give to her estranged husband.” At the evidentiary hearing in this attorney disciplinary proceeding, Sines testified that Thomas “drew up a paper[] separation . . . [and] asked [Sines] to deliver it to” her then-husband. 7 At the evidentiary hearing in this attorney disciplinary proceeding, Sines testified that she had registered some Holstein cattle in her name, but then, without Sines’s knowledge, “[s]omebody removed them out of [her] name and put them in [her] daughter’s name[.]” Sines testified that, on her behalf, Thomas telephoned a member of “the Holstein Association” to inquire about the transfer of title to the Holstein cattle. 8 Maryland Rule 10-202(a) states, in pertinent part: [I]f guardianship of the person of a disabled person is sought, the petitioner shall file with the petition signed and verified certificates of (1) two physicians licensed to practice medicine in the United States who have examined the disabled person, or (2) one licensed physician who has examined the disabled person and one licensed psychologist or certified clinical social worker who has seen and evaluated the disabled person. -5- needed to file a petition for guardianship of the person of a disabled person within twentyone days of the latest dated doctors’ evaluations. See Md. R. 10-202(a) (“An examination or evaluation by at least one of the health care professionals under this subsection shall occur within 21 days before the filing of the petition [for guardianship of the person of a disabled person].”). Thomas failed to file a petition for guardianship of the person of a disabled person within the required twenty-one-day window, thus forcing Sines and her daughter to experience the expense and inconvenience of having Sines’s daughter evaluated again. Sines provided Thomas with the names of several people, including Sines’s daughter’s pediatrician, who would have testified in support of Sines becoming her daughter’s guardian. However, Thomas failed to interview any of the people; and, at the guardianship hearing, Thomas failed to call any witnesses. The trial court did not appoint Sines as her daughter’s guardian. In January 2012, Sines texted Thomas to ask about the delay in proceeding with her divorce matter. Thomas informed Sines that he was busy. In March 2012, on several occasions, Sines unsuccessfully attempted to arrange an appointment with Thomas. On March 26, 2012, Thomas e-mailed Sines to tell her to review a complaint for divorce that was attached to the e-mail. Sines was unable to download and view the complaint for divorce. On March 28, 2012, Sines e-mailed Thomas to tell him to mail her a paper copy of the complaint for divorce. Despite sending messages to Thomas in April, May, and June 2012, Sines never heard from Thomas again. In June 2012, Sines filed a complaint against Thomas with the Commission. Afterward, Thomas refunded “the prepaid fees” that he had -6- charged Sines.9 The Conditional Diversion Agreement On or about March 20, 2013, Thomas and Bar Counsel entered into a “Conditional Diversion Agreement” that partially arose out of Sines’s complaint to the Commission. In the Conditional Diversion Agreement, which the hearing judge admitted into evidence, Thomas agreed to the following conditions, among others: [Thomas] will abstain from all use of alcohol and/or opiates[.] During the pendency of the [Conditional Diversion] Agreement, [Thomas] will attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at least once per week and provide Bar Counsel with proof of his attendance[.] Within thirty [] days of the date of th[e Conditional Diversion] Agreement, [Thomas] will arrange for counseling through the Alleg[]any County Health Department. [Thomas] will . . . waive confidentiality to the extent necessary for Bar Counsel to confirm that [Thomas] is receiving counseling for his substance abuse problems and that [Thomas] is abstaining from the use of alcohol and/or opiates[.] If, during the duration of th[e Conditional Diversion] Agreement, [Thomas] resumes the use of alcohol or opiates, [Thomas] will immediately voluntarily cease practicing law, notify all active clients, return files and unearned fees[,] and withdraw his appearance in any and all [c]ourt proceedings. (Paragraph breaks omitted).10 On or about May 15, 2013, the Commission approved the Conditional Diversion Agreement. On or about July 25, 2013, in accordance with the Conditional Diversion Agreement, Thomas enrolled in an “Outpatient Addictions Program” that was conducted by the Allegany County Health Department. 9 The record reveals that Thomas refunded the fee that Sines paid for her separation and divorce matter. It is unclear whether Thomas also refunded the fee that Sines paid for her guardianship matter. 10 In the Conditional Diversion Agreement, Thomas also agreed to “provide proof that he ha[d] refunded $1,500 to” Sines in connection with her separation and divorce matter. -7- On or about February 24, 2014, Thomas successfully completed an “Intensive Outpatient Program” and advanced to another program that required attending counseling sessions once per week. Between February 24, 2014 and July 2, 2014, however, Thomas attended only seven counseling sessions. As a result, on or about July 2, 2014,11 Thomas was discharged from the program. On or about August 26, 2014, Thomas again sought treatment. The Allegany County Health Department allowed Thomas to enroll in the program from which he had been discharged, provided that Thomas took a urinalysis test on that day. Thomas failed to take the urinalysis test, and was not re-enrolled in the program. On August 28, 2014, Thomas consulted with a counselor and was again enrolled in the Intensive Outpatient Program, which now required attending counseling sessions three times per week. Thomas again failed to attend the required number of counseling sessions. As a result, Thomas was discharged yet again from the Intensive Outpatient Program. Thomas refrained from informing Bar Counsel of his two discharges, and also refrained from informing Bar Counsel that he was using alcohol and/or opiates. The hearing judge specifically found that Thomas’s “failure to keep Bar Counsel informed was[] an attempt to continue practicing law and avoid the consequences of failing to attend the [counseling] program[s] and maintain his sobriety.” On September 16, 2014, Thomas’s former counselor informed Bar Counsel that Thomas had been discharged from the Intensive Outpatient Program. As a result, on or 11 The hearing judge inadvertently referred to July 2, 2013. -8- about December 17, 2014, the Commission revoked the Conditional Diversion Agreement.