Opinion ID: 2302582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: MLRPC 3.2: Expediting Litigation

Text: We opined that an attorney who fails to comply with discovery requests, and attempts to mitigate his or her shortcomings with cryptic excuses, violates MLRPC 3.2. Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337, 366, 910 A.2d 429, 446 (2006) (stating that an attorney who canceled two deposition dates, because of a sick relative who required medical attention, violated MLRPC 3.2). Here, Judge Cavanaugh found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Brown failed to respond to various discovery requests in the Wallace/ABS litigation. Respondent offered two excuses for his neglect. He claimed to have endured a a series of physical illnesses and non-physical setbacks [causing him] to miss large amounts of time from [his] office. Respondent stated also that he was dealing with the deaths of people close to [him] at the time of the relevant litigation. These unsupported excuses are as cryptic and unsubstantiated on this record as were the analogous assertions in Steinberg. Further, Respondent's failure to comply with the discovery requests caused the trial judge to issue sanctions and a default judgment against Wallace/ABS, which violated also MLRPC 3.2. Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. West, 378 Md. 395, 405-07, 836 A.2d 588, 594-95 (2003) (agreeing with the hearing judge that the attorney who failed to comply with discovery requests, resulting in a motion for default judgment, violated MLRPC 3.2).