Opinion ID: 2297419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Violations Related to Representation of Robin Martin

Text: We agree that Ms. Camus committed the violations cited by Judge North related to her representation of Robin Martin. Many of these violations stem from Ms. Camus' failure to enter an appearance in the case after she was asked to do so by her client and after she was directed to do so by the court. For example, the failure to enter an appearance, together with her failure to carry out her undertakings with respect to discovery, was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of MLRPC 8.4(d), as it caused considerable confusion for opposing counsel, who was unable to rely on any of Ms. Camus' actions or statements in the case because she was not the attorney of record. Those failings also violated MLRPC 1.3 (lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client) and MLRPC 3.4(c) (A lawyer shall not... (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal ...). The failure to enter an appearance caused both opposing counsel and the circuit court to send notices and other filings directly to Ms. Martin. With this correspondence entirely bypassing Ms. Camus, she could hardly fulfill the obligations of MLRPC 1.4(a)(2), which required her to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of her case. Under MLRPC 1.2(a), it is professional misconduct to disregard a client's decisions about the objectives of the representation. Ms. Camus failed to further any of Ms. Martin's objectives, much less the simple objective that she take charge of the litigation. In her exceptions, Ms. Camus argues that Ms. Martin had an unattainable agenda, and contends that legitimate disagreements about her client's goals cannot be grounds for a violation of MLRPC 1.2(a). Whether Ms. Camus and Ms. Martin had a shared understanding of the aims of the representation, it was impossible for Ms. Camus to accommodate Ms. Martin's wishes in the case because Ms. Camus never entered her appearance. Moreover, by responding to Ms. Martin's questions with threats to terminate the representation, Ms. Camus violated both MLRPC 1.4(a)(2) and (3), under which an attorney must promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. By not explaining to Ms. Martin the need for timely completion of opposing counsel's discovery requests, Ms. Camus failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, a violation of MLRPC 1.4(b). Ms. Camus' mismanagement of the representation did not end when Ms. Martin retained new counsel. MLRPC 1.16(d) directs that [u]pon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as ... surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled[.] After obtaining another attorney, Ms. Martin made multiple attempts to retrieve her file from Ms. Camus, but the file was never prepared for her. Although Ms. Camus eventually provided her with a few items related to her case, Ms. Martin's interests were not served by the provision of these limited documents or the delays in transmitting them.