Opinion ID: 2257578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: MRPC 1.15(b) and 1.3

Text: Respondent notes that his failure to promptly distribute settlement funds is fundamental to this determination, and defends as perfectly acceptable his decision to await the final settlement of all related claims before disbursing client funds. Respondent also asserts that his client did not receive the settlement proceeds only because the client failed to meet Respondent's colleague as agreed, that his failure to promptly pay medical providers was due to his ongoing negotiations with them on behalf of his client, and that the conclusion that Respondent delayed payment for his own benefit is dependant on the bank records and nevertheless unsupported by the findings of fact. We overrule Respondent's above exceptions. Respondent's failure to promptly deliver settlement funds to his client and to medical providers was not perfectly acceptable under MRPC 1.15(b), which provides that, [e]xcept as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive. We have previously held that an attorney who does not pay a client's debt from settlement funds violates Rule 1.15(b)[.] Cherry-Mahoi, supra, 388 Md. at 156-57, 879 A.2d at 78 (citations omitted). Further, an attorney's failure to pay medical providers demonstrates a lack of diligence in violation of Rule 1.3. Id. at 157, 879 A.2d at 78 (citing Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Gallagher, 371 Md. 673, 710, 810 A.2d 996, 1018 (2002)). In the instant case, the fact that the client allegedly missed a meeting with Respondent's colleague in which the funds were to be dispersed is immaterial since it was Respondent's responsibility to turn over the funds to his client. As the hearing judge found, any negotiations with medical providers were initiated solely by Respondent, and Respondent did not inform his client of any such negotiations until a month after the funds became available. The hearing judge's conclusion that Respondent delayed payment for his own benefit finds support in the bank records, is not clearly erroneous.