Opinion ID: 2681062
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Violations of MLRPC

Text: Neither party excepts to any of the hearing judge‟s conclusions of law. For the below reasons, we uphold all of the hearing judge‟s conclusions of law. MLRPC 1.1 (Competence) and MLRPC 1.3 (Diligence) “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” MLRPC 1.1. “Compliance with [MLRPC 1.1] requires more than knowing what to do. It requires applying the knowledge to the client‟s problem. . . . „Evidence of a failure to apply the requisite thoroughness and/or preparation in representing a client is sufficient alone to support a violation of [MLRPC] 1.1.‟” Attorney Grievance Comm‟n v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388, 397-98, 946 A.2d 1009, 1015 (2008) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm‟n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 54, 891 A.2d 1085, 1097 (2006)). “MLRPC 1.1 is violated when an attorney fails to act or acts in an untimely manner, resulting in harm to his or her client.” Attorney Grievance Comm‟n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 222, 46 A.3d 1169, 1177 (2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). -4- “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” MLRPC 1.3. “An attorney violates [MLRPC 1.3] when he/she takes no action whatsoever in representing his/her client.” Attorney Grievance Comm‟n v. Shakir, 427 Md. 197, 205, 46 A.3d 1162, 1167 (2012) (citation omitted). For example, where an attorney “fail[s] to pursue [a] claim after filing [a] complaint,” the attorney “demonstrat[es] incompetence and insufficient diligence in the matter, in violation of M[L]RPC 1.1 and 1.3 respectively.” Attorney Grievance Comm‟n v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708, 737, 28 A.3d 1196, 1213 (2011). Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge‟s conclusion that Gray violated MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3. After filing the complaint for limited divorce on behalf of Ms. Bustamante, Gray not only failed to take appropriate and timely action to pursue her client‟s claim, but she also failed to act diligently in representing Ms. Bustamante. Despite Ms. Bustamante‟s allegations that Mr. Bustamante was misusing and concealing assets, Gray failed to inquire into or to obtain Mr. Bustamante‟s testimony under oath on the matter, either in a deposition or in response to properly propounded interrogatories. Indeed, Gray failed to timely propound any discovery requests at all on behalf of Ms. Bustamante, sending her first set of discovery requests to Mr. Bustamante‟s counsel over four months after the deadline for completion of discovery had passed. Moreover, Gray failed to respond to discovery requests propounded by Mr. Bustamante‟s counsel, including Interrogatories and a Request for Production, and failed to respond when Mr. Bustamante‟s counsel filed a Motion to -5- Compel responses to the discovery requests. In short, Gray failed to respond whatsoever to any discovery request served by Mr. Bustamante‟s counsel. MLRPC 3.2 (Expediting Litigation) “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.” MLRPC 3.2. “An attorney violates [MLRPC 3.2] by delaying to take fundamental litigation steps in pursuit of the client‟s interest.” Garrett, 427 Md. at 226, 46 A.3d at 1179 (citations omitted). For example, “an attorney who fails to comply with discovery requests, and attempts to mitigate his or her shortcomings with „cryptic excuses,‟ violates MLRPC 3.2.” Attorney Grievance Comm‟n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298, 322-23, 44 A.3d 344, 359 (2012) (citation omitted). Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge‟s conclusion that Gray violated MLRPC 3.2. As discussed above, Gray utterly failed to comply with discovery requests and to respond to a motion to compel responses to the discovery requests. Gray also delayed in taking necessary and required steps on behalf of Ms. Bustamante, vividly demonstrated by her failure to timely submit a proposed Judgment of Absolute Divorce. Although Gray agreed to prepare the proposed judgment by February 16, 2012, as ordered by the circuit court, and even though the circuit court judge‟s law clerk had sent Gray a reminder letter dated February 22, 2012, as of April 11, 2012, the circuit court had not received the proposed judgment, and was required to order counsel for both parties to appear in chambers. As a result of Gray‟s failure to timely prepare the proposed judgment as ordered, a Judgment of Absolute Divorce was not entered in the -6- divorce case until May 4, 2012, almost three months after the parties had agreed upon a settlement. MLRPC 8.1(b) (Failing to Respond to Lawful Demand for Information from Disciplinary Authority) “[A] lawyer . . . in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from [a] disciplinary authority[.]” MLRPC 8.1(b). Pursuant to MLRPC 8.1(b), “an attorney must answer timely requests from the [] Commission regarding a complaint in a potential disciplinary matter.” Brown, 426 Md. at 323, 44 A.3d at 359 (citation omitted). Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge‟s conclusion that Gray violated MLRPC 8.1(b). It is undisputed that Gray failed to respond to two letters from the Commission, dated April 4, 2012, and April 30, 2012, regarding Ms. Bustamante‟s complaint.