Opinion ID: 2087719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Complaint of Wayne B. Gunther

Text: In respect to the complaint involving Wayne B. Gunther, we conclude that there is nothing in the hearing judge's findings of fact that would support a conclusion that respondent violated MRPC 1.2. Mr. Gunther's dissatisfaction with respondent's representation alone does not establish a violation of MRPC 1.2. The hearing judge's findings in respect to this complaint provide simply that Mr. Gunther retained Mr. Briscoe on November 24, 1997 for a criminal matter and paid the Respondent, ... $500.00. Complainant, being dissatisfied ..., asked for a refund of some of his fee and the Respondent promised to make the refund. Respondent thereafter advised the Complainant that he had signed a non-refundable retainer agreement but no such agreement has ever been produced.... [T]he Respondent ... failed to cooperate with the Commission. We conclude that respondent violated the provisions of Maryland Rules 16-603 and 16-604. Additionally, he has violated MRPC 1.16(d), by not promptly returning Mr. Gunther's retainer fee upon request, [13] and MRPC 8.1(b), in that the hearing judge found that he failed to cooperate with the petitioner in an attorney disciplinary matter.