Opinion ID: 1436435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Bar Counsel's Complaint

Text: On December 14, 2005, Maignan entered his appearance in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County on behalf of Mark Fleming, who was charged with burglary and other property offenses. A week later, on December 22, 2005, this Court entered an order indefinitely suspending Maignan from the practice of law. See Attorney Grievance v. Maignan, supra, 390 Md. 287, 888 A.2d 344. Bar Counsel alleged that, on December 30, Maignan appeared at a motions hearing in the Fleming case before Judge Richard Sothoron, that he represented to the judge that, despite his suspension, he was authorized to appear for Fleming on that date and falsely stated that he could continue his representation until January 13, 2006. On that averment, Bar Counsel charged Maignan with violating MRPC 3.3(a)(1) (Making false statement of fact to a tribunal), 5.5(a) (Unauthorized practice of law), 8.4(a) (Violating another MRPC), 8.4(c) (Conduct involving misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (Conduct prejudicial to administration of justice). After a hearing, Judge Northrop found that, by his appearance on December 30, while suspended, and by representing to Judge Sothoron that his representation of Fleming could continue until January 13, Maignan had violated each of those Rules. Maignan has filed exceptions to all of those conclusions, except MRPC 8.4(a). The principal evidence of what occurred before Judge Sothoron comes from the transcript of the December 30 proceeding, which was admitted into evidence, and from Maignan's testimony before Judge Northrop. Maignan testified that Judge Sothoron, obviously aware that Maignan had been suspended, convened a preliminary bench conference at which the suspension order was discussed. Maignan informed the judge that, based on his calculations, he had fifteen days to wrap up certain matters that had to be wrapped up before the suspension would take into effect. The judge then asked when that 15-day period would end, to which Maignan replied, either January 6 or 13. Maignan said that he had been on vacation when our suspension order was filed and did not learn of it until his return on December 27. He apparently believed that he had a 15-day grace period, commencing when he learned of the order on the 27th. Judge Sothoron then left the bench for a time, and, when he returned, told Maignan that he could proceed but would have to let the judge know when he would be withdrawing. None of that is recorded in the transcript of the December 30 hearing. The transcript begins with a brief introductory statement by the judge, noting that Maignan had entered his appearance on December 14, that trial was scheduled for January 19, that the motions hearing was initially set for December 23 but had to be postponed to the 30th because the detention center had failed to transport Fleming to court. Judge Sothoron then asked whether the State was ready to proceed. Complaining that, given the short period of postponement  only a week with the intervening Christmas holiday  the State had been unable to notify its witnesses of the new date, the State sought another postponement, to which Maignan objected. The court granted the State's request and scheduled the matter for January 13, 2006. The judge asked if Maignan would be able to represent Fleming. Maignan replied, If I can't, Your Honor, I will arrange. Judge Sothoron then advised Fleming that Maignan would not be able to represent him at trial on January 19, and that Fleming would need to find another lawyer. He then asked Maignan what the last day would be that he could represent Fleming, to which Maignan replied, My understanding is the 13th. The court looked for a convenient date to hold an attorney status inquiry, and, with Maignan's acquiescence, selected January 13. That concluded the hearing. Bar Counsel's complaint and Judge Northrop's conclusions were based on the fact that our order of indefinite suspension took effect immediately upon entry of the order, on December 22, 2005, and that Maignan was not authorized to practice law thereafter. His appearance in court before Judge Sothoron on December 30 was therefore unlawful and his representation that he could continue to represent Fleming until January 13 was false. Maignan does not contest that his suspension took effect on December 22. He argues, however, that, under Maryland Rule 16-760(c), he had at least fifteen days from the date of that order to conclude current client matters, which allowed him to appear at the motions hearing on December 30. He acknowledges that, even under his reading of Rule 16-760(c)(3), the 15-day grace period, if applicable, would expire before January 13, but he urges that his assertion that he could continue to represent Fleming until the 13th was an innocent mistake, not a deliberate misrepresentation. The issue here is governed by Maryland Rule 16-760, which deals with the effect of an order suspending or disbarring a lawyer. Rule 16-760, which took effect July 1, 2001, replaced former Rule 16-713. In relevant part, Rule 16-713 stated flatly that an attorney may not practice law after entry of an order disbarring the attorney, placing the attorney on inactive status, or accepting the attorney's resignation or during the period the attorney, by order, is suspended. The Rule did not provide for either a delayed effect of a disbarment or suspension order or a post-order grace period during which the attorney could wind up his or her practice or act to protect existing clients. Under Rule 16-713, the vast majority of suspension or disbarment orders entered by consent, or to implement reciprocal discipline to that imposed in other States took effect immediately, and they still do under Rule 16-760. See, for example, Attorney Griev. Comm. v. Essrick, 343 Md. 1, 680 A.2d 464 (1996); Attorney Griev. Comm. v. Williams, 348 Md. 362, 704 A.2d 420 (1998); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Saul, 337 Md. 258, 653 A.2d 430 (1995); Attorney Grievance v. Richardson, 350 Md. 354, 712 A.2d 525 (1998); Attorney Grievance v. Evans, 394 Md. 302, 905 A.2d 384 (2006); Attorney Grievance v. Bakare, 394 Md. 303, 905 A.2d 840 (2006). There were, however, cases in which suspension orders entered by consent had a delayed effective date. See Attorney Grievance v. Maier, 351 Md. 654, 719 A.2d 978 (1998); Attorney Grievance v. Leader, 351 Md. 655, 719 A.2d 978 (1998); Attorney Grievance v. Adams, 350 Md. 746, 715 A.2d 213 (1998). Whether consent orders for suspension had a delay provision seemed to depend on what was agreed to by Bar Counsel and the attorney and not on any deliberative adjudication by the Court. On the other hand, when a suspension or disbarment was non-consensual, involved a lawyer actually practicing in Maryland, and was accompanied by an Opinion of the Court, the Opinion often, though not always, provided for a 30-day delay in the order taking effect. See, for example, Attorney Grievance v. Brennan, 350 Md. 489, 502, 714 A.2d 157, 163 (1998); Attorney Grievance v. Ober, 350 Md. 616, 632, 714 A.2d 856, 864 (1998); Attorney Grievance v. Post, 350 Md. 85, 101, 710 A.2d 935, 943 (1998); Attorney Grievance v. Cohen, 361 Md. 161, 179, 760 A.2d 706, 716 (2000); but compare Attorney Griev. Comm. v. Milliken, 348 Md. 486, 704 A.2d 1225 (1998); Attorney Grievance v. Middleton, 360 Md. 34, 756 A.2d 565 (2000). In its 144th Report to the Court, filed in March, 1999, the Court's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure recommended a substantial revision in the Rules governing the disciplining of lawyers for ethical violations. See 26:9 Md. Register 677 et seq. (April 23, 1999). Proposed Rule 16-770, intended to supplant Rule 16-713, attempted to address some of the implementation issues arising from an order of suspension or disbarment  issues not addressed in Rule 16-713 but sometimes dealt with in the individual orders entered by the Court. Section (a) of the proposed Rule provided that an order disbarring or suspending a lawyer may provide that the order shall become effective immediately or on an effective date stated in the order and that [i]f no effective date is stated, the order shall take effect 30 days after the date of the order. That provision, the Reporter's Note advised, was modeled after Rule 27E of the ABA Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement and was intended to provide a transition period to enable the disciplined attorney to wind down his or her practice, give notices, transfer files, and perform the other duties imposed by section (c). See 26:9 Md. Register, at 708. [4] Section (c) listed various duties that a suspended or disbarred lawyer would be required to perform. In part, that section was derived from ABA Model Rule 27F and G; in part, it iterated things that this Court had occasionally required in individual suspension or disbarment orders. See, for example, Attorney Grievance v. Massagli, 352 Md. 277, 721 A.2d 698 (1998) and other cases cited in Reporter's Note to proposed Rule 16-770 (26:9 Md. Register at 709). The intent was to consolidate those wind-up duties in the Rule itself, to avoid having to state them in individual orders. The Court made substantial revisions to many of the Rules Committee's proposals, and, although it left most of proposed Rule 16-770 (which, as the result of other revisions, was renumbered to Rule 16-760) intact, we made critical changes to sections (a) and (c)(1). Section (a) was rewritten to provide: Unless otherwise stated in the order, an order providing for the disbarment, suspension, or reprimand of a respondent or the placement of a respondent on inactive status shall take effect immediately. The order may provide that the disbarment, suspension, reprimand, or placement on inactive status be deferred for a specified period of time to allow the respondent a reasonable opportunity to comply with the requirements of section (c) of this Rule. That, in effect, reversed the default provided for in the Rules Committee proposal and in the ABA Model Rule: the order was to take effect immediately unless it provided otherwise. The intent was to require the Court to act affirmatively if it wanted to delay the effect of the order. Section (c), as recommended by the Rules Committee, directed, in relevant part, that, unless otherwise stated in the order, a lawyer who is suspended or disbarred: (c)(1) shall not undertake any further legal matters or accept any new clients (Emphasis added), (c)(2) shall take any action necessary to protect current clients, (c)(3) shall conclude any current client matters that can be concluded within 15 days of the date of the order, and (c)(6) within 30 days after the date of the order, shall withdraw from all client matters. We left the last three of those provisions essentially intact, but we rewrote § (c)(1) to require that the suspended or disbarred lawyer not accept any new clients or undertake any new or further representation of existing clients.  (Emphasis added). That change was intended to make more specific the recommended prohibition against undertaking further legal matters, to make clear that, unless the order provided otherwise, the attorney could not undertake any further representation of existing clients. Unless the Court affirmatively chose otherwise, a suspended or disbarred lawyer simply could not continue to practice law, even for existing clients. Since our adoption of Rule 16-760, the Court has rarely delayed the effect of disbarment or suspension orders, even in non-consensual cases involving lawyers who were actively practicing in Maryland, in which a full Opinion was filed. [5] Only in a handful of cases, mostly involving short periods of suspension, has the Court delayed the effect of the order. See Attorney Grievance v. Potter, 380 Md. 128, 164, 844 A.2d 367, 388 (2004); Attorney Grievance v. Kreamer, 387 Md. 503, 539, 876 A.2d 79, 100 (2005); Attorney Grievance v. Obi, 393 Md. 643, 661, 904 A.2d 422, 432 (2006); Attorney Grievance v. Ward, 394 Md. 1, 39, 904 A.2d 477, 500 (2006); Attorney Grievance v. Rees, 396 Md. 248, 255, 913 A.2d 68, 72 (2006); see also Attorney Grievance v. Ficker, 399 Md. 445, 455, 924 A.2d 1105, 1111 (2007). Maignan's case did not fall into that category. As noted, the suspension was effective immediately, on December 22, 2005. Although some of the provisions of section (c) may, at first glance, appear inconsistent with a suspension or disbarment order that takes effect immediately, they are not really so and can be read in harmony with section (a). Most are basically clerical or housekeeping in nature. See Rule 16-760(c)(4), (5), and (7) through (12). The only ones at issue here are those noted above  § (c)(1), (2), (3), and (6)  and they, too, can be read harmoniously. Section (c)(1) is the critical provision: from and after the effective date of the order, the lawyer shall not accept any new clients or undertake any new or further representation of existing clients.  (Emphasis added). There is nothing unclear about that provision and nothing inconsistent between it and the requirement in § (c)(3) that the attorney conclude current client matters that can be concluded within 15 days after the date of the order, or the requirement in § (c)(6) that the attorney withdraw from all client matters within 30 days. Eyen within those times, intended to permit the attorney to do what is necessary to sever all professional connection with his or her clients  delivery of files, notifying judicial or other tribunals and various interested persons, withdrawing appearances, assisting the client in finding other counsel, etc.  the attorney may not provide further representation for those clients. The one provision that needs some clarification is § (c)(2), requiring the lawyer to take any action necessary to protect current clients. That may require a very prompt notice to the client, to adverse or other interested parties, and to tribunals in which litigation is pending. It may require expedited efforts to assist the client in obtaining new counsel, and, if necessary because of a true emergency, a request of this Court to consider a limited stay of the disbarment or suspension order. It cannot properly be read, however, as contravening the clear prohibition in § (c)(1) against any further representation of a client. [6] In the case at hand, Maignan should have advised the court, as soon as he learned of the suspension, that he was not permitted to continue his representation of Fleming, on December 30 or at any time thereafter. His failure to do that, coupled with his appearance on behalf of Fleming and his assertion that his representation could continue until January 13, did, indeed, constitute a violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d), and we therefore overrule his exceptions to Judge Northrop's findings.