Court Opinion

ID: 9694021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:19:01.117946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:54.509871
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
HARRELL, J.,
which BATTAGLIA and BARBERA, JJ., join.
I dissent in part and join in part the Court’s opinion. I subscribe to the Court sustaining Petitioner’s exception to the hearing judge’s refusal to conclude that a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) 8.1(b) occurred. I disagree, however, with the Court’s failure to sustain Petitioner’s exceptions as to the MRPC 1.4 and 8.4(d) charges and the Court’s selection of a reprimand as the appropriate sanction. For myself, I would sustain each of the Attorney Grievance Commission’s (“AGC”) exceptions and suspend Queen indefinitely, with the right to apply for reinstatement no sooner than ninety (90) days from the effective date of the suspension.
*573I.
As to the charge that Queen violated MRPC 1.4, the hearing judge’s commingled findings of fact and conclusions of law do not disclose much with regard to her reasons for declaring, in a conclusory manner, that “Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated MRPC 1.4.” The only hint from her findings and conclusion on this charge that reveal to me a glimpse of her possible reasoning is the credit she gives to Queen for being “fully forthcoming” about the Circuit Court’s dismissal of Abarza’s case, his urging of her to get another lawyer and to pursue Queen for legal malpractice, and turning over those portions of his file on her case so that the invited malpractice claim might be evaluated. While this conduct generally, and in isolation here, is praiseworthy, its value in deciding whether a violation of MRPC 1.4 occurred is slight; it is better considered in mitigation of sanction.
The violation of MRPC 1.4 occurred, it seems to me, before Queen became “fully forthcoming.” MRPC 1.4 generally addresses the duty of promptness owed by attorneys to clients in communicating matters regarding the status of their cases so that clients may make informed decisions. Queen conceded that he did not discuss with Abarza that her case in the Circuit Court had been dismissed in June 2005 until June 2006 when he met with her and her family to tell them the unauthorized appeal he took from that dismissal also had been dismissed. Both dismissals were occasioned by Queen’s neglect in handling the matters properly. The hearing judge did not find that any of Queen’s employees communicated these important bits of information to Abarza before he met with her a year after the initial dismissal. Had Queen communicated promptly with Abarza when the Circuit Court initially dismissed the complaint on 22 June 2005, perhaps she could have found another attorney who could have discerned properly the name of the entity to sue and revived her action in the trial court.
*574The hearing judge was clearly wrong in failing to recognize a violation of MRPC 1.4.
II.
A failure to represent a client adequately -violates MRPC 8.4(d). Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 83, 753 A.2d 17, 31 (2000); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 353 Md. 271, 286, 725 A.2d 1069, 1076 (1999). It is clear that Queen failed to represent Abarza adequately. The hearing judge found that he “was negligent in his handling of Ms. Abarza’s case.” His failure to sue the correct legal entity or amend the misnomer resulted in dismissal of her complaint in the Circuit Court. He failed to communicate this fact to her for a year. He prosecuted (badly) an unauthorized appeal and, failing twice to meet briefing deadlines, caused the appeal to be dismissed by the Court of Special Appeals. Thus, we are not confronted here with a single instance of inadequate representation, albeit all of the mishaps affected a single client.
The hearing judge, in part, premised her finding that no violation of MRPC 8.4(d) occurred on an erroneous reliance on Comment 2 to MRPC 8.4 (addressing the implications of “illegal conduct” in a criminal sense and the archaic role of moral turpitude in determining whether such offenses constitute collateral ethical violations for attorneys). Comment 2 patently is directed to interpreting the proper application of MRPC 8.4(b) and/or (c), neither of which was Queen charged with violating in this case. This misunderstanding of the utility and application of Comment 2 to an analysis of whether a violation of MRPC 8.4(d) occurred erodes my confidence in her reasoning with its insertion of situationally irrelevant consideration of the non-existence of moral turpitude in this case. Moreover, she resorts here also to consideration of facts that bear more suitably on mitigation, rather than on the question of whether a violation occurred vel non, i.e., Queen’s belated owning-up to his client regarding his negligence and paying her a settlement of her possible claim from his own *575funds. Consequently, I would conclude that a violation of MRPC 8.4(d) was proved by clear and convincing evidence.
III.
Joining my analysis supra to that of the unexcepted-to portions of the hearing judge’s findings and conclusions and this Court’s sustaining of Petitioner’s exception regarding the MRPC 8.1(b) charge, Queen stands before me as having violated MRPC 1.1,1.3,1.4, 8.1(b) and 8.4(d). The appropriate sanction for those violations is a difficult call.
Consideration of the sanction here caused me to recall an analysis I authored for the Court in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lee, 393 Md. 546, 903 A.2d 895 (2006):
Indefinite suspension from the practice of law is the proper sanction where the attorney violates MRPC 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) by failing to communicate with the client and failing to cooperate with Bar Counsel and where the attorney’s conduct is not so egregious that only disbarment can adequately protect the public. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kovacic, 389 Md. 233, 884 A.2d 673 (2005). In Kovacic, the attorney violated MRPC 1.3, 1.4, and 8.1(b) by failing to communicate with her client in a divorce proceeding and failing to respond timely to Bar Counsel’s inquiries. Kovacic, 389 Md. at 239, 884 A.2d at 676. Noting that there was “neither a finding, nor any basis for mitigating the respondent’s misconduct,” we imposed the sanction of indefinite suspension even though the attorney had no prior sanction history. Kovacic, 389 Md. at 240, 884 A.2d at 677. See also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rose, 391 Md. 101, 113, 892 A.2d 469, 476 (2006) (holding that indefinite suspension is the proper sanction where the attorney violated MRPC 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d), among others, for client neglect and failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel and had received previously an indefinite suspension with the right to seek reinstatement in six months for similar violations).
On the other hand, we also have imposed a sanction of reprimand for similar violations of the MRPC where there *576are significant mitigating factors, such as remorse and a history of pro bono work by a respondent. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tolar, 357 Md. 569, 745 A.2d 1045 (2000). The attorney in Tolar violated MRPC 1.3 and 1.4 by failing to communicate adequately to her client, and MRPC 8.1(b) by failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s requests in the investigation. Despite her prior sanction history, consisting of two private reprimands, and her violations almost identical to those in Kovacic, she received the less severe sanction of a public reprimand because she was remorseful for her misconduct and because we found that repetition of the misconduct was unlikely. Tolar, 357 Md. at 585, 745 A.2d at 1053-54. We also found it significant in Tolar that the attorney provided considerable pro bono service to the community, another mitigating factor that called for a less severe sanction. Tolar, 357 Md. at 584, 745 A.2d at 1053.
In the instant case, Respondent’s misconduct closely resembles that in Kovacic and Tolar. Among the rules violated by Respondent are MRPC 1.3, 1.4, and 8.1(b), the same rules violated by the attorneys in those two cases. Unlike the attorney in Kovacic, however, Respondent also violated MRPC 1.16, 3.2, and 8.4(d), and previously has received two sanctions for similar misconduct: a public reprimand in Lee IT[1] for violations of MRPC 1.3 and 1.4, and an indefinite suspension, with the right to reapply no sooner than one year, in Lee III[2] for violations of MRPC 1.3, 1.4(a), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c). Thus, a sanction at least as severe as the one imposed in Kovacic is appropriate. Absent any significant mitigating factors, such as those substantiated in Tolar, indefinite suspension from the practice of law is the proper sanction for Respondent’s violations in the present case.
Lee, 393 Md. at 564-66, 903 A.2d at 906-07.
It seems to me that the present case calls for a similar triangulation approach. Queen’s violations and conduct are *577not as egregious as in Lee and he does not have a prior record of disciplinary sanctions as did Lee. Thus, an open-ended indefinite suspension seems inappropriate. Queen’s situation also has some mitigating factors, á la Tolar, though not all of the same character as in Tolar; here we have remorse, unlikelihood of repetition of the errant conduct, belated candor towards the client regarding his errors, and paying from his pocket to compensate the client for his errors and omissions. Yet, I am unable to reconcile a reprimand in the present case, in view of the indefinite suspension meted-out to the first-time offender in Kovacie. Feeling a little like a forward observer calling in artillery fire on a target, I would suspend Queen indefinitely, with a right to apply for reinstatement no sooner than 90 days following the effective date of the suspension.
Judge Battaglia and Judge Barbera authorize me to state that they join this dissent.

. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 390 Md. 517, 890 A.2d 273 (2006).

. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 393 Md. 385, 903 A.2d 360 (2006).