Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG NO. 14 SEPTEMBE R TERM, 2005

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. SEAN W. BAKER

Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene JJ.

Opinion by Bell, C.J.

Filed: December 11, 2006

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar C ounsel, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Sea n W. Ba ker, the respo ndent. Th e petition, the p roduct of reciprocal

discipline proceedings and two unrelated complaints,2 in addition to noting the respondent's disbarment by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, charged that the respondent violated Rules 1.3, Diligence, 3 1.4, Communication,4 1.16, Declining or terminating representation,5 and 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters,6 of the

1

Maryland Rule 16-751, as relevant, provides: "(a) Co mmen cemen t of disc iplinary or remed ial action . "(1) Upon approval of the Commission. Upon approval or direction of the Commission, Bar Counsel shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals."
2

These proceedings began with a petition, filed by Bar Counsel, seeking reciprocal discipline in light of the respondent's disbarment by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Subsequent to the issuance of a show cause order in respect of that matter, other complaints against the respondent, unrelated to the disbarment, were filed with the petitioner and ultimately were made the subject of separate show cause orders issued by this Court. Following argument in this Court on the show cause orders, we referred the ch arges to Judge Ro bert E. Cahill, Jr., of the Circuit Court for B altimore County for a consolidated determination and the petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Discip linary or R emed ial Actio n. Rule 1.3 re quires "[a] la wyer [to] act w ith reasonab le diligence a nd prom ptness in represe nting a c lient."
4 3

Rule 1.4 provides: "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. "(b) A law yer shall explain a matter to the extent reaso nably necessa ry to permit th e client to make inform ed dec isions re gardin g the rep resenta tion."
5

Rule 1.16, as pertinent, provides: * * * * "(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent

Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812. We referred the case, pursuant to Rule 16-752 (a), 7 to the Hon orable Ro bert E. Cah ill, Jr., of the Circ uit Court fo r Baltimore Co unty, for hearing pursuant to R ule 16-757 (c). 8

reasonab ly practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reas onable notice to the client, allowing time for em ployment of other counsel, surrendering papers an d property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the clie nt to the e xtent pe rmitted b y other law ."
6

Rule 8.1 p rovides, as re levant: "An ap plicant for ad mission or re instatemen t to the bar or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary ma tter, shall not: * * * * "(b) fail to disc lose a fact n ecessary to corr ect a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for info rmation from an ad miss ions or disciplinar y auth ority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6."
7

Rule 16-752 (a) provides: "(a) Order. Upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the Court of Appeals may enter an order designating a judge of any circuit court to hear the action and the clerk responsible for maintaining the record. The order of designation shall require the judge, after consultation with Bar Counsel and the attorney, to enter a scheduling order defining the extent of discovery and setting dates for the completion of discovery, filing of motions, and hearing."
8

Maryland Rule 16-757 (c) provides: "(c) Findin gs and co nclusions. T he judge s hall prepare and file or d ictate into the record a statement of the judge's findings of fact, including findings as to any evidence regarding remedial action, and con clusions of law. If dictated into the record, the statement shall be promptly transcribed. Unless the time is extended by the Court of Appeals, the written or transcribed statement shall be filed with the clerk responsible for the record no later 2

After the hearing, at which the respondent appeared and participated, including testifying, and the petitioner offered, and the h earing court accepted, two exhibits, one of which was the petitioner's Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents and the other the respondent's Response to Petitioner's Request for A dmissions, the hearing co urt found facts by the clear and convincing standard and drew conclusions of law, both as follows (footnotes omitted): "I) PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION BASED ON ORDER OF DISBARMENT ENTERED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ON MAY 9, 2005. "Respondent was eng aged to represent a William A. Younkin in a civil action asserted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on July 28, 2003. On December 10, 2003, Respondent was ordered to show cause by December 29, 2003 why the case he filed should not be dismissed after it had been dormant for over five months. Respondent filed a belated response to the Court's order on January 5, 2004. On Ja nuary 8, 2 004, a scheduling order was filed. Respondent did not meet the scheduling order deadlines. Specifically, the Respondent failed to meet the March 8, 2004 deadline for iden tifying ex pert wi tnesses . On April 7, 2004, the U.S. District Court extended the time to file disclosu res regarding expert witnesses and issued a show c ause orde r as to why respondent should not be responsible for defendant's costs in continuing to defend the action. Respondent failed to comply with the

than 45 days after the conclusion of the hearing. The clerk shall mail a copy of the statement to each party." 3

show cause order a nd on A pril 27, 2004 sanctions w ere impos ed against R esponde nt. Moreover, Responden t failed to meet the extended deadline for identification of p laintiff's expert witnesses. On April 29, 2004 defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was ultimately granted, to which Respondent did not respond. "On June 4, 2004 the U.S. District Court entered an award of monetary sanctions against Re sponden t in the amo unt of $3 56.17. Th e Court or dered that th e amoun t be paid to the defendant by June 25, 2004. Respondent failed to pay the monetary sanction by the date ordered. In response, the U.S. District Court ordered on July 14, 2004 that Respondent appear before the court on July 20 , 2004 to sho w cause why he sho uld not be h eld in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's order. Respondent failed to appear o n July 20, 2004. A warrant was issued for his arrest, and Respondent was arrested and brought before the Court on July 21, 2004. The Court passed an order that held R esponde nt in contempt and forwarded the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the U.S . District Cou rt. On November 2, 2004, the U.S. District Court sent a letter to Respondent requesting a written explanation as to the Respondent[']s failure to answer or comply with any of the C ourt's orders. Respondent did not respond to the letter. "On February 3, 2005, the U.S. District Court issued an order requiring Respondent to show cause why he should not be appropriately sanctioned for his failure to respond to any and all corre spond ence. A three-judge panel was scheduled for March 11, 2005. Respondent 4

finally appeared. At the hearing, Respondent was required to respond in writing to the Cou rt's November 2, 2004 letter on or before March 25, 2005. This information was stated again in a letter dated March 11, 2005. Respondent did not respond to the Court's order or the letter dated March 11, 2005. As a result Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on May 10, 2005. "Maryland Rule 16-7 73(g) read s, in pertinent p art: "`final adjudication in a disciplinary or remedial p roceeding by another co urt, agen cy, or tribunal that an attorney has been guilty of professional misconduct or is incapacitated is conclusive evidence of that misconduct or incapacity in any proceeding of this C hapter' "This Cou rt fin ds th at Re spon dent has violated Rules 3.4 and 8.4 . By his actions, or lack thereof, Respondent has knowingly disobeyed his obligation to the tribunal and failed to make reasonab ly diligent efforts toward the fair and o rderly completion of discovery. Respondent ignored all responsibility for adhering to the rules and procedure of the United States Distric t Court. The Court is not persuaded that these failu res resulted in whole o r in part from depression, alcoh ol use or the other problems which Respondent sought to raise factually to mitigate his f ailure to obey numerous rules of the tribunal. Respondent has engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. "II) COMPLAINT OF BARBARA AND MICHELE CLANTON "Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed in his duty to abide by the Maryland Rules of Profession al Condu ct, specifically Ru les 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 , and 8.1 w ith regard to

5

Respondent's handling of Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' case. "Support for Petition er's assertions wa s bes t sum marized in Pe tition er's Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, which was admitted into evidence as `Petition er's Exhibit I.' The facts were verified by and further elaborated on by Ms. ClantonEdmo nds' tes timony at the hea ring on June 1 9, 2006 . "Ms. Clanton-Edmonds testified that in August 2001 she and her daughter in law, Michele Clanto n, engaged Respondent to investigate and assert a claim against Lorien Frankford Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (hereinafter `Lorien.'). The claim was based upon that facility's alleged negligence in caring for Elwin Clanton over a period of several weeks imm edia tely pr ior to his d eath on Ju ly 24, 2001. Elwin Clanton was Ms. ClantonEdmonds' son and Michele Clanton's wife. Although Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Clanton-Edmonds and Michele Clanton, Respondent failed to file su it within the a ppropriate time required by the statute of limitations against Lorien or any other potentially liable en tity or individual. Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' testimony showed that despite h er repeated requests for information regarding the filing and status of her case, such information was not provided to her by Res ponden t. Respondent failed to notify Ms. Clanton-Edmonds or Michele Clanton when he vacated his law office in the spring of 2004. Furthermore, Ms. Clanton-Edmonds' testimony indicated that she was not notified that Respondent was terminating representation of her in 6

the matter.

R espon dent's fa ilure to tim ely notify M s. Clanton-Edmonds that he was

terminating his representation left her without sufficient time to secure employment of other counsel. Con sequ ently, her case was barred by the statute of limitations. Also, Ms. ClantonEdmonds stated that Respondent had not returned the original papers and photographs she gave to R esponde nt. "As a result of Respondent's actions, Ms. Clanton-Edmonds and Michele Cla nton filed a compla int against Respondent with Bar Counsel. Respondent received a letter on April 30, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to a complaint made by Ms. Clanton-Edmonds. Respondent failed to respond to the April 30, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on May 26, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to a complaint made by Ms. C lanton- Edmo nds. Respon dent failed to respond to the M ay 26, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on June 17, 2004 requesting a response to Ms. ClantonEdmonds' complaint. Respondent failed to respond to the June 17, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on July 2, 2004 from B ar Counsel reque sting a response to Ms. ClantonEdmonds' complaint. Once again, Respondent failed to answer the letter. Respondent at no point subm itted any respon se to Bar Counse l's request for information in regard to Ms. Clanton-E dmond s' complaint. "This court finds that, as a matter of law, Respondent has violated [R]ules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.1 in f ailing to answ er the repea ted queries o f Bar Co unsel. Respondent violated 7

rule 1.3 by not by not acting with diligence and promptness in either filing a claim for Ms. Clanton-Edmonds or informing her that he was not going to file a claim because he did not believe there was a substantial basis for doing so. Respondent violated [R]ule 1.4 by not keeping Ms. Clanton-Edmonds informed about the status, or lack thereof, of her case. Respondent has violated [R]ule 1.16 in failing to inform Ms. Clanton-Edmonds he was shutting the doors to his law practice and failing to return to Ms. Clanton-Edmonds her docume nts and photographs. Respondent has violated [R]ule 8.1 in failing to answer the repeate d queri es of B ar Cou nsel. "Respondent offered m itigation abou t his mother's illne ss, his father's illness and ultimate death, his depression, his alcohol use to treat said depression, his treatment for alcohol abuse, and his relapse w ith alcohol. T he Cou rt did not find Respondent's mitigation to be persuasive. "III) COMPLAINT OF TERRENCE K. BRADLEY "Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed in his d uty to abide by the Maryland Rules of Professional conduct, specifically Rule 8.1. Support for Petitioner's assertions was best summarized by Petitioner's Re quest for A dmission o f Facts and Genuineness of Docume nts, which was ad mitted in to evide nce as ` Petition er's Exh ibit I.' "Respondent agreed to represent Terrence K. Bradley in October of 2000 on a criminal assault charge and an expungement of records relating to a separate, prior charge. 8

Respondent handled the defense of the assault charge adequ ately, but failed to respond to Mr. Bradley's request for information relating to the expung ement. Respondent received a letter on May 5, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to a complaint made by Mr. Bradley. Respondent failed to respond to the May 5, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on June 17, 2004 requesting a respo nse to M r. Bradl ey's comp laint. Respondent failed to respond to the June 17, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on July 2, 2004 from Once again, Respondent

bar counsel requesting a response to Mr. Bradley's complaint.

failed to answer the letter. Respondent at no point subm itted any re spon se to Bar Cou nsel's request fo r informatio n in regards to Mr. Br adley's comp laint. "Respondent offered mitigation about his mother's illness, his father's illness and ultimate death, his de pression, his a lcohol use to treat said depression, his treatment for alcohol abuse, and his relapse w ith alcohol. T he Cou rt did not find Respondent's mitigation to be persuasive as it failed to reach the preponderance of the evidence standard as required by the Maryland Rules. "This court finds that, as a matter of law, Respondent has violated Rule 1.4 [9] in

Although not taking any exceptions, the petitioner notes an error in the hearing court's c onclus ions. A lthoug h the res ponde nt was charge d with a violatio n of R ule 1.4 in the original Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, filed with the Court May 24, 2005, it was not charged in the amended Petition, filed February 14, 2006, the petitioner presumably having determined not to pursue it. Accordingly, as to the Bradley complain t, the only Rule v iolation that co uld have b een foun d and, there fore, is sanctio nable, is Rule 8 .1. 9

9

failing to address M r. Bradley's reque st for information as well as R ule 8.1 in failin g to answer the repeated queries of Bar Counsel." Neither the petitioner nor the respond ent takes exceptions to the h earing court's findings of facts or conclusions of law. The respondent did appear for argument but did not file a recommendation for sanction. The petitioner has made a recommendation for In support of that recommendation, the

disposition, that the respondent be disbarred.

petitioner relies on the respondent's disbarment from the practice of law in the federal District Court, refe rencing the circumstan ces that resulted in that sa nction, wh ich it characterizes as "a series of repea ted failures o n the part of the Respo ndent to m eet courtmandated discovery deadlines and to comply with court orders." In addition to the

disbarme nt, the petitioner relies on the misconduct the hearing court found the respondent to have engaged in in connection with the two complaints filed with the petitioner. Of particular importance to the petitione r is the respon dent's failure or refusal to r espond to "multiple letters from Bar Cou nsel requesting a response to the complaint," an omission, characterized as "disdain ," it equated " with the disrespect [the respo ndent] dem onstrated to the U.S. Distric t Court's D isciplinary and A dmissions Committee." Also relevant, of course, is the nature of the misconduct itself and its effect - failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to keep the clients informed and the ultimate abandonment of the clients, without returning the ir file, with the re sult that any caus e of action they may have h ad was lo st. 10

The purpose of disciplinary proceedings and the sanctions that flow f rom them is well settled. It is, as we have stated often, to protect the public. Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Pennington 387 Md. 565, 601-602, 876 A.2d 642, 663-64 (2005 ); Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Kreamer, 387 Md. 503, 533-34, 876 A.2d 79, 97-98 (2005); Attorney Grievance C omm'n v. Steinb erg, 385 Md. 696, 703, 870 A. 2d 603, 607 (2005); Attorney G rievance C omm'n v . Stein, 373 Md. 531, 533, 819 A.2d 372, 375 (2003 ); Attorney Grievan ce Com m'n v. Shein bein, 372 M d. 224, 255, 8 12 A.2d 981 , 999 (2002); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Powell, 369 Md. 462, 474, 800 A .2d 782, 789 (200 2); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hess, 352 Md. 438, 453, 722 A.2d 905, 913 (1999); Attorney Grievance. Comm'n v. Webster, 348 Md. 662, 678, 705 A.2 d 1135, 1 143 (199 8); Attorney Grievance Com m'n v. Awuah, 346 M d. 420, 435 , 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997) . It is no t to punish the erring a ttorney. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Christopher, 383 Md. 624, 639, 861 A.2d 69 2, 701 (20 04); Attorney G rievance C omm'n v . Wyatt, 323 Md. 36, 38, 591 A.2d 467, 468 (1991). That purpose is achieved when sanctions are imposed that are

commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were comm itted. Awuah, 346 M d. at 435, 69 7 A.2d a t 454; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448, 483, 671 A.2d 463, 480 (1996 ); Attorney Grievance C omm'n v. M yers, 333 Md. 44 0, 447, 635 A.2d 13 15, 1318 (1994). Th is is so, becaus e such san ctions prom ote general and sp ecific d eterren ce, Atto rney G rievance Com m'n v. Sliffman, 330 Md. 515, 529, 11

625 A.2d 31 4, 321 (19 93); Atto rney G rievance Com m'n v. Berger, 326 Md. 129, 131, 604 A.2d 58 (1992) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 334, 355, 587 A.2d 511, 521 (1991)), p rotect th e integri ty of the le gal pro fession , Attorney Grievance Com m'n v. Cassidy, 362 Md. 689, 698, 766 A.2d 632, 637 (2001), further the public's confidence in the leg al profe ssion, Stein, 373 Md. at 533, 819 A.2d at 375 (20 03); Powell, 369 Md. at 474, 800 A.2d at 789, and take account of the facts and circumstances of each particular case, inc luding any mitig ating fa ctors. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v.

Atkinson, 357 M d. 646, 656 , 745 A.2d 1086, 10 92 (2000 ); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gavin, 350 Md. 176 , 197-98, 711 A .2d 193, 204 (199 8). As to what our cases require, the petitioner argues: "This Court recently stated that `[i]ndefinite suspension from the practice of law is the proper sanction w here the attorney violates MRPC 1.3, 1.4, 8.1 (b) and 8.4 (d) by failing to comm unicate w ith the client an d failing to co operate with Bar Counsel and where the attorney's conduct is not so egregious that only disbarment can adequately protect the public." Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lee (Lee IV), Misc. Docket AG, No. 20, September Term 2005 Filed July 31, 2006 ), slip op. at 17-18 (citing Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kovacic, 389 Md. 233, 884 A. 2d 673 (2005). In the instant case, the Respondent not only committed each of the MRPC violations recited in Lee IV, but also additional acts of miscon duct involv ing disobe dience of multiple court orders and failure to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation. The hea ring judge d id not find th e Respo ndent's m itigation evidence to be persuasive. As in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Wallace, 368 Md. 277, 293, 793 A. 2d 535, 545 (2002), the Respondent's pattern of conduct is such that "only the most severe sanction of disbarment will provide the protection to the public that this proce dure is supp osed to provide." See Also Attorney Grievance Commission v. Logan, 390 Md. 313, 888 A. 2d 359 (2005); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tinsky, 377 Md. 646, 835 A. 2d 12

542 (2003); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Faber, 373 Md. 173, 817 A. 2d 205 (2003) (disbarment deemed appropriate in each case based upon serious neglect of client affairs and related misconduct. Under the circumstances, the Respondent should be disbarred from the practice o f law in this State ." We agree. We would reiterate and re-emphasize the respondent's federal disbarment and the circumstances that gave rise to it as an aggravating factor of significant importance. The ap propria te sancti on in th is case is disbarm ent.

IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING COSTS OF ALL TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT T O MARYLAND RULE 16-761, FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR O F T H E A T T O R N E Y G RI E V A N C E COMMISSION AGA INST SEAN WILSON BAKER.

13



Download Attorney Grievance v. Baker.pdf

Maryland Law