Preview:

HEADNOTE: Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brisbon, Misc. Docket No. 28, September Term, 2010

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW; "IMMIGRATION CONSULTING" SERVICES: The Circuit Court was correct in concluding that, at a time when Respondent was "indefinitely suspended" from the practice of law, Respondent provided "immigration consulting" services that constituted the unauthorized practice of law.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS; SANCTION FOR UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW BY A "SUSPENDED" LAWYER: The sanction of disbarment will ordinarily be imposed for the unauthorized practice of law by a lawyer at a time when he or she was suspended from practice by order of this Court. Because Md. Rule 16-760(f) provides for the protection of the public by authorizing Bar Counsel to take action in the unlikely event that Respondent ever again engages in the unauthorized practice of law, in light of Respondent's failing health and intent to return to her homeland, the continuation of an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction in the case at bar.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND MISC. DOCKET AG No. 28 September Term, 2010

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. BRENDA CAROL BRISBON

Bell, C.J. Battaglia Greene *Murphy Adkins Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Murphy, J.

Filed: October 26, 2011 *Murphy, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

Brenda C. Brisbon, Respondent, was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 20, 1977, and was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law on March 17, 2005. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brisbon, 385 Md. 667, 676, 870 A.2d 586, 591 (2005). On August 23, 2010, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Petitioner, filed a PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY OR REMEDIAL ACTION against Respondent. On August 24, 2010, this Court ordered that the charges against Respondent "be heard and determined by Judge Charles J. Peters, of the Eighth Judicial Circuit [the Hearing Judge], in accordance with 16-757[.] " The Hearing Judge filed "FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" in which he concluded that Respondent "engaged in the unauthorized practice of law [i]n acting as an `immigration consultant' for [Mr. Kobina Nkrumah, and his wife, Nicole Smoot-Nkrumah]," and, as a result, "violated Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct [(MRPC)] 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 5.5, and 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d)." Respondent noted seven EXCEPTIONS to the Hearing Judge's findings and conclusions. Three exceptions complain that the Hearing Judge's findings and conclusions did not include any discussion of (1) Respondent's background, (2) the fact that there were two "immigration consultant" signs outside Respondent's office, and (3) the fact that Respondent used a computer program to complete the immigration forms that she prepared for Mr. and Mrs. Nkrumah. Two exceptions complain that the Hearing Judge made erroneous factual findings. Two exceptions involve Respondent's assertion that (in the words of her Exceptions), "Bar Counsel failed to show by clear and

convincing evidence that [Respondent] committed unauthorized practice of law." For the reasons that follow, we shall overrule each of Respondent's exceptions, and order that she remain suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. Background MRPC 1.1, in pertinent part, states that a lawyer "shall provide competent representation to a client." MRPC 1.4(a)(4), in pertinent part, states that a lawyer "shall consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct or other law." MRPC 1.5 (a), in pertinent part, states that a lawyer "shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses." MRPC 5.5(a), states that "a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so." MRPC 8.4, in pertinent part, provides: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
2

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.] The record includes the following "STIPULATIONS OF FACT" signed by the Respondent, Respondent's hearing counsel, and Bar Counsel: The Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance commission of Maryland, by its attorney, Gail D. Kessler, and the Respondent, Brenda C. Brisbon, through her attorney, [], stipulate that the following facts are true: *** 5. That since Respondent was indefinitely suspended on March 17, 2005, she has not been reinstated to the Maryland State Bar or admitted to any State Bar. On June 20, 2008, Kobina Nkrumah met with the Respondent at her office in Baltimore City On June 20, 2008, Respondent accepted a $100.00 fee for her consultation with Kobina Nkrumah about handling Mr. Nkrumah's immigration matter. Respondent never told Mr. Nkrumah and/or Mrs. Smoot[-]Nkrumah that she was not admitted to the Maryland State Bar and could not practice law. Respondent never told Mr. Nkrumah and/or Mrs. Smoot[-]Nkrumah that she was not admitted to any Bar. Mr. Nkrumah and Mrs. Smoot-Nkrumah paid Respondent $1,200.00 to handle Kobina Nkrumah's immigration matter. Respondent gave Kobina Nkrumah a July 2008 receipt for payment of $600.00. That receipt identified the Respondent as an attorney. July 11, 2008 receipt
3

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

attached hereto and incorporated herein as exhibit number 3. 12. At one of Respondent's meetings with Mr. Nkrumah and/or Mrs. Smoot-Nkrumah, she gave them a document titled "Additional Documents Needed for Adjustment of Status (Form I-485)[."] Document titled "Additional Documents Needed for Adjustment of Status["] (Form I-485) attached hereto and incorporated herein as exhibit number 4. The handwriting titled "Additional Documents Needed for Adjustment of Status" (Form I-485) marked exhibit number 4 herein, is Respondent's handwriting. Mr. Nkrumah and Mrs. Smoot-Nkrumah gave Respondent two money orders totaling $1,365.00 to be submitted with their application forms to The Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The two money orders totaling $1,365.00 are attached hereto and incorporated herein as exhibit number 5. Respondent prepared Mr. Nkrumah and Mrs. SmootNkrumah's application forms that were submitted to The Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Mr. Nkrumah and Mrs. Smoot-Nkrumah's application forms are attached hereto and incorporated herein as exhibit numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 herein. Respondent submitted Mr. Nkrumah and Mrs. SmootNkrumah's application forms, marked exhibit numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 herein to The Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service along with her letter dated July 15, 2008. Respondent's letter dated July 15, 2008 attached hereto and incorporated herein as exhibit number 11.

13.

14.

15.

16.

4

17.

Respondent agreed to represent Mr. Nkrumah and Mrs. Smoot-Nkrumah at their January 22, 2009 interview/meeting with The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Request for Applicant to Appear for Initial Interview attached hereto and incorporated herein as exhibit number 12. Respondent failed to appear at Mr. Nkrumah and Mrs. Smoot-Nkrumah's January 22, 2009 scheduled interview/meeting with The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. She had been admitted to the hospital the day before the scheduled meeting, and was not discharged until January 26, 2009.

18.

The Hearing Judge's FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW included the following findings and conclusions: The Court finds the following facts have been established by clear and convincing evidence: *** 7. In 2006 or 2007, the Respondent opened an office as an "Immigration Consultant at 228 East 25th Street, First Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21218. On the Respondent's "Immigration Consultant" stationary, the Respondent listed the same telephone number, (410) 467-3833, and facsimile number, (410) 467-1165, used by the Respondent for her law practice... The Respondent also produced business cards listing: BRENDA C. BRISBON, P.A.
IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT

Although the Respondent used the title of "Brenda C. Brisbon, P.A.," she was unable to state whether or not her professional association was still in existence in 2008. 8. Other than chance observations by the Respondent of two unidentified men who claimed to be immigration consultants,
5

the Respondent failed to take any steps to familiarize herself with the legal limitations and duties of an immigration consultant. The Respondent was not familiar with the Maryland Immigration Consultant Act ("MICA"),

Download Attorney Grievance v. Brisbon.pdf

Maryland Law