Preview:

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Anthony Ignatius Butler, Jr. September Term 2011, Misc. Docket AG No. 14 A 60-day suspension is the appropriate sanction when an attorney fails to appear for a scheduled trial date in the District Court without good reason and without adequate communication with his client, with the result that a default judgment is entered against the client, and when the attorney later requests the client to execute a settlement and release of claims against the attorney without advising the client that the client may obtain the advice of independent counsel. MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(h), 8.4(d).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Misc. Docket AG No. 14 September Term, 2011 __________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. ANTHONY IGNATIUS BUTLER, JR. ___________________________________ Bell, C.J., Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins Barbera McDonald, JJ. __________________________________ Opinion by McDonald, J. Harrell and Battaglia, JJ., concur and dissent. _________________________________ Filed: May 21, 2012

The Attorney Grievance Commission ("Commission") charged Anthony I. Butler with violating several provisions of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MLRPC"), including MLRPC 1.1 (competence); 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation of authority between the lawyer and client); 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.8(h) (conflict of interest); 3.4(c) (knowing violation of obligation under rule of tribunal); 4.2 (communication with person represented by counsel); 8.1 (false statement of material fact in disciplinary proceeding); and 8.4 (misconduct). Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-752, the matter was referred to Judge Stephen J. Sfekas of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to conduct a hearing and to provide findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law. Judge Sfekas made various findings of fact and concluded that Mr. Butler failed to provide competent and diligent representation, inadequately communicated with clients, had a conflict of interest in obtaining a release of liability from his client, and committed misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. He concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence to support the remaining allegations. No exceptions were filed to Judge Sfekas' findings of fact; the Commission, however, excepted to several of the conclusions of law. We heard oral argument on those exceptions and on the appropriate sanction on March 6, 2012. For the reasons stated below, we overrule all but one of the Commission's exceptions, hold that Mr. Butler committed the violations found by Judge Sfekas, and direct that Mr. Butler be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 60 days.

Background1 Mr. Butler was admitted to the Maryland Bar in January 2003. He has also been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. After a period in which he served as in-house counsel for a consulting firm, Mr. Butler began a solo practice focused on employment law. Within the three years preceding this action, Mr. Butler was disciplined on several occasions, including two appearances before this Court, and received two reprimands and a 30-day suspension for multiple violations of the disciplinary rules. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Butler, 419 Md. 626, 20 A.3d 103 (2011); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Butler, 406 Md. 576, 960 A.2d 627 (2008). The alleged violations in the current action stem from his representation of Ferguson Towing, Inc. ("FTI") and its owners, Freda Ferguson ("Mrs. Ferguson") and Keith Ferguson ("Mr. Ferguson"), in litigation beginning in March 2009. In particular, the allegations are based on Mr. Butler's failure to appear for two trial dates in that case and on his successful effort to have the Fergusons execute a "Settlement Agreement and Release"of claims against him upon termination of that representation. The November 2, 2009, Trial Date FTI was a defendant in a tort action in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Baltimore City, arising out of an automobile accident involving one of their employees.

These facts are derived from Judge Sfekas' findings of fact and the stipulated facts and documents submitted by the parties. No exceptions have been filed as to the findings of fact, and we accept the hearing judge's findings of fact as established for the purposes of this proceeding. See Maryland Rule 16-759(b)(2). 2

1

GEICO, the insurance company and subrogee of the accident victim, was the plaintiff in that case.2 FTI's defense was that the employee was acting outside the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and that the Fergusons had been unaware of the accident. Trial was set for November 2, 2009. On November 1, Mr. Butler, on behalf of another client in a criminal case in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Baltimore County, requested a jury trial. The case was immediately transferred to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and, apparently in accordance with standard practice in that jurisdiction, scheduled for a jury trial the next day

Download Attorney Grievance v. Butler.pdf

Maryland Law