Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 13 September Term, 2003

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. SALLY L. SOMERVILLE

Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Eldridge, John C., (retired, specially assigned) JJ.

Opinion by Bell, C.J.

File: February 17, 2004

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel filed, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-7511 of the Maryland Rules of Proced ure, a Petition For Disciplinary Or Remedial Action, against Sally L. Som erville, the respo ndent,

Rule 16-7 51 of the M aryland Rule s of Proce dure prov ides, as releva nt: "(a) Commencement of Disciplinary or Remedial Action. Upon approval of the Commission, Bar Counsel shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or Reme dial Ac tion in th e Cou rt of A ppeals ." Upon the completion of an investigation by Bar Counsel, unless there is a recommendation pursuant to Rule 16-735 (dismissal of the complaint or termination of the proceeding w ithout discipline), Rule 16-736 (C onditional Diversion A greement), 16-737(reprimand) or Rules 16-771, 16-773, or 16-774 (immediate filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or R emedial A ction), Rule 1 6-734 (d) re quires that B ar Coun sel to "file w ith the Commission a Statement of Charges with an election for peer review in accordance with Rule 16-741." Maryland Rule 16-741 governs the filing of statements of charges. It provides: "(a) Filing of Statement of Charges. "(1) Upo n comple tion of an in vestigation, B ar Coun sel shall file with the Commission a Statement of Charges if Bar Counse l determines that: "(A) the attorney either engaged in conduct constituting p rofessiona l miscondu ct or is incapacitated; "(B) the professional misconduct or the incapacity doe s not warra nt an imm ediate Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action; "(C) a Co nditional D iversion A greemen t is either not appropriate under the circumstances or the parties were unable to agree on one; and "(D) a reprimand is either not appropriate under the circumstances or (i) one was offered and rejected by the attorney, or (ii) a proposed reprimand was disapproved by the Commission and Bar Counsel was directed to file a Statem ent of C harges ."

1

in which it was charged that the respondent violated Rules 1.1, Competence,2 1.3, Diligence,3

Rule 1 .1 requi res a law yer to "pro vide co mpete nt repre sentatio n to a clie nt.. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and prepar ation rea sonab ly necessa ry for the r eprese ntation." Pursuant to Rule 1.3, "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promp tness in r eprese nting a c lient." 2
3

2

1.4, Communication,4 1.5, Fees,5 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters,6 and 8.4,

4

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

Pertinent to this case is Rule 1.5 (a). It provides: "(a) A law yer's fee shall be re asonable. T he factors to be consid ered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: "(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the lega l serv ice p rope rly; "(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; "(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; "(4) the amount involved and the results obtained; "(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; "(6) the natu re and leng th of the pro fessional rela tionship w ith the client; "(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and "(8) w hether th e fee is f ixed or conting ent."

6

Rule 8.1 provides: "An ap plicant for ad mission or re instatemen t to the bar, or a la wyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary ma tter, shall not: "(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or "(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 3

Miscon duct, 7 of the Marylan d Rules o f Professio nal Cond uct, as adopted by Maryland R ule 16-812. Bar Counsel also alleged that the respondent violated Maryland Code (1989, 1995 Replacement Volume)

Download Attorney Grievance v. Somerville.pdf

Maryland Law