Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Landon Maurice White Misc. Docket AG No. 7 September Term 2021. Opinion by Eaves J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE — SANCTION DISBARMENT Respondent violated several provisions the Attorneys’ Rules Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) when he failed to communicate with clients refused refund client funds made intentional misrepresentations various courts and Petitioner Maryland cooperate Petitioner during investigatory process mismanaged funds in a variety ways. Respondent’s conduct following MARPC: 1.1 (Competence) 1.2 (Scope Representation Allocation Authority Between Client Lawyer) 1.3 (Diligence) 1.4 (Communication) 1.5 (Fees) 1.8 (Conflict Interest Current Clients Specific Rules) 1.15 (Safekeeping Property) 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation) 3.1 (Meritorious Claims Contentions) 3.3 (Candor Toward Tribunal) 8.1 (Bar Admission Disciplinary Matters) 8.4 (Misconduct) 19-407 (Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping) 19-410 (Prohibited Transactions). These violations warrant disbarment. Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case 24-C-21-002573 Argued: June 2 2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS MARYLAND 7 2021 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION LANDON MAURICE WHITE Fader C.J. Watts Hotten Booth Biran Gould JJ. Filed: August 12 member Bar Appeals Maryland maintained solo practice Baltimore. On May 24 2021 acting through Counsel filed Petition Remedial Action (“Petition”) this Court alleging that Respondent 13 two regarding attorney trust accounts: 1. 19-301.1 (Competence) (1.1) 2. 19-301.2 Lawyer) (1.2) 3. 19-301.3 (Diligence) (1.3) 4. 19-301.4 (Communication) (1.4) 5. 19-301.5 (Fees) (1.5) 6. 19-301.8 Rules) (1.8) 7. 19-301.15 Property) (1.15) 8. 19-301.16 Representation) (1.16) 9. 19-303.1 Contentions) (3.1) 10. 19-303.3 Tribunal) (3.3) 11. 19-303.4 (Fairness Opposing Party Attorney) (3.4) 12. 19-308.1 Admissions disciplinary Matters) (8.1) 13. 19-308.4 (Misconduct) (8.4) 14. Record-Keeping) 15. 2 Pursuant Rule 19-772(a) referred matter designated Honorable Myshala E. Middleton (the “hearing judge”) an evidentiary hearing provide findings fact conclusions law. After three-day held on January 4 19 February 1 2022 judge found clear convincing evidence 14 15 allegations Petition.1 exceptions judge’s Findings Fact Conclusions Law heard oral arguments 2022. 6 we issued per curiam Order imposing sanction immediate disbarment from Att’y Comm'n 479 Md. 83 (2022). We now overrule hold Law are supported evidence. Our reasons as follows. I. FINDINGS FACT The facts which summarize. A. Background was admitted 16 2015 law Baltimore Maryland. 9 2019 entered into Conditional Diversion Agreement (“CDA”) 1 At conclusion trial withdrew 3.4 charge. 3 Concerning Appointment Practice Monitor.2 agreements related representation Orlando Hamilton Don Crudup. Along these clients’ cases however also concern three other cases (Robert Frazier Kenneth Cole Nelson Contracting Company) account. B. In 1986 convicted first-degree murder Prince George’s County received life sentence.3 2017 Mr. Hamilton’s mother Mary Hamilton retained file PostConviction Relief she agreed flat fee $8000.00 provided cashier’s check $4500.00. Neither nor his mother signed retainer agreement Respondent. months unsuccessful attempts contact both telephone person terminated services requested refund. Instead immediately refunding Ms. wrote inquire if wished continue representation. Even though CDA required refrain representing any clients postconviction one year attend six continuing legal education programs program account management offered execute written all clients obtain professional liability insurance be duration CDA. mean no disrespect mentioning nature convictions sentences cited Opinion. do so only illustrate seriousness they 4 did not respond letter drafted Post-Conviction Relief. complaint fully refunded her via checks. docketed 22 2018 copy file financial recordkeeping pursuant 19-407 explanation whether accounting performed. complying request advised full would information requested. more requests went unanswered4 response. C. Crudup October 2016 pro se United States District negligence employees institution where is incarcerated—Eastern Correctional Institution. response defendants’ motions dismiss represent him agreement contingency basis whereby receive 40% settlement proceeds awarded. 26 appearance sought extension motions. district court granted request set deadline responses later than Petitioner’s July 23 2018 requests. 5 27 2017. review pending motions determined had exhaust administrative remedies before filed pursue (Respondent) took further action case. turn longer federal complaint. take dismiss case withdraw appearance. 25 dismissed Crudup’s April Petitioner. 20 asked complete file. ignored well subsequent finally statement under oath periodically disbursement sheets cases. D. Robert Frazier 1988 sentenced December imprisonment without possibility parole. 28 proper Writ Actual Innocence Request Hearing One character witnesses Russell Neverdon who discussed detail below see infra Part VI testified informed about exhaustion requirement appeals. 6 State circuit scheduled 2016. Frazier’s son Johnson above paid $4000.00 cash. neither deposited account 19-407(a) written consent deposit non-attorney behalf successful obtaining postponement hearing. Although rescheduled March 8 between 14 prepare produced communication visitation prior 8th short substantive work preparation hearing and result were unprepared. denied petition opinion order denying 2018. court’s decision opinion. Like pre-hearing preparation post-hearing actions lacking respects: (1) untimely Notice Appeal Special notifying paying filing fee (2) appeals clerk’s emails 30 multiple calls 10 outstanding unanswered6 (3) $121.00 mailed Clerk’s Office despite been different appeal Appeals Session Briefing including schedule briefs argument Johnson schedule appellate brief additional fees son brief. eventually Motion Extension Time File Brief claiming paralegal “lost misplaced flash drive containing completed brief.” While knowing misrepresentation motion appellant’s brief November four months 8-602(c)(5) failure advise dismissed. Instead month later Extend Reconsideration Court’s Decision Dismiss Appellant’s Appeal. With respect voicemail inbox full unable leave messages fee. 8 8-602(e)(1) reconsideration must 10 days after dismissal.7 31 dismissal. addition although last stated “set up meeting family member but never place.” that “until recently he has Appellant costs associated appeal.” statements knowingly intentionally false. When learned contacted 2019. It then Innocence. lied led Appeals’ dismissal appeal. believe until 15 direct handle replied could afford pay call performed appeal Prior l amendment 8-602 section (e) amended Order changed rule 20 entry dismissing 9 promising send opinion As inform due documents relating Appeal mandate Clerk 11 decision. against sent seeking 18 stating “I represented front Judge Peters. I misleading given time (or lack thereof). emailed letter requesting detailed Yet dated again misleadingly Public Defender (“OPD”) assist Before judge dismissed OPD refiling communications 2020. By 13 2020 falsely condition paid. notice preserve right Again Cole 1992 Howard rape burglary charges prison 1992. He 1994 same year. Cole’s brotherin-law Richard Henson. behalf Henson cash assistance post-conviction proceedings. maintain 11 either second petition relief or alternative re-open closed post-conviction argue court.8 visited occasions 2016 unprepared discuss each occasion meaningful timeframe: supplemental re-open. explain why anything behalf. terminating ($4000.00) refund instead trial transcripts matter. return original drug alcohol treatment. declined motion wanted correspondence transcripts. asserted eligible because conviction sentence 1995. See MD. CODE ANN. CRIM. PROC. § 7-103(a). 12 respond. incomplete response documentation F. Company Glass Company Tracy Steedman Esquire sitting suit breach contract owned Nelson. Consent Continuance Steedman yet case copies filings Intention Defend serve Steedman. Almost weeks Counterclaim certificate service. email Counterclaim mail day intend out cite reason good cause so. ordered within seven leave agreed. parties 29 Leave Counter Complaint. certificates service attached earlier filings indicated date. it 5 opposed courtesy opposition. appear contemporaneously default judgment amount $6157.00 plus $2170.00 interest $46.00 costs $2498.34 attorney’s fees. Complaint Contracting’s untimely. parties. Vacate Judgment Plaintiff’s Prejudice. argued should vacated Contracting appeared trial present health concerns owner. 3-535(a).10 misrepresented notified date when contrary representation open claimed motion. mail email manner. Hearing She opposition arguing 30 days 3-535(a) 1-341. canceled subsequently Memorandum Support Attorney’s Fees citing 1-341.11 provides “on party judgment may exercise revisory power control over have taken 3-534.” Section (a) 1-341 (Bad Faith—Unjustified Proceedings) states in civil action finds maintaining defending proceeding bad faith substantial justification court adverse party require offending advising them reasonable expenses attorneys’ fees incurred opposing it. awarded Plaintiff $4247.00 finding “acted handling representations way certifications pleadings motions” “filed lacked justification.” vacate judgment. vacate. certified envelope postmarked 31 2020.12 Opposition Reconsideration Sanctions. Amended Reconsideration. directed consideration award affidavit. complied. 27th possible mailing delayed postal delays occurred at inception COVID-19 pandemic nevertheless fits pattern similar those pleadings. For unknown court. 16 “found Respondent Accordingly $1708.00 added 29th $4247.00 20th 21 Respondent's memorandum 2020: docket. R. 7-113. Appellants’ Merits audio CD 2019—not opposition Dismissal untimely 1-204(a)(3) demonstrate excusable neglect. Glass’s Motions 1-204(a)(3) states pertinent part “on expiration specified period permit act done result neglect.” 17 Sanctions disregarded memorandum. served first time. its denied. record day ruled timely prejudiced Glass appeal Steedman’s sanctions improper Orders. 8-132 transferred Court.16 8-132 states: If determines appellant improperly noted entitled another exercising jurisdiction shall instead transfer apparently having 18 Strike failing comply 8-302(b) noting “may court.” treated writ certiorari. supplement accordance 8- 303 Appeal- Certiorari Appeal asserting defective extended certiorari Certiorari Ten (April 2021)17 upon payment transferring action. MDEC 8-431(b) “shall five motion.” 19 Supplement Meanwhile matter collection examination Oral Examination appear. protective otherwise assert valid G. Wells Fargo Bank PayPal transactions overdrew $63.22. receipt overdraft ledgers slips cancelled checks monthly bank period 2019 submitted identifying advance. showed activity permitted operating documentation. identified statement. statements. documentation: clients. reflected connected used personal expenses Showtime television network subscription. subpoena Bank records. Charles Miller IV CPA Investigator reviewed records prepared summaries. summaries admissions properly 2017 negative engaged commingling funds expenditures Specifically connection Nate Ayer L. Hodge Ed McCormick times holding addition withdrawals caused overdrawn using credit card withdrawing $9.31 “Showtime White” 21 $9.33 “Tidal $5.37 “DocuSign White.” ledgers No received relevant third completed. identify matters numerous unknown transactions. Qiana Barnes how remaining disbursed. 17 advanced $3000.00 Barnes receiving Barnes’s larger share back what purported requested: requirements reconciled Fargo. 39 indicating advance 22 reflect deposits example ledger William Barnett $5000.00 Barnett records around show nothing obtained Lewis Lyles Marcel Jacks disbursed shows $6000.00 disbursements ($2000.00) ($1000.00) ($2000.00). Conversely $1000.00 $600.00 5th $400.00 12th $20000.00 $10000.00 day. $4500.00 Finally split outside firm 23 joint representation there Malik Smith Ashley Johnson. produce writing otherwise. II. HEARING JUDGE’S CONCLUSIONS LAW concluded MARPC 1.1 1.2(a) 1.3 1.4 1.5(a) (c) (e) 1.8(e) 1.15 1.16(d) 3.1 3.3(a) 8.1(a)–(b) 8.4(a) (c)–(d) 19-407(a) 19-410(b)–(c). exceptions. law challenged fact aggravating factor violation constitutional rights. address concerns. III. STANDARD REVIEW This analyzes facts clearly erroneous standard. 19-740(b)(2)(B) Comm’n Collins 477 482 495 reviews de novo law 19-740(b)(1) bears burden establishing MARPC. Id. 19-727(c). IV. EXCEPTIONS makes First believes erred solely relying deemed admitted virtue admissions support fact. Second 24 contends mistaken alleged CDA which believes viewed factor. Third argues deprived process rights collectively matters. exception turn. Use Requests excepts entirety Crudup view “the Trier adopting hundred propounded sole exclusive misconduct these . matters.” To end use manner cannot base exclusively derived his adequately Admissions.” disagree exception offer instructive caveat discovery. 500 genuineness 2000 pages accompanying exhibits. some instances admit involved subjective opinions conclusions. known knowledge (and inquiry sufficient 25 enable deny requests) inadmissible applicable rules evidence.18 instance our applies instance Admissions following: 345. factual averments Exhibit 49 true correct. 346. 50 *** 351. 63 352. 64 Exhibits memoranda investigator office describe interviews conducted witnesses. arrangement Jessup Institute interview complainant inmate facility. spoke 10:30AM telephonically virus. arrested 1988 charged Homicides chose Innocence? own answer Motion. waiting called approached himself White told him. get postponed. met 26 sum 37 125 exhibits totaling 2087 pages. truthfulness 391 documents—516 total. recognize serving admission can useful tool streamline enabling stipulate undisputed documents circumstances. Here seemed anticipate might fail thereby admissible Asking specifically footnote many going court? Para-Legal meet him does recall name individual idea knew trying accomplish. totally terrible job. agency transcript will inept was. end Peters render later. Counsel’s true. thing ask respondent concerning interaction witness quite date interviewee specific investigator accurately summarized content 27 here19 unreasonable. Nonetheless explained sustain exception. analysis starts always does plain meaning rule. “clear unambiguous need look beyond language analysis.” Tatung 476 45 74 (2021) (citing Lisy Corp. McCormick & Co. Inc. 445 213 221 (2015)). 2-424(a) “serve truth forth request.” (Emphasis added). Each unless party’s initial pleading required whichever whom serves attorney. 2-424(b) (emphasis “Any conclusively established unless permits withdrawal amendment.” 2-424(d). determining discretion amendment consider whether: such “would presentation merits action” can satisfy such action prejudice defense merits.” confirm correspondence attorneys others parties i.e. confirming genuineness. 28 2-424 contains quantitative limitation decline read discovery naturally change fit particular What another. normal responded necessary facts: There separate matters general mismanagement sheer breadth warranted volume Nevertheless absence express limitation helpless. contemplate unreasonable least avenue aggrieved seek refuge. 2-403(a) demonstrating cause enter protect annoyance embarrassment oppression undue expense. fashion including here prohibiting altogether limiting scope certain protection requests ultimately request. move next substance admissions. avers “involving questions ultimate issues impermissible.” Resp.’s Exceptions St. James Constr. Co. Morlock 89 App. 217 (1991) cert. denied 325 526 (1992)). misconstrues intermediate issue Morlocks’ 29 2-424(e).20 222. their Morlocks 71 admissions21 refusals faith. 229. sustaining denial stated: “Requests limited function. Because misuse great deal satisfaction device. Regularly propounding seeks consequently useless. purpose press Rather intended eliminate truly dispute authenticity corporate status foundation examples.” 230 (quoting Niemeyer Richards Commentary 234–35 (1984)). That fails document proves said truthfulness requiring proving truthfulness. objection sustained (c) Rule importance ground expect prevail (4) admit. 2-424(e). Some negligent created risks harm. James 230–31. put it “many additionally contained terms ambiguous worth salt allow them.” 230. Most concerned essence “in to. deserved whatever received.” 231. Excluding binding paint large stroke us believe. void ab initio stretched cover. holding simplest form boiled down Where addresses refuses admit prevails likely 2-424(e) exceeds rule’s scope. cites Gonzales Boas 162 344 388 405 (2005) factually distinguishable Respondent’s. Boas counts battery. Gonzales 350. definite statement Counsel accidentally placed missed n.2. moved summary judgment late late stricken meant currently material dispute alternatively allowed facts. strike strike. Boas’s allotted complaint.22 so dispute. 351–52. struck Gonzales’s Boas. abused granting (d) id. 354 “nothing indicated exercised ‘withdrawal amendment’ 2-424(d)” 358. “provided Gonzales’s except untimely” id. aid merits 359 face permitted 361. Lastly addressed culpability. “was moot 32 egregious” counsel adequate eight past deadline. 357 procedurally Unlike exceptionally asked strike once 351 n.2 unlike Thus refusal withdrawal abuse discretion. 351 354. therefore draw meaningful Gonzales. far cry dispute ignores recognized “deemed embrace ‘ultimate’ case.” 360 Murnan Joseph Hock 274 528 529–31 (1975)). stamped imprimatur—citing precedent Court—on very 33 reject. invitation albeit implicit area. similarly qualitative restrictions attempt obtain. contrary “truth less trivial prevents broader fashion. incumbent broad respond diligently 2-424(d) Murnan 530 (noting defendant corporation heart dispute: installed sand depth inches inches plaintiff). already articulated find acceptance reliance judges 2- 424 prove misconduct. McCarthy McCarthy McCarthy’s bar admittance office Anne Arundel County 473 34 462 469 (2021). year delay sanctions precluded providing testimony contradict them. 469 478. excepted based requesting among things new 481. strictly adhered 2-424 stating grant automatically responding Any presented negated operation 2-424(b). 482. operates deeming unanswered admitted. 485 Barton 442 91 120–21 (2015) Robertson 400 618 635 (2007) Kapoor 505 (2006)). case-in-chief dilatory tactics. But effect 35 case—in judicial restraint judgment—afforded opportunities opportunity rebut admitted.24 478–79. practically speaking suffer real straightforward application 2-424. overruled. Pre-CDA Aggravating Factor misreading Law. essentially claims impression consented A close reading reveals listed factor “continuous mismanagement of even being CDA.” remainder factors blank found admissions 2021 submit previously deadlines Respondent—instead answering request—filed order denied (5) presenting contradicts 36 generally temporal qualifier. alleged mismanagement not—as alleges—find