Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Sacks

Watts, J. This attorney discipline proceeding involves a lawyer who, chief among various forms of serious misconduct, misappropriated funds, fabricated documents, and made misrepresentations to courts, clients, and opposing counsel. In this case, Stephen Howard Sacks, Respondent, a member of the Bar of Maryland, represented seven clients, and himself, in separate matters that resulted in the institution of an attorney disciplinary proceeding and numerous findings of misconduct. Specifically, Sacks was retained to represent Jermaine D. Harris in a criminal case, to assist Joy Whyte with a meeting with an Assistant United States Attorney, to assist Erick E. Chen in attempting to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation return certain personal property to him, to represent Daniel W. Anderson in criminal cases and an immigration case, to represent Rondall Range in a criminal case, to represent Anita Range in a child support case, and to represent William D. Smith in a domestic matter. In these matters, Sacks engaged in assorted forms of misconduct, including misappropriation of funds that he had been paid to represent Whyte, Chen, Anderson, Rondall Range, and Smith.

While representing himself, Sacks initiated eight frivolous actions or appeals against multiple parties, including his landlord, Tindeco Wharf, LLC ("Tindeco"), and its counsel, Adam M. Spence. Harris, Whyte, Chen, Anderson, Craig Kadish (Mr. Range's new counsel), Smith, and Spence filed complaints against Sacks with Bar Counsel. On October 3, 2016, on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission, Petitioner, Bar Counsel filed in this Court a "Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action" against Sacks, charging him with violating Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MLRPC") 1 1.2(a) (Allocation of Authority), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5(a) (Reasonable Fees), 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 1.15(e) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Terminating Representation), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 2 3.4(a), 3.4(b), 3.4(c), 3.4(d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 4.1(a)(1) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 3 8.1 (Disciplinary Matters), 4 8.4(b) (Criminal Act), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (Conduct That Is Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice), and 8.4(a) (Violating the MLRPC). On October 17, 2016, this Court designated the Honorable Karen C. Friedman ("the hearing judge") of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City ("the circuit court") to hear this attorney discipline proceeding.

On January 27, 2017, the hearing judge issued a Scheduling Order in which she directed the parties to complete discovery no later than March 3, 2017, and scheduled the first day of the disciplinary hearing for April 4, 2017. On March 3, 2017, Sacks filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Discovery Responses, which the hearing judge granted. On March 13, 2017, Sacks filed a Motion for Continuance, requesting that the hearing judge postpone the discovery deadline for four months, and postpone the first day of the hearing for six months. On March 27, 2017, the hearing judge conducted a scheduling conference, and issued a second Scheduling Order, directing Sacks to file an answer to the Petition no later than April 19, 2017, respond to Bar Counsel's interrogatories and requests for production of documents no later than May 16, 2017, and complete discovery no later than September 19, 2017.

The Scheduling Order also rescheduled the first day of the disciplinary hearing for October 16, 2017, and stated that Sacks had agreed that he would not request, and the hearing judge would not grant, another postponement. On April 21, 2017, Sacks filed an answer to the Petition, two days late. On May 8, 2017, the hearing judge scheduled a motions hearing for June 8, 2017. On May 16, 2017-the date of the deadline for Sacks to respond to Bar Counsel's discovery requests-Sacks mailed responses to Bar Counsel's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.

As of May 18, 2017, Bar Counsel had not received Sacks's responses. Bar Counsel filed a Motion for Sanctions based on Sacks's failure to timely provide responses. On June 6, 2017, Sacks wrote to the hearing judge, requesting a postponement of the motions hearing that was scheduled for two days later. The hearing judge denied Sacks's request.

On June 8, 2017, the hearing judge conducted a motions hearing, and denied the Motion for Sanctions on the ground that, although Bar Counsel received Sacks's responses "a few days" after the deadline, the discovery violation was not egregious enough to warrant sanctions. At the motions hearing, Bar Counsel asked Sacks when he would be available to be deposed in July 2017. Sacks responded that he was uncertain because he needed to check his calendar and his doctor's schedule, as he needed eye surgery. The hearing judge scheduled a hearing for June 12, 2017 for the specific purpose of choosing a date for Sacks's deposition. 5 On June 12, 2017, the hearing judge conducted a hearing at which the parties agreed to schedule Sacks's deposition for July 31, 2017.

The hearing judge advised Sacks to arrange his schedule to ensure his presence at his deposition. Less than two weeks later, on July 24, 2017, Sacks e-mailed Bar Counsel, stating that his deposition would need to be postponed. Bar Counsel e-mailed Sacks, stating that there had not been an agreement to postpone his deposition, and that, unless the hearing judge issued a protective order, Sacks would be expected to appear for his deposition. On July 27, 2017-the Thursday before July 31, 2017, which was a Monday-Sacks e-mailed Bar Counsel, stating: "Please leave me alone while I take care of my health.

Do not contact me tomorrow or over the weekend. There will be no one in my office Monday." Bar Counsel e-mailed Sacks, asking him to confirm whether he would appear for his deposition. On July 28, 2017, Sacks e-mailed Bar Counsel, stating: "You broke your promise, therefore, I am not bound by mine." Later on that date, Sacks's secretary e-mailed Bar Counsel, stating that Sacks would not appear for his deposition. Sacks did not seek, and the hearing judge did not issue, a protective order that would have excused his failure to appear for his deposition.

On August 2, 2017, Bar Counsel filed a Motion for Sanctions based on Sacks's failure to appear for his deposition. Sacks's response to the Motion for Sanctions was initially due no later than August 21, 2017. On August 18, 2017, Sacks filed a Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Responses to Motions and Scheduling Order, requesting that the hearing judge extend the deadline for responding to the Motion for Sanctions to September 8, 2017. The hearing judge issued an Order, directing Sacks to file a response to the pending motion no later than August 25, 2017, and scheduling a hearing on the Motion for Sanctions for September 12, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

On August 24, 2017, Sacks filed a Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Responses to Pending Motions and Scheduling Order, stating that the extension that the hearing judge had granted was insufficient. On August 31, 2017, the hearing judge denied the Motion for Extension. On September 5, 2017-eleven days late-Sacks filed a response to the Motion for Sanctions. On the same date, Sacks filed a Motion for Continuance, requesting that the hearing judge postpone the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions due to a conflict with a proceeding in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Frederick County.

On September 7, 2017, the hearing judge denied the Motion for Continuance, and directed Sacks to contact her chambers for assistance in moving to postpone the proceeding in the District Court. Sacks did not do so. On the morning of September 12, 2017, Sacks sent the hearing judge a letter, again requesting a postponement of the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions that was scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Later on that date, Sacks's secretary telephoned the hearing judge's chambers, and asked whether the judge would conduct the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions as scheduled.

A member of the hearing judge's staff responded in the affirmative. Nonetheless, Sacks's secretary sent the hearing judge correspondence, providing alternative dates when Sacks would be available, and advising that Sacks would be available via telephone after 2 p.m., and could appear before the hearing judge after 4 p.m. At 1:30 p.m., as scheduled, the hearing judge began the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions. Bar Counsel appeared, but Sacks neither appeared nor telephoned.

The hearing judge found that Sacks had "shown that he [was] not going to participate in this [attorney discipline proceeding] in a productive and proper way." The hearing judge also found that, by failing to appear for his deposition without requesting a protective order, Sacks had "show[n] a disregard for" Bar Counsel, the hearing judge, and this attorney discipline proceeding. The hearing judge granted the Motion for Sanctions and issued an Order, stating that the averments in the Petition were deemed admitted, and striking the answer to the Petition. In addition, the Order precluded Sacks from producing any documents at the disciplinary hearing and from calling any witnesses, other than himself, at the disciplinary hearing, and precluded Sacks from providing testimony on "any matter other than alleged mitigation[,]" including any testimony that contradicted the averments in the Petition. At 2:02 p.m., the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions concluded.

At approximately 4 p.m., Sacks appeared in the hearing judge's courtroom. At the time, the hearing judge was conducting a jury trial. Sacks insisted on the opportunity to argue against the Motion for Sanctions; he sat down in the courtroom and "made it clear [that] he would not leave until the [hearing judge] heard him out." The hearing judge called the attorney discipline proceeding, and advised Sacks that she had granted the Motion for Sanctions due to his failure to appear at the hearing. "[N]umerous times[,]" the hearing judge "politely ask[ed]" Sacks to leave the courtroom so that she could resume the jury trial.

Sacks, however, continued to argue; he "would not stop speaking and would not leave the courtroom[.]" The hearing judge "was forced to call a" Deputy Sheriff to escort Sacks from the courtroom. On September 25, 2017, Sacks filed a Motion to Revise, Alter and Amend Order Granting Sanctions Against Sacks, and a Motion to Vacate Order Granting Sanctions Against Sacks and Request for Hearing. On October 2, 2017, the hearing judge conducted a pre-hearing conference, at which she gave Sacks the opportunity to argue in favor of his pending motions. Sacks stated that he was not prepared to do so, and requested that the hearing judge schedule a motions hearing.

The hearing judge scheduled a motions hearing for October 10, 2017. On October 9, 2017, the day before the scheduled hearing, Sacks filed the following documents: an Amendment by Interlineation to the response to the Motion for Sanctions; an Amendment by Interlineation to the Motion to Revise, Alter and Amend; a Motion to Recuse; two Motions to Dismiss the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action; a Petition to Show Cause Why Bar Counsel Should Not Be Held in Contempt; and a Motion for Continuance. On October 10, 2017, the hearing judge conducted a motions hearing, and denied all of Sacks's pending motions. On October 16, 17, and 19, 2017, the hearing judge conducted the disciplinary hearing.

In her opinion, the hearing judge observed "that a hearing judge in an attorney discipline proceeding may refrain from conducting an evidentiary hearing where the hearing judge has entered an order of default that has not been vacated." (Quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Johnson , 450 Md. 621 , 642, 150 A.3d 338 , 351 (2016), reconsideration denied (Jan. 19, 2017) ). The hearing judge explained that the order granting the Motion for Sanctions was "the functional equivalent of" an order of default. Accordingly, the hearing judge "determined that a 'full-blown' evidentiary hearing was unnecessary." (Quoting Johnson , id. at 642, 150 A.3d at 351 ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thomas , 440 Md. 523 , 550, 103 A.3d 629 , 645 (2014) ). At oral argument before this Court, Bar Counsel explained that, despite the grant of the Motion for Sanctions and the hearing judge's determination that a full disciplinary hearing was unnecessary, the hearing spanned three days because, after Bar Counsel's case-in-chief-which lasted "approximately five minutes"-Sacks was given the opportunity "to collaterally attack" what had occurred during the attorney discipline proceeding, and to offer evidence of mitigating factors.

At the disciplinary hearing, Sacks made a renewed motion to recuse, 6 a motion to stay, a motion to exclude cross-examination, a motion for judgment, and a motion to reconsider. The hearing judge denied all of Sacks's motions. On December 11, 2017, the hearing judge filed in this Court an opinion including findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluding that Sacks had violated MLRPC 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.1, 3.4(c), 3.4(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(a). In a Notice dated December 11, 2017, the Clerk of this Court advised Sacks that oral argument had been scheduled for March 2018, and that any exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law were due on December 26, 2017.

On December 15, 2017, Sacks filed a Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Exceptions, requesting an extension to January 5, 2018. Later on that date, this Court granted the Motion for Extension. On December 29, 2017, Sacks filed a second Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Exceptions, requesting an extension to January 25, 2018. On January 3, 2018, this Court granted the second Motion for Extension.

On January 23, 2018, Sacks filed a third Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Exceptions, requesting an extension to "at least the third week of" February 2018, and requesting that this Court reschedule oral argument "at least until" April 2018. On January 24, 2018, Bar Counsel filed an Opposition to the third Motion for Extension. On January 25, 2018, this Court denied the third Motion for Extension. Sacks failed to file any exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law by the January 25, 2018 deadline.

Between that date and the date of oral argument, Sacks filed multiple motions, all of which this Court denied. 7 On March 6, 2018, we heard oral argument. Later on that date, we issued a per curiam order disbarring Sacks. 8 See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sacks , 457 Md. 653 , 180 A.3d 1096 , 2018 WL 1165423 , at ¹ (2018) (per curiam). We now explain the reasons for Sacks's disbarment. 9 BACKGROUND The hearing judge found the following facts, which we summarize. On June 29, 1972, this Court admitted Sacks to the Bar of Maryland.

At all relevant times, Sacks maintained an office for the practice of law in Baltimore City. We discuss Sacks's representation of seven clients-Harris, Whyte, Chen, Anderson, the Ranges, and Smith-in chronological order by the dates on which he was retained. Afterward, we discuss Sacks's own cases. Sacks's Representation of Harris In the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, the State charged Harris with first-degree murder and other crimes.

On March 3, 2008, Darlene Bailey, Harris's mother, retained Sacks to represent him. The retainer agreement provided that Harris would pay Sacks a fee of $14,000, and that Sacks would separately bill Harris for expenses. Between March 1, 2008 and October 28, 2008, on Harris's behalf, Sacks collected from Harris's family $40,350, which included the $14,000 fee. Sacks misrepresented to Harris and his family that the $26,350 that he had collected in excess of the $14,000 fee was "for fees and expenses." Sacks failed to provide Harris or Bailey with billing statements, invoices, or accountings.

The hearing judge did not explain how Sacks collected the $40,350 without issuing billing statements or invoices. On October 30, 2008, Harris's trial began. A jury found Harris guilty of first-degree murder and other crimes. In February 2009, Harris terminated Sacks's representation, and retained Kenneth Ravenell to represent him at the sentencing proceeding and on appeal.

Sacks provided Ravenell with Harris's file, which included CDs and DVDs with witnesses' statements. On November 10, 2011, Bailey sued Sacks for breach of contract. Subsequently, Harris joined the breach of contract case as a plaintiff. In or about March 2012, Harris retained Thomas Donnelly to represent him in seeking postconviction relief.

Ravenell provided Donnelly with Harris's file, including the CDs and DVDs. On September 25, 2012, on Harris's behalf, Donnelly filed a petition for postconviction relief, contending that Sacks had provided ineffective assistance of counsel. On January 8, 2013, Sacks wrote to Donnelly, requesting that he provide Sacks with the CDs and DVDs so that he could use them in the breach of contract case. On February 28, 2013, Sacks issued to Donnelly a subpoena for Harris's file.

On March 28, 2013, in compliance with the subpoena, Donnelly provided Sacks with Harris's file. Sacks promised to return Harris's file to Donnelly within two weeks. Sacks filed a motion to dismiss the breach of contract case. In support of the motion, Sacks fabricated five retainer agreements that falsely purported to have been signed by Bailey.

In June 2013, Sacks returned to Donnelly all of Harris's file, except the CDs and DVDs. On June 26, 2013, on Harris's behalf, Donnelly filed an amended petition for postconviction relief, raising additional allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel by Sacks. Between June 2013 and March 2014, on numerous occasions, Donnelly contacted Sacks's office, requesting that he return the CDs and DVDs. Sacks failed to do so.

On June 30, 2014, Harris filed a complaint against Sacks with Bar Counsel. In a letter dated August 6, 2014, Bar Counsel requested from Sacks a response to Harris's complaint within fifteen days. Sacks requested, and Bar Counsel agreed to, multiple extensions of time to respond to Harris's complaint. At some point, Bar Counsel requested not only a response to Harris's complaint, but also an accounting of the $40,350 that Sacks had collected from Harris's family on Harris's behalf.

In a letter dated October 16, 2014, Bar Counsel advised Sacks that Harris's complaint had been docketed for further investigation, and requested a response to Harris's complaint within ten days. On July 23, 2015, Sacks provided a response to Harris's complaint. In the response, Sacks failed to provide an accounting of the $40,350 that he had collected on Harris's behalf. Sacks's Representation of Whyte In or about 2008, Whyte's boyfriend was murdered.

During the investigation of the murder, Whyte gave a statement to law enforcement officers, and testified before a grand jury. As of January 2013, the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland was preparing to prosecute someone other than Whyte for the murder. And, Whyte became concerned about her safety. On January 13, 2013, Whyte retained Sacks to help her prepare for, and to be present at, a meeting with the Assistant United States Attorney who was the prosecutor in the case.

Sacks agreed to do so, and also agreed to be present at any hearing or trial in the case. The retainer agreement provided that Whyte would pay Sacks a fee of $1,500. Whyte initially paid Sacks $750. On January 15, 2013, Whyte paid Sacks $500.

Sacks failed to deposit the $1,250 that Whyte had paid him into an attorney trust account, despite not having earned the $1,250. On January 22, 2013, Sacks and Whyte met with the Assistant United States Attorney, who assured Whyte that she had no reason to be concerned about her safety. The meeting lasted approximately seven minutes. After the meeting, Whyte asked Sacks for a partial refund.

Sacks refused, and terminated the representation. Sacks failed to deposit the disputed funds into an attorney trust account pending resolution of the fee dispute. The hearing judge found that Sacks misappropriated Whyte's funds. On January 29, 2013, Sacks wrote to Whyte, demanding the $250 remainder of the $1,500 fee.

Whyte wrote to Sacks, requesting an itemization of the $1,250 that she had paid him. Sacks failed to respond. On September 11, 2014, Whyte filed a complaint against Sacks with Bar Counsel. In a letter dated October 9, 2014, Bar Counsel requested from Sacks a response to Whyte's complaint within fifteen days.

Sacks failed to respond. In a letter dated November 17, 2014, Bar Counsel advised Sacks that Whyte's complaint had been docketed for further investigation, and requested, no later than November 27, 2014, copies of Whyte's file, any retainer agreements, and documents that were related to the $1,250 that Whyte had paid Sacks. On December 22, 2014, Bar Counsel received Sacks's response to Whyte's complaint. Sacks failed to provide a complete copy of Whyte's file, or any documents that that were related to the $1,250 that Whyte had paid him.

Sacks's Representation of Chen On September 11, 2013, Chen retained Sacks to assist him in attempting to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation return certain personal property to him. Sacks charged a fee of $5,000. Chen paid Sacks $2,500. Chen paid Sacks, at least in part, by providing him with post-dated checks.

Sacks failed to deposit the $2,500 that Chen had paid him into an attorney trust account, despite not having earned the $2,500. In late September 2013, Chen terminated Sacks's representation, and requested that Sacks refund the $2,500. Sacks refused to do so, and failed to return Chen's post-dated checks. The hearing judge found that Sacks misappropriated Chen's funds.

On October 2, 2013, Chen filed a complaint against Sacks with Bar Counsel. In a letter dated October 8, 2013, Bar Counsel requested from Sacks a response to Chen's complaint within fifteen days. Sacks requested, and Bar Counsel granted, multiple extensions of time to respond to Chen's complaint. On January 13, 2014, Sacks provided a response to Chen's complaint in which he failed to address several of Chen's allegations.

On February 28, 2014, Bar Counsel wrote to Sacks, requesting that he confirm, no later than March 10, 2014, whether he had kept the $2,500 that Chen had paid him in an attorney trust account until he had earned it. Sacks requested, and Bar Counsel granted, multiple extensions of time to respond to the letter. On April 14, 2014, Sacks wrote to Bar Counsel, admitting that he had not deposited the $2,500 that Chen had paid him into an attorney trust account. On May 28, 2014, Bar Counsel wrote to Sacks, advising him that Chen's complaint had been docketed for further investigation, and requesting, within fifteen days, a copy of Chen's file, an accounting of the $2,500 that Chen had paid Sacks, copies of any related attorney trust account records, and an explanation as to why Sacks had failed to return Chen's post-dated checks.

Sacks requested, and Bar Counsel granted, multiple extensions of time to provide the documents and information. Sacks wrote to Bar Counsel, but failed to provide the documents or information. Sacks's Representation of Anderson In March 2000, Anderson, a citizen of Jamaica, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States on a conditional basis. On July 29, 2003, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Anderson pled guilty to possession of cocaine.

On January 24, 2005, in the circuit court, a jury found Anderson guilty of first-degree assault and assault with a deadly weapon. On December 5, 2013, the Department of Homeland Security detained Anderson, and initiated a removal proceeding. Anderson authorized Lashaun Roberts-Marshall, his fiancé, to retain counsel on his behalf, and to receive information about the possession case, the assault case, and the immigration case. In or about December 2013, Roberts-Marshall retained Raymond Griffith to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the possession case, and to represent Anderson in the immigration case.

Griffith advised Anderson to retain another lawyer to file a petition for postconviction relief in the assault case. On February 25, 2014, on Anderson's behalf, Griffith filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the possession case. On March 1, 2014, Roberts-Marshall met with Sacks for the purpose of retaining him to file a petition for postconviction relief in the assault case. Sacks insisted that he would do so only if he also represented Anderson in the possession case and the immigration case.

Roberts-Marshall agreed, and retained Sacks to represent Anderson in the possession case, the assault case, and the immigration case. Sacks charged a fee of $5,000 to represent Anderson in the possession case, a fee of $6,000 to represent him in the assault case, and a fee of $3,500 to represent him in the immigration case. By May 18, 2014, Roberts-Marshall had paid Sacks in full. Sacks failed to deposit the $14,500 that Roberts-Marshall had paid him into an attorney trust account, despite not having earned the $14,500.

The hearing judge found that Sacks misappropriated Roberts-Marshall's funds. On March 24, 2014, on Anderson's behalf, Sacks appeared before the Immigration Court, and misrepresented that he had become involved with the immigration case on March 13, 2014. Sacks moved to postpone so that he would have time to file an amended petition for writ of error coram nobis in the possession case, and a petition for postconviction relief in the assault case. The Immigration Court postponed the immigration case until April 18, 2014.

On April 18, 2014, Sacks appeared before the Immigration Court, and moved to postpone again. The Immigration Court postponed the immigration case until May 19, 2014. On May 9, 2014, Sacks filed an amended petition for writ of error coram nobis in the possession case. On May 19, 2014, Sacks appeared before the Immigration Court, advised that he had filed an amended petition for writ of error coram nobis in the possession case, and misrepresented that he had also filed a petition for postconviction relief in the assault case.

The Immigration Court postponed the immigration case until June 16, 2014, and directed Sacks to file copies of the amended petition for writ of error coram nobis and the petition for postconviction relief with the Immigration Court. Sacks failed to do so, even after he subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief in the assault case on June 6, 2014. The hearing judge found that Sacks's failure to file a copy of the petition for postconviction relief with the Immigration Court was an attempt to deceive the Immigration Court as to when he had filed the petition for postconviction relief. On June 5, 2014, the circuit court denied the amended petition for writ of error coram nobis.

Sacks failed to advise Anderson as much. On June 16, 2014, Sacks failed to appear before the Immigration Court. The Immigration Court postponed the immigration case until June 30, 2014, and directed Sacks to file, before that date, a line explaining his failure to appear. On June 30, 2014, Sacks appeared before the Immigration Court, and brought a line explaining his failure to appear.

Sacks made a motion for another postponement, which the Immigration Court denied. The Immigration Court ordered Anderson removed. Anderson had thirty days to appeal. Sacks asked Roberts-Marshall to pay him an additional $5,000 to handle an appeal in the immigration case.

On July 3, 2014, Sacks filed a notice of appeal in the possession case. The notice of appeal, however, was not docketed by the circuit court's clerk's office. On July 15, 2014, Anderson terminated Sacks's representation, and requested a copy of his file. Anderson needed a copy of his file immediately, as he had only approximately two weeks left to appeal in the immigration case.

On numerous occasions, Roberts-Marshall requested a copy of Anderson's file, as well as transcripts that she had given to Sacks. Sacks failed to respond. The hearing judge did not specify whether Anderson appealed in the immigration case. On August 11, 2014, Sacks telephoned Roberts-Marshall and stated that he would provide a copy of Anderson's file to her.

On August 22, 2014, Sacks telephoned Roberts-Marshall and repeated that he would provide a copy of Anderson's file to her. On August 27, 2014, Roberts-Marshall received copies of the amended petition for writ of error coram nobis and the petition for postconviction relief, without copies of exhibits that had been attached to them. On December 24, 2014, even though Anderson had terminated his representation, Sacks filed in the possession case a second notice of appeal and a motion to accept late filing. Sacks failed to advise Anderson or Roberts-Marshall as much.

On April 15, 2015, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the petition for postconviction relief. Sacks appeared at the hearing, and argued on Anderson's behalf. At that time, Sacks had not had any contact with Anderson since July 2014. On the same date, Sacks advised Anderson that his brief in the appeal in the possession case was due the following month.

Sacks requested $5,000 to pursue the appeal, and refused to withdraw his appearance in the appeal. On April 17, 2015, Anderson wrote to Sacks, requesting that he withdraw his appearance in the appeal. Sacks refused again. On April 29, 2015, in the Court of Special Appeals, on his own behalf, Anderson filed a motion to strike Sacks's appearance in the appeal in the possession case.

In the meantime, on July 31, 2014, Anderson filed a complaint against Sacks with Bar Counsel. In a letter dated August 6, 2014, Bar Counsel requested from Sacks a response to Anderson's complaint with fifteen days. Sacks requested, and Bar Counsel granted, multiple extensions of time to respond to Anderson's complaint. In a letter dated September 11, 2014, Bar Counsel requested not only a response to Anderson's complaint, but also an accounting of the $14,500 that Roberts-Marshall had paid Sacks, and all related bank records.

As of December 5, 2014, Sacks had failed to respond to Anderson's complaint. Bar Counsel advised Sacks that Anderson's complaint had been docketed for further investigation, and requested certain information and documents no later than December 15, 2014. On January 16, 2015, Bar Counsel received Sacks's response to Anderson's complaint. Sacks failed to provide any bank records that were related to the $14,500 that Roberts-Marshall had paid him.

Sacks's Representation of the Ranges On April 3, 2014, in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Washington County, the State charged Mr. Range with child abuse. Later on that date, Mr. Range was arrested. Mr. Range authorized Ms. Range, his wife, to make all decisions regarding the retention and termination of counsel. On April 6, 2014, Ms. Range left a voicemail for Sacks, requesting that he call her back.

Later on that date, Sacks telephoned Ms. Range, stating that he would represent Mr. Range if she deposited $1,500 into his bank account the following day. On April 7, 2014, Ms. Range and her family deposited $1,500 into Sacks's bank account. Sacks failed to deposit the $1,500 that Ms. Range and her family had paid him into an attorney trust account, despite not having earned the $1,500. On April 10, 2014, on Mr. Range's behalf, Sacks appeared at a hearing in the District Court.

Later on that date, Sacks showed Ms. Range two retainer agreements. One retainer agreement provided that Sacks would represent Mr. Range in the District Court for $1,500. The other retainer agreement provided that Sacks would represent Mr. Range in the Circuit Court for Washington County for $7,500. After Ms. Range questioned Sacks, he reduced the fee for representing Mr. Range in the circuit court to $6,250, provided that Ms. Range paid in full by June 2014.

Ms. Range signed both retainer agreements. Sacks failed to provide Ms. Range with a copy of either retainer agreement. On April 18, 2014, Ms. Range paid Sacks $1,700. On May 1, 2014, Ms. Range retained Sacks to represent her in a child support case.

Ms. Range paid Sacks a fee of $750 to represent her. On May 8, 2014, Ms. Range paid Sacks another $1,000. On or about May 17, 2014, Ms. Range paid the balance of the fee that was due under the retainer agreement. Sacks failed to deposit the funds that Ms. Range had paid him into an attorney trust account, despite not having earned the funds.

The hearing judge found that Sacks misappropriated Ms. Range's funds. On May 19, 2014, Mr. Range, who was dissatisfied with Sacks's representation, told Ms. Range to meet with a lawyer named Kadish. On May 22, 2014, Ms. Range retained Kadish to replace Sacks as Mr. Range's counsel. Later on that date, Kadish telephoned Sacks, stated that he had been retained to replace Sacks as Mr. Range's counsel, and asked to make arrangements to pick up Mr. Range's file and the $6,250 that Ms. Range had paid Sacks to represent Mr. Range in the circuit court.

Sacks stated that he was unable to speak at the time, and would call Kadish back. Sacks failed to do so. On the same date, Kadish e-mailed Sacks, reiterating that he had been retained to replace Sacks as Mr. Range's counsel. Kadish stated that Ms. Range requested that Sacks send to Kadish's firm the $6,250 that Ms. Range had paid Sacks for his representation of Mr. Range in the circuit court.

Kadish advised that Sacks could not have earned any of the $6,250, as, at the time, there was no case number for Mr. Range's case in the circuit court. Kadish instructed Sacks not to enter his appearance in Mr. Range's case in the circuit court. Kadish stated that, if Sacks had not entered his appearance in Ms. Range's case, she wanted him to return the $750 that she had paid him for representing her. On the same date, Kadish mailed Sacks a letter in which he stated that a law clerk from his firm would come to Sacks's office to retrieve Mr. Range's file and a check for $6,250.

On the same date, after being telephoned by Kadish, Sacks went to the detention center and met with Mr. Range. Sacks handwrote on a legal pad the following: I[,] Rondell Range[,] want Stephen H. Sacks to continue to be my attorney in the case of State v. Rondell Range in the Circuit Court for Washington County for the offense[ ] of child abuse[,] and also in the [child in need of assistance] proceeding[. 10 ] I have been advised by Sacks that he has been in contact [with] another lawyer to take over the case[,] but I want [ ] Sacks to continue as my attorney[.] I do not want another attorney. Mr. Range signed the document without reading it. The hearing judge found that Sacks had Mr. Range sign the document in an attempt to "surreptitiously ... circumvent" his decision to terminate Sacks's representation, and to keep the $6,250 that Ms. Range had paid him to represent Mr. Range in the circuit court.

Later on that date, in the circuit court, the State filed a criminal information against Mr. Range. Still later on that date, with Kadish's assistance, Mr. Range posted bail, and was released from the detention center. While waiting for Mr. Range to be released, Ms. Range encountered Sacks at the detention center. Ms. Range asked Sacks to return Mr. Range's file and the $6,250 that Ms. Range had paid Sacks to represent Mr. Range in the circuit court.

On May 23, 2014, Mr. Range left a voicemail for Sacks, stating that his representation had been terminated, and that he was to provide Kadish with his file and the $6,250 that Ms. Range had paid Sacks to represent him in the circuit court. Sacks refused to comply. On May 27, 2014, even though Mr. Range had terminated his representation, Sacks entered his appearance in Mr. Range's case in the circuit court. On May 28, 2014, Kadish filed a complaint against Sacks with Bar Counsel.

On July 29, 2014, Bar Counsel requested from Sacks a response to Kadish's complaint within ten days. Bar Counsel also requested an accounting of all of the funds that Ms. Range and her family had paid him to represent Mr. Range, as well as related bank records. Sacks requested, and Bar Counsel granted, multiple extensions of time to respond to Kadish's complaint. On December 20, 2014, Bar Counsel caused to be served on Sacks a subpoena for any attorney trust account records from January 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014.

Sacks failed to comply with the subpoena, and filed a frivolous Motion to Quash with the Attorney Grievance Commission. On December 23, 2014, 11 Sacks provided a response to Kadish's complaint. In his response, Sacks intentionally misrepresented the terms of his representation of Mr. Range. Sacks attached an altered retainer agreement to his response to Kadish's complaint.

The hearing judge did not specify what misrepresentations Sacks made in his response to Kadish's complaint, or how Sacks altered the retainer agreement that was attached to his response to Kadish's complaint. Sacks failed to provide a complete accounting of the funds that Ms. Range and her family had paid him to represent Mr. Range, or related bank records. Sacks's Representation of Smith In or about July 2014, Smith retained Sacks to represent him in a domestic matter. In the following months, Smith retained and paid Sacks to represent him in various other matters.

Sacks failed to deposit Smith's funds into an attorney trust account. In or about September 2014, Smith terminated Sacks's representation, and requested a refund of any unearned fees. Sacks failed to provide a refund, or an accounting of Smith's funds. The hearing judge found that Sacks misappropriated Smith's funds.

On October 9, 2014, Smith filed a complaint against Sacks with Bar Counsel. In a letter dated November 17, 2014, Bar Counsel requested from Sacks a response to Smith's complaint within fifteen days. Sacks requested, and Bar Counsel granted, multiple extensions of time to respond to Smith's complaint. On July 9, 2015, Sacks provided a response to Smith's complaint.

Sacks failed to provide an accounting of Smith's funds. Sacks's Cases In 1992, Sacks entered into a residential lease with Tindeco. Shortly afterward, Sacks moved into an apartment at Tindeco. In 2006, Tindeco retained Spence to represent it with regard to Sacks's various alleged breaches of the lease.

In October 2011, Tindeco informed Sacks that it would not renew the lease. Subsequently, while self-represented, Sacks initiated eight frivolous actions or appeals against Tindeco, its employees, its counsel, and/or various State agencies and officials. 12 In chronological order by the dates on which the frivolous actions were initiated-or, with regard to the frivolous appeals, the dates on which the actions that underlay the frivolous appeals were initiated-the eight frivolous actions or appeals were: 13 1. Stephen H. Sacks v. Tindeco Wharf, LLC , No. 2238, Sept. Term, 2014 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), which was an appeal of a judgment in Tindeco Wharf, LLC v. Stephen H. Sacks , No. 24-C-14-003409 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt.

City), which originated in Tindeco Wharf, LLC v. Stephen H. Sacks , No. 0101-0008374-2014 (Md. Dist. Ct. Balt. City); 2. Stephen H. Sacks v. Adam M. Spence, Esquire, et al. , No. 24-C-14-002626 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt.

City); 3. Stephen H. Sacks v. Tindeco Wharf, LLC, et al. , No. 24-C-14-006060 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City); 4. Stephen H. Sacks, Esq. v. Tindeco Wharf, LLC, et al. , No. 24-C-15-001532 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt.

City), which originated in Stephen H. Sacks, Esquire v. Tindeco Wharf LLC, et al. , No. 0101-0024089-2014 (Md. Dist. Ct. Balt. City); 5. Stephen H. Sacks v. Tindeco Wharf, LLC, et al. , No. 24-C-15-001101 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt.

City); 6. Stephen H. Sacks, Esq. v. Daniel L. Sussman, Esq. , No. 24-C-15-003761 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City), and the related case of Daniel L. Sussman v. Stephen Sacks , No. 0101-0014027-2015 (Md. Dist. Ct. Balt.

City); 7. Stephen H. Sacks v. Tindeco Wharf, LLC , No. 0101-0006317-2016 (Md. Dist. Ct. Balt. City); and 8.

Stephen H. Sacks v. Tindeco Wharf, LLC et al. , No. 24-C-16-004897 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt. City). The hearing judge did not discuss these eight actions or appeals, beyond finding that they were frivolous. In the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, Bar Counsel characterized as frivolous these eight actions or appeals, as well as Stephen H. Sacks v. Tindeco Wharf, LLC, et al. , No. 24-C-11-008407 (Md. Cir. Ct. Balt.

City), which is not listed above. In this action, Tindeco and other defendants requested attorneys' fees on the ground that Sacks had initiated the action in bad faith or without substantial justification. The circuit court denied the defendants' request for attorneys' fees, finding that Sacks had not initiated the action in bad faith or without substantial justification. The circuit court found that Sacks had a reasonable basis to believe that there were issues for a finder of fact to resolve.

The circuit court observed that six of the thirty-five counts were submitted to a jury, which found in Sacks's favor as to two counts. The circuit court determined that, even if Sacks relied on "innovative or tenuous legal theories" that the circuit court did not endorse, that circumstance alone did not warrant sanctions. Because the circuit court had found that Sacks had not initiated the action in bad faith or without substantial justification, the hearing judge found that, notwithstanding the averment in the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, Stephen H. Sacks v. Tindeco Wharf, LLC, et al. , No. 24-C-11-008407 was not frivolous. The hearing judge found that, during litigation that involved Tindeco, Sacks "intentionally perverted the [Maryland] Rules ... to attack opposing counsel and parties in an effort to pursue his personal vendetta." During the litigation that involved Tindeco, Sacks made numerous intentional misrepresentations to the courts and opposing counsel, and engaged in a pattern of abusive language toward witnesses and lawyers.

Sacks committed crimes, including harassing and threatening witnesses and lawyers, and repeatedly trespassing on Tindeco's property. As a result, the State charged Sacks with crimes in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Baltimore City. 14 At some point, a trial court ordered Sacks to vacate his residence. Sacks failed to comply with the trial court's order. On October 7, 2014, Sacks was evicted.

Both before and after the eviction, Sacks failed to take any action to safeguard the voluminous files of clients that were in his residence. On August 5, 2014, Spence filed a complaint against Sacks with Bar Counsel. On October 14, 2014, Bar Counsel wrote to Sacks, requesting explanations, within seven days of Sacks's receipt of the letter, as to why he failed to comply with the trial court's order, and why he failed to take any action to safeguard his clients' files. On several occasions, Bar Counsel wrote to Sacks, again requesting a response.

On November 7, 2014, Sacks wrote to Bar Counsel, but failed to respond in any substantive manner. On multiple occasions, Bar Counsel wrote to Sacks, yet again requesting a response. Sacks failed to respond. Sacks's Evidence, Mitigating Factor, and Aggravating Factors As noted above, upon granting the Motion for Sanctions based on Sacks's failure to appear for his deposition, the hearing judge issued an Order, precluding Sacks from producing any documents at the disciplinary hearing, and precluding Sacks from calling any witnesses, other than himself, at the disciplinary hearing.

Nonetheless, at the disciplinary hearing, Sacks called Spence as a witness, 15 and offered into evidence transcripts of the March 27, 2017 scheduling conference and the June 8, 2017 motions hearing in this attorney discipline proceeding. Sacks offered the transcripts in an attempt to support his allegation that Bar Counsel had told him that, if he ever needed an extension, he should "just ask[.]" Sacks contended that Bar Counsel's alleged statement had applied to all discovery issues, and had required Bar Counsel to agree to postpone his deposition. The transcripts, however, did not reflect this alleged statement by Bar Counsel. The hearing judge ordered a CD with a recording of the June 8, 2017 motions hearing.

The hearing judge listened to the entirety of the recording, which did not reflect Bar Counsel's alleged statement. Sacks asserted that Bar Counsel's alleged statement had occurred after the courtroom's regular camera, which records only when the circuit court is in session, had stopped recording. Sacks asserted that the courtroom's backup camera, which records constantly, had recorded Bar Counsel's alleged statement. Sacks filed with the circuit court's administrative judge a motion to provide a copy of the June 8, 2017 recording from the courtroom's backup camera.

The circuit court's administrative judge allowed Sacks and Bar Counsel to listen to a limited portion of the June 8, 2017 recording from the courtroom's backup camera. The recording did not reflect Bar Counsel's alleged statement. Afterward, Sacks stated that he believed that he had misremembered the date of Bar Counsel's alleged statement, and asserted that it had occurred on June 12, 2017, on which the hearing judge conducted a hearing at which the parties agreed on a date for Sacks's deposition. Sacks filed with the circuit court's administrative judge a motion to provide a copy of the June 12, 2017 recording from the courtroom's backup camera.

The circuit court's administrative judge allowed Sacks, Bar Counsel, and the hearing judge to listen to the relevant portion of the June 12, 2017 recording from the courtroom's backup camera. The recording did not reflect Bar Counsel's alleged statement. In addition to offering the transcripts into evidence and calling Spence as a witness, Sacks testified for more than two hours. A sizeable portion of Sacks's testimony pertained to his and his secretary's illnesses.

On multiple occasions, Sacks testified: "[Y]ou can call my doctor"; "you can call the hospital"; and "you can call my secretary[.]" In her opinion, the hearing judge noted that it was not her responsibility to confirm the accuracy of Sacks's testimony about his and his secretary's illnesses. The hearing judge determined that Sacks's testimony about his and his secretary's illnesses was not evidence of mitigating factors, but instead was testimony through which Sacks attempted to explain his multiple requests for postponements, and through which he contended that the hearing judge's denials of certain such requests were unfair. For example, Sacks argued that he was unable to meet certain deadlines due to his secretary's illness. The hearing judge explained that, when ruling on Sacks's requests for postponements, she always considered Sacks's allegations of medical reasons, and the credibility thereof.

The hearing judge observed that, over Bar Counsel's objections, she had granted multiple requests for postponements. The hearing judge noted that, after she denied certain requests for postponements made by Sacks, he still found the time to file various motions. The hearing judge found that the majority of the evidence that Sacks offered was not evidence of mitigating factors, but instead was evidence through which Sacks attempted to defend against the averments in the Petition. In one part of her opinion, the hearing judge stated that there was "no evidence of mitigation." In another part of her opinion, however, the hearing judge stated that Sacks's misconduct was mitigated by the absence of prior attorney discipline.

The hearing judge did not expressly address whether there were any aggravating factors. The hearing judge found, however, that Harris's, Whyte's, Chen's, Anderson's, Kadish's, and Smith's complaints against Sacks contained "a common theme[,]" in that Sacks, "it appears, will go to any length to keep funds [that were] paid to him." STANDARD OF REVIEW Bar Counsel did not except to any of the hearing judge's findings of fact and Sacks did not timely except to any of the hearing judge's findings of fact; thus, we "treat the findings of fact as established[.]" Md. R. 19-741(b)(2)(A). In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews without deference a hearing judge's conclusions of law. See Md. R. 19-741(b)(1) ("The Court of Appeals shall review de novo the [hearing] judge's conclusions of law.").

This Court determines whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that a lawyer violated an MLRPC. See Md. R. 19-727(c) ("Bar Counsel has the burden of proving the averments of the petition [for disciplinary or remedial action] by clear and convincing evidence."). DISCUSSION (A) Conclusions of Law Bar Counsel did not except to any of the hearing judge's conclusions of law and Sacks did not timely except to any of the hearing judge's conclusions of law. Nonetheless, upon independent review, as discussed below, we do not find clear and convincing evidence to support the hearing judge's conclusion that Sacks violated MLRPC 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.4(c), and 3.4(d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel) in one instance.

We uphold, however, the remainder of the hearing judge's conclusions of law, including the hearing judge's conclusions that Sacks violated MLRPC 3.1, 3.4(c), and 3.4(d) in other instances. MLRPC 1.2(a) (Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer) MLRPC 1.2(a) states, in pertinent part: [A] lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and, when appropriate, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. Without specifying a section of MLRPC 1.2, the hearing judge concluded that Sacks violated MLRPC 1.2 in representing Anderson and Mr. Range.

Given that Bar Counsel specifically charged Sacks with violating MLRPC 1.2(a), and given that the hearing judge discussed only MLRPC 1.2(a), it is evident that the hearing judge concluded that Sacks violated MLRPC 1.2(a) in representing Anderson and Mr. Range. We uphold these conclusions. Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge's conclusion that Sacks violated MLRPC 1.2(a) in representing Anderson. After Anderson had terminated his representation, Sacks filed a notice of appeal and a motion to accept late filing on Anderson's behalf, and appeared at a hearing and argued on Anderson's behalf.

Sacks refused, on two occasions, to withdraw his appearance in the appeal, forcing Anderson to file a motion to strike Sacks's appearance. Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge's conclusion that Sacks violated MLRPC 1.2(a) in representing Mr. Range. The record demonstrates that, even though Mr. Range had terminated his representation, Sacks entered his appearance in Mr. Range's case in the Circuit Court for Washington County. MLRPC 1.3 (Diligence) "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." MLRPC 1.3.

"A lawyer violates MLRPC 1.3 by failing to appear for a scheduled court date without good reason." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Haley , 443 Md. 657 , 669, 118 A.3d 816 , 823 (2015) (cleaned up). The hearing judge concluded that Sacks violated MLRPC 1.3 in representing Anderson. Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge's conclusion. Sacks was retained to file a petition for postconviction relief and an amended petition for writ of error coram nobis.

It took Sacks more than two months to file the amended petition for writ of error coram nobis, and more than three months to file the petition for postconviction relief. Moreover, Sacks failed to provide copies of the filings to the Immigration Court upon request, and failed to appear at a proceeding before the Immigration Court. MLRPC 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(b) (Communication) MLRPC 1.4 stated: (a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in [MLRPC] 1.0(f), is required by these Rules; (2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (4) 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 [MLRPC] or other law. (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

The hearing judge concluded that Sacks violated: MLRPC 1.4(a) and (b) by failing to communicate his fee for representing Harris; MLRPC 1.4 by failing to timely communicate with Anderson and respond to requests for his file; and MLRPC 1.4 by failing to provide copies of retainer agreements to Ms. Range. The hearing judge did not specify a subsection of MLRPC 1.4(a) as to Harris, or a section of MLRPC 1.4 as to Anderson and Mr. Range. Given that the hearing judge observed that Sacks failed to communicate with Harris, it is clear that hearing judge concluded that Sacks violated MLRPC 1.4(a)(2) and 1.4(b) in representing Harris. Given that the hearing judge found that Sacks failed to communicate with Anderson and failed to respond to requests for his file, it is evident that she concluded that Sacks violated MLRPC