Attorney Grievance Commission v. Baker

BELL, C.J. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751, 1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action ¹⁷ against Sean W. Baker, the respondent. The petition, the product of reciprocal discipline proceedings and two unrelated complaints, 2 in addition to noting the respondent’s disbarment by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, charged that the respondent violated Rules 1.3, Diligence, 3 1.4, Communication, 4 1.16, Declining or terminating representation, 5 and 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters, 6 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812. ¹⁸ We referred the case, pursuant to Rule 16-752(a), 7 to the Honorable Robert E. Cahill, Jr., of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757(c). 8 After the hearing, at which the respondent appeared and participated, including testifying, and the petitioner offered, and the hearing court accepted, two exhibits, one of which was the petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents and the other the respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Request for Admissions, the hearing court found facts by the clear and convincing standard and drew conclusions of law, both as follows (footnotes omitted): ¹⁹ “D PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION BASED ON ORDER OF DISBARMENT ENTERED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ON MAY 9, 2005. “Respondent was engaged to represent a William A. Younkin in a civil action asserted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on July 28, 2003. On December 10, 2003, Respondent was ordered to show cause by December 29, 2003 why the case he filed should not be dismissed after it had been dormant for over five months. Respondent filed a belated response to the Court’s order on January 5, 2004.

On January 8, 2004, a scheduling order was filed. Respondent did not meet the scheduling order deadlines. Specifically, the Respondent failed to meet the March 8, 2004 deadline for identifying expert witnesses. On April 7, 2004, the U.S. District Court extended the time to file disclosures regarding expert witnesses and issued a show cause order as to why respondent should not be responsible for defendant’s costs in continuing to defend the action.

Respondent failed to comply with the show cause order and on April 27, 2004 sanctions were imposed against Respondent. Moreover, Respondent failed to meet the extended deadline for identification of plaintiffs expert witnesses. On April 29, 2004 defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was ultimately granted, to which Respondent did not respond. “On June 4, 2004 the U.S. District Court entered an award of monetary sanctions against Respondent in the amount of $356.17. The Court ordered that the amount be paid to the defendant by June 25, 2004.

Respondent failed to pay the monetary sanction by the date ordered. In response, the U.S. District Court ordered on July 14, 2004 that Respondent appear before the court on July 20, 2004 to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s order. Respondent failed to appear on July 20, 2004. A warrant was issued for his arrest, and Respondent was arrested and brought before the Court on July 21, 2004.

The Court passed an order that held Respondent in contempt and forwarded the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the ²⁰ U.S. District Court. On November 2, 2004, the U.S. District Court sent a letter to Respondent requesting a written explanation as to the Respondent[’]s failure to answer or comply with any of the Court’s orders. Respondent did not respond to the letter. “On February 3, 2005, the U.S. District Court issued an order requiring Respondent to show cause why he should not be appropriately sanctioned for his failure to respond to any and all correspondence. A three-judge panel was scheduled for March 11, 2005.

Respondent finally appeared. At the hearing, Respondent was required to respond in writing to the Court’s November 2, 2004 letter on or before March 25, 2005. This information was stated again in a letter dated March 11, 2005. Respondent did not respond to the Court’s order or the letter dated March 11, 2005.

As a result Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on May 10, 2005. “Maryland Rule 16-773(g) reads, in pertinent part: “ ‘final adjudication in a disciplinary or remedial proceeding by another court, agency, or tribunal that an attorney has been guilty of professional misconduct or is incapacitated is conclusive evidence of that misconduct or incapacity in any proceeding of this Chapter’ “This Court finds that Respondent has violated Rules 3.4 and 8.4. By his actions, or lack thereof, Respondent has knowingly disobeyed his obligation to the tribunal and failed to make reasonably diligent efforts toward the fair and orderly completion of discovery. Respondent ignored all responsibility for adhering to the rules and procedure of the United States District Court. The Court is not persuaded that these failures resulted in whole or in part from depression, alcohol use or the other problems which Respondent sought to raise factually to mitigate his failure to obey numerous rules of the tribunal.

Respondent has engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. ²¹ “II) COMPLAINT OF BARBARA AND MICHELE CLANTON “Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed in his duty to abide by the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.1 with regard to Respondent’s handling of Ms. Clanton-Edmonds’ case. “Support for Petitioner’s assertions was best summarized in Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, which was admitted into evidence as ‘Petitioner’s Exhibit I.’ The facts were verified by and further elaborated on by Ms. Clanton-Edmonds’ testimony at the hearing on June 19, 2006. “Ms. Clanton-Edmonds testified that in August 2001 she and her daughter in law, Michele Clanton, engaged Respondent to investigate and assert a claim against Lorien Frank-ford Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (hereinafter ‘Lorien.’). The claim was based upon that facility’s alleged negligence in caring for Elwin Clanton over a period of several weeks immediately prior to his death on July 24, 2001. Elwin Clanton was Ms. Clanton-Edmonds’ son and Michele Clan-ton’s wife. Although Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Clanton-Edmonds and Michele Clanton, Respondent failed to file suit within the appropriate time required by the statute of limitations against Lorien or any other potentially liable entity or individual.

Ms. Clanton-Edmonds’ testimony showed that despite her repeated requests for information regarding the filing and status of her case, such information was not provided to her by Respondent. Respondent failed to notify Ms. Clanton-Edmonds or Michele Clanton when he vacated his law office in the spring of 2004. Furthermore, Ms. Clanton-Edmonds’ testimony indicated that she was not notified that Respondent was terminating representation of her in the matter. Respondent’s failure to timely notify Ms. Clanton-Edmonds that he was terminating his representation left her without sufficient time to secure employment of other counsel.

Consequently, her case was barred by the statute of limitations. Also, Ms. Clanton- ²² Edmonds stated that Respondent had not returned the original papers and photographs she gave to Respondent. “As a result of Respondent’s actions, Ms. Clanton-Edmonds and Michele Clanton filed a complaint against Respondent with Bar Counsel. Respondent received a letter on April 30, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to a complaint made by Ms. Clanton-Edmonds. Respondent failed to respond to the April 30, 2004 letter.

Respondent received a letter on May 26, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to a complaint made by Ms. Clanton-Edmonds. Respondent failed to respond to the May 26, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on June 17, 2004 requesting a response to Ms. Clanton-Edmonds’ complaint. Respondent failed to respond to the June 17, 2004 letter.

Respondent received a letter on July 2, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to Ms. Clanton-Edmonds’ complaint. Once again, Respondent failed to answer the letter. Respondent at no point submitted any response to Bar Counsel’s request for information in regard to Ms. Clanton-Edmonds’ complaint. “This court finds that, as a matter of law, Respondent has violated [R]ules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.1 in failing to answer the repeated queries of Bar Counsel. Respondent violated rule 1.3 by not by not acting with diligence and promptness in either filing a claim for Ms. Clanton-Edmonds or informing her that he was not going to file a claim because he did not believe there was a substantial basis for doing so.

Respondent violated [R]ule 1.4 by not keeping Ms. Clanton-Edmonds informed about the status, or lack thereof, of her case. Respondent has violated [R]ule 1.16 in failing to inform Ms. Clanton-Edmonds he was shutting the doors to his law practice and failing to return to Ms. Clanton-Edmonds her documents and photographs. Respondent has violated [R]ule 8.1 in failing to answer the repeated queries of Bar Counsel. “Respondent offered mitigation about his mother’s illness, his father’s illness and ultimate death, his depression, his alcohol use to treat said depression, his treatment for alcohol ²³ abuse, and his relapse with alcohol. The Court did not find Respondent’s mitigation to be persuasive. “Ill) COMPLAINT OF TERRENCE K. BRADLEY “Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed in his duty to abide by the Maryland Rules of Professional conduct, specifically Rule 8.1.

Support for Petitioner’s assertions was best summarized by Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, which was admitted into evidence as ‘Petitioner’s Exhibit I.’ “Respondent agreed to represent Terrence K. Bradley in October of 2000 on a criminal assault charge and an expungement of records relating to a separate, prior charge. Respondent handled the defense of the assault charge adequately, but failed to respond to Mr. Bradley’s request for information relating to the expungement. Respondent received a letter on May 5, 2004 from Bar Counsel requesting a response to a complaint made by Mr. Bradley. Respondent failed to respond to the May 5, 2004 letter.

Respondent received a letter on June 17, 2004 requesting a response to Mr. Bradley’s complaint. Respondent failed to respond to the June 17, 2004 letter. Respondent received a letter on July 2, 2004 from bar counsel requesting a response to Mr. Bradley’s complaint. Once again, Respondent failed to answer the letter.

Respondent at no point submitted