Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cockrell

ELDRIDGE, Judge, dissenting: In light of the basic facts found by Judge Fader, I would impose a sixty-day suspension in this case. PER CURIAM. The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Paul J. Cockrell, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We referred the matter, pursuant to Md. Rule BV9 b, to Judge John F. Fader, II, Associate Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing, Judge Fader filed his findings and conclusions as follows. “The allegations of misconduct focus on his handling of an automobile accident claim for Karen M. Kennedy arising from a collision on December 26, 1977. Mr. Cockrell did not properly handle the matter for Ms. Kennedy and did not keep her informed of the status of the litigation. Statement of Findings of Fact “The Court finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence: “1. Mr. Cockrell was retained by Karen M. Kennedy to represent her in connection with her claim arising as a result of injuries (for which she was medically treated) received in an automobile accident which occurred on December 26, 1977.

She was told by Mr. Cockrell that she had a cause of action as a result of the collision. “2. Ms. Kennedy was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Eugene Baker and owned by William L. Smith. Another vehicle driven by Thomas Gray is alleged to have run into the vehicle in which Ms. Kennedy was riding. “3. Mr. Cockrell received medical reports and a motor vehicle report in connection with the accident and the inju ¹⁷ ries sustained.

He did not communicate with prospective witnesses or the target defendants. Although there is some conflict between the admissions of fact introduced (Rule 2-424, formerly Rule 421), the Court determines that some minimum contact was made sufficient for the insurance company insuring Mr. Smith to deny coverage in connection with the accident. “4. Suit was filed against Messrs. Baker and Smith on December 4, 1979 but in the suit filed by Mr. Cockrell, the allegations set forth facts placing Ms. Kennedy in the Gray vehicle despite the clear statements by Ms. Kennedy to Mr. Cockrell to the contrary.

At one point, a check was received by Mr. Cockrell for evident PIP coverage from the insurance company affording coverage on the Gray vehicle. That check was returned by Mr. Cockrell to the insurance company because it represented funds to which Ms. Kennedy was not entitled. “5. A default judgment was secured against Mr. Smith on February 27, 1981 but there was never any attempt to obtain a money judgment against him. That case was ended by a dismissal pursuant to Maryland Rule 530 on August 20, 1982. “6.

Mr. Cockrell had referred Ms. Kennedy’s case to another attorney in February, 1979 but had received the file back sometime during July, 1979. “7. Ms. Kennedy made numerous attempts to contact Mr. Cockrell concerning the status of the case. She made appointments with him which he did not keep. He did not return her telephone calls. “8.

Considering all the testimony, including the deposition of Frederick L. Bierer, Esquire, taken on August 9, 1984, the Court is unable to determine by clear and convincing evidence that any economic loss resulted to Ms. Kennedy because of the lack of action by Mr. Cockrell. “This is a difficult issue. No doubt her injuries were serious enough that she should have been compensated. Her position as a passenger would lead to the supposition ¹⁸ she was not to blame for the accident and should have obtained a recovery from someone. Without more history and a better foundation, the Court is unable to say the recovery it supposes would have materialized.

Even giving Ms. Kennedy the benefit of the doubt because of an expected loss of memory and facts occasioned by delay attributable to Mr. Cockrell, the testimony would not be elevated to a point sufficient for the court to make a determination against Mr. Cockrell in this regard. Under other circumstances and based upon a more complete fact situation, this situation might have contributed to a court finding that conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice or adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law. No evidence sufficient to those determinations were produced here. “Along these same lines, the court is unable to attribute any consequence to the failure of Mr. Cockrell to make timely claim with the