Attorney Grievance Commission v. Gardner

DALE R. CATHELL (Retired, specially assigned) J. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“AGC”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in which it asserted that Paul Winston Gardner, II, Respondent, violated certain of the Maryland Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct in respect to several client ²⁸⁵ matters. 1 Bar Counsel alleged that Gardner violated the provisions of the following rules: 16-701(i), 2 1.1, 3 1.3., 4 1.4, 5 1.5, 6 1.7, 7 1.15, 8 1.16, 9 5.4, 10 8.4(a),(c), & (d), 11 Maryland Rule 16-606.1(a)(l)(2) & (3), 12 16-609(a), (b), & (c). 13 ²⁸⁷ Bar Counsel’s Petition is organized in three sections: “A. BC Docket No. 2010-242-4-8 Complainant: Bar Counsel,” “B. BC Docket No. 2010-399-4-8 Complainant: Steve Kang,” and “C. BC Docket No. 2011-119-4-8 Complainant: Vivian McGhee Boyd.” 14 The genesis of this matter began when Bar Counsel was notified by a financial institution that the Respondent’s trust account had been overdrawn which resulted in Bar Counsel conducting an investigation as to the activity in Respondent’s trust account. That investigation apparently led to the complaints in respect to Respondent’s representation of Mr. Kang and Ms. Boyd. Pursuant to Md. Rule 16-752, the Court referred the matter to Judge Jeannie J. Hong of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a hearing. Judge Hong conducted a hearing and filed her findings of fact and conclusions of law on September 28, 2012.

The Respondent takes exception to some of the hearing judge’s findings of fact. Recently in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Zimmerman, 428 Md. 119, 134 , 50 A.3d 1205, 1214 (2012), the Court noted, in part quoting from Att’y ²⁸⁸ Grievance Commission v. London, 427 Md. 328, 343 , 47 A.3d 986, 995 (2012), that: “In attorney discipline proceedings, this Court has original and complete jurisdiction and conducts an independent review of the record. We accept hearing judge’s findings of fact unless we determine that they are clearly erroneous. That deference is appropriate because the hearing judge is in a position to assess the demeanor-based credibility of the witnesses.

In that regard, the hearing judge is permitted to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon from a conflicting array when determining findings of fact. We review de novo the hearing judge’s proposed conclusions of law. In other words the ultimate determination ... as to an attorney’s misconduct is reserved for this Court. In that regard, we examine the record to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to support the hearing judge’s legal conclusions, by a clear and convincing standard of proof.” In sum, the hearing judge’s findings are reasonable, considering the evidence and the judge’s role in assessing the credibility of witnesses and choosing which pieces of evidence to rely on during fact-finding....

We have read the transcripts of testimony that took place over three days comprising almost 700 pages, and have reviewed hundreds of pages of various documents. The testimony of Mr. Kang comprised over 200 pages during two days of the proceedings. Respondent’s testimony consumed at least 170 pages of the transcripts. Upon our independent review of the record, we agree that it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent violated the above provisions of these rules.

Judge Hong’s fact findings include the following: “A Complaintant: Bar Counsel On four occasions between May 28, 2009 and September 9, 2009. Respondent paid his Office Manager, Rosalind ²⁸⁹ Tyner, a total of $700.00 in administration fees with checks drawn on his attorney trust account.... Respondent paid this money to Ms. Tyner for her work on personal injury cases. Ms. Tyner was not a lawyer, and Respondent’s fee agreements did not state that he would be sharing legal fees with Ms. Tyner from the portion of the settlement proceeds that were collected as attorney’s fees.

On September 28, 2009, Leonard J. Seigel, Esquire presented check number 1171 drawn on Respondent’s trust account in the amount of $2,500.00 for payment, and the account did not contain sufficient funds at the time of presentation.... This caused an overdraft in Respondent’s trust account which left a [negative] balance of -$922.17.... Accordingly a notification was sent to Bar Counsel by the bank alerting them of the overdraft.... On September 30, 2009, Respondent deposited a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) check on behalf of his client, Angel-lo Gordon, in the amount of $2,500.00 which left a balance of $1,577.83 in Respondent’s trust account. [$1,577.83 plus the overdraft amount of $922.17 equals the $2,500.00 amount of the PIP check.] ...

Respondent made two cash withdrawals from his trust account which occurred on June 29, 2009 for $400.00 and on October 2, 2009 for $1550.00.... The October 2 withdrawal left a balance of $27.83. Respondent failed to keep Mr. Gordon’s funds in trust prior to disbursement.” In his Answer to Bar Counsel’s Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the Respondent acknowledged the misconduct alleged in Section A of the petition. He also acknowledged the same during his testimony and took no exception to this finding.

Maryland Rule 16-759(b)(2) provides: “If no exceptions are filed, the Court may treat the findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions, if any.” ²⁹⁰ B. COMPLAINANT: STEVE KANG Judge Hong’s findings in respect to the Kang matter are as follows: “I. Mingshu Li Matter ____Acting as an agent [of Mrs. Li], Mr. Kang hired Respondent to prepare and file a non-immigrant visa application [for Mrs. Li’s husband, Jin Shifeng]. This was the first instance in which Respondent filed immigration paperwork with the office of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (hereinafter ‘USCIS’) on behalf of a client. Although not listed on any invoice, Mr. Kang testified that Respondent charged $3,500 for the completion and filing of a L1/L2 visa application for Mrs. Li. The U.S. Department of State denied the application on June 19, 2006 because the application did not contain sufficient information about the company, and because there was nothing to show the money was committed to be invested in the company____ The application itself also incorrectly listed Jin Shifeng’s gender as being female.

Respondent waited until September 15, 2006 to send an email to Mrs. Li, in care of Mr. Kang, to inform her that the funds had to be invested in the Yanbian Company prior to refilling the visa petition, and that Respondent would re-file the petition once the money was transferred.... On September 14, 2006, Mrs. Li transferred $135,185.00 into the account Mr. Kang opened at Bank of America for the Yanbian Company____ Respondent never refiled the visa application.... On February 21, 2007, Respondent drafted a letter to Mrs. Li suggesting terms for cancellation of the contract between the Yanbian Company and Kentrexs Ent., Ltd, and offered Mrs. Li a refund of $100,000 without first consulting Mr. Kang. Gary Maslin, Esquire [an attorney retained by Mrs. Li apparently in respect to her efforts to recover the money] sent a demand letter on April 18, 2007 to Respondent on behalf of Mrs. Li calling for a return of money owed to her, and put Respondent on notice that his representation of ²⁹¹ both Mr. Kang and Mrs. Li may be a conflict of interest....

Respondent mailed Mr. Maslin a reply on May 4, 2007 stating that he did not have a retainer agreement for Jin Shifeng, that the visa application was properly prepared based on information given to him by Mrs. Li and Mr. Kang, and that Mr. Kang said he would pay Mrs. Li whatever funds were owed to her.... Mr. Kang never returned the money, and Mrs. Li filed a lawsuit on October 31, 2007 ... against Mr. Kang and Bank of America.... Respondent never mentioned to Mr. Kang the existence of a potential conflict stemming from his preparation of the visa application until December, 2008. Mr. Kang was shocked when he found out Respondent would not be representing him in the lawsuit.

On November 28, 2008, Ms. Griffith [an attorney that had some type of working relationship with Respondent] met Mr. Kang for the first time to discuss the impending trial.... This meeting lasted for approximately forty minutes. Mr. Kang signed an agreement on December 1, 2008 [the date of the scheduled Li/Kang trial] retaining Ms. Griffith as trial counsel, and Ms. Griffith entered her appearance on this date.... This agreement provided that Mr. Kang would pay Ms. Griffith a $5,000.00 fee for representation at trial....

Counsel for Mrs. Li filed a Motion to Strike/Disqualify Opposing Counsel on December 1, 2008 ... Respondent then voluntarily withdrew from his representation of Mr. Kang.... Up until the time Respondent withdrew his appearance, Ms. Griffith expected that Respondent would be assisting her with the case as he was familiar with the relevant facts. Ms. Griffith, ... made a request for a postponement on December 2, 2008 [during the trial] which was denied.

Ms. Griffith was not prepared to try the case on her own, and did not put forth any witnesses to testify or introduce any evidence in Mr. Kang’s defense. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Griffith explained the significance of punitive damages to Mr. Kang until the day of trial. On December 3, 2008, ²⁹² the court entered judgment against Mr. Kang in the amount of $150,200.00 in compensatory damages and $50,000.00 in punitive damages----” The Respondent did not except to these findings of fact. “II. Respondent’s Retainer Agreement with Steve Kang Respondent and Mr. Kang only executed one retainer agreement ....

While the visa application and [the] litigation were pending, Mr. Kang hired Respondent for his assistance in a number of legal matters. There was no separate retainer agreement executed by Respondent and Mr. Kang for any of these matters and Respondent never communicated the basis of the fees collected for these matters.” Respondent did not except to these findings of fact. “III. The Biddle Street/OK Liquors Matter On or about May 9, 2007, Mr. Kang engaged Respondent on behalf of himself and Choe and Choe 15 to find the owners of lots of [on] the 2800 block of East Biddle Street and purchase the properties to develop a strip shopping center.... Work in this matter consisted largely of mailing letters to a number of elected officials seeking whatever information he could find about the property owners and the city’s plans for the area....

Mr. Kang never received copies of these letters despite notations indicating that he was sent carbon copies of each.... ” Respondent took no exception to this finding of fact. “TV. The ‘Night Owl’ Matter Mr. Kang enlisted Respondent on September 10, 2007 to assist with the sale of property in Baltimore City----Mr. Kang testified that he spoke with Donna Wade, an employee at Respondent’s law firm, several times about the Night Owl matter. In his testimony, Respondent fervently denied ever employing anyone, or even knowing anyone, named Donna ²⁹³ Wade. In Respondent’s bills for the Night Owl matter, the ‘Donna Wade Issue’ is mentioned nine times.... ” Respondent made no exception to this finding of fact. “V. Tony Kim and Youngsuk MacPherson On April 9, 2008, Krystle Myers, Respondent’s senior law clerk, traveled with Mr. Kang to Virginia to meet with new prospective clients, Tony Kim and Youngsuk MacPherson.

Mr. Kang referred Mr. Kim and Mrs. MacPherson to Respondent about potentially representing their business, Kim & MacPherson, LLC. Mr. Kim and Mrs. MacPherson ultimately declined Respondent’s representation. Respondent billed Mr. Kang $1,490.00 for trips to Virginia, various communications and memorandums, and researching co-counsel .... ” Respondent took no exception to this finding of fact. “VI. The Jim Peang Lawsuit On August 13, 2008, Cho and Choe retained Respondent, through Steve Kang acting as an agent, to file a lawsuit against Jim Peang when a dispute arose regarding misappropriated funds.

Mr. Kang never saw any of the work Respondent claims to have completed on this matter. Jim Peang could not be located for service of process.” Respondent took no exception to this finding of fact. “VII. The Federal Liquors Matter On or about September 23, 2008, Mr. Kang retained Respondent to represent him in a liquor license transfer. Respondent drafted numerous letters to various community associations introducing his clients and encouraging them to come forward with any concerns they had____Respondent successfully transferred the license, but the process took approximately one year.

He charged Mr. Kang a flat rate of $3,500.00 for this matter.” Respondent took no exception to this finding of fact. “VIII. The Canton Café Matter Respondent’s billing invoices indicate that on October 28, 2008, Mr. Kang retained Respondent to represent INK ²⁹⁴ Builders, Inc., Mr. Kang’s contracting company, against Dujamae LLC (hereinafter ‘Dujamae’)----Dujamae hired INK Builders to build a salad bar and café in the First Mariner Building in Baltimore, Maryland. Dujamae fired Mr. Kang and INK Builders after they had completed approximately forty percent of the work. Mr. Kang was never paid for the work completed.

Respondent filed a mechanic’s lien on behalf of Mr. Kang, captioned as Steve Kang v. Dujamae, LLC, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on January 6, 2009---- After filing the lien, Respondent did not perform any work in this [mechanic’s lien] case, and Kang v. Dujamae, LLC was dismissed due to lack of prosecution on February 16, 2010.... Mr Kang was never shown the legal work Respondent claimed he completed, and only became aware that Respondent had filed a mechanic’s lien after being told by his new attorney, Dave Clinnon.” Although Respondent excepts to the proposed conclusion of law on this matter, infra, he made no exception to this finding of fact that supports the hearing judge’s conclusion. “IX. The Essex Property Matter Respondent was also retained by Mr. Kang to assist with business matters related to a shopping center renovation in Essex, Maryland. The land was burdened by a high property tax bill, and Respondent was hired to file for a hearing to lower the tax liability.

For this matter, Respondent charged Mr. Kang $9,000.00.” Respondent took no exception to this finding of fact. “X. Respondents Billing of Steve Kang’s Legal Matters Respondent did not send regular invoices for any of Mr. Kang’s legal matters. At one point, Mr. Kang requested itemized bills that detailed the work performed and the fees charged. Mr Kang then received a single billing statement encompassing all of his matters with Respondent. Respondent and Mr. Kang met on four separate occasions in an effort, to generate accurate invoices.

After each meeting, Respondent would provide a new set of bills to Mr. Kang. ²⁹⁵ .... Mr. Kang could not comprehend the bills provided to him because line items for work on various matters were still being billed to the wrong invoice. Respondent did not maintain a separate record of fee payments for each matter, and routinely listed fee payments on invoices without designating the matter for which the [requested] payment was made.... Notwithstanding Respondent’s admission that all of the bills contain inaccuracies, he contends that Mr. Kang still owes him approximately $13,000.00 in unpaid legal fees.” Respondent attempts to except to this finding, but does so while admitting the bills were inaccurate (“While Respondent admitted that the ... designation of the billing of certain matters was inaccurate,”) arguing only that no evidence had been introduced to demonstrate that he had overbilled Mr. Kang.

The finding did not allege overbilling but a pattern of confusing billing that remains unresolved. This exception is overruled. C. COMPLAINANT: VIVIAN BOYD Judge Hong’s findings of fact on this matter are as follows: “On February 2, 2010, Respondent was retained by Vivian McGhee Boyd (hereinafter ‘Ms. Boyd’) and her son Christopher ‘AG’[ 16 ] Holden, for an ‘entertainment matter... .Respondent was to earn $250.00 per hour to be billed monthly. ... On February 2, 2010, Respondent also received a $5000.00 payment from Ms. Boyd into his trust account as a retainer for legal services....

AG was an aspiring rapper who had a promising career in the music industry. Prior to Respondent’s involvement in this matter, Capital Records, Warner Brothers, and Universal had expressed significant interest in signing AG to their ²⁹⁶ label. Each label had put forth a bid of at least $500,000.00.... Respondent excepts to this finding saying, that “no tangible evidence of such offers was put forth at trial, ...” Interestingly, Petitioner agrees with Respondent.

They are both incorrect. Aaron Garnell Garner, speaking for the company known as AG and speaking about his brother, Christopher Holden, whose rap name was “AG,” testified as follows: “Answer: We had three labels that were interested in our company as AG which is Universal Records, and Warner Brothers and Capital Records ... Warner Brothers, Universal and Capital Records was very interested in my brother AG, which is the artist AG.... Christopher Holden is my brother also my artist too.

Question: And how much had Universal or Capital initially offer[ed] Mr. Holden [the artist “AG”]? Answer: Well they, Warner Brothers offered us five hundred thousand dollars. Universal offered us six hundred [thousand] dollars. Capital was still debating---- It’s a bidding war____Capital came in ... and they offered the same amount that Universal did, which is six hundred thousand also too ...

We just needed that ... album for Rick Ross to be finished.... Since that didn’t happen we lost all of that.” 17 It is obvious to this Court that there was sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support this finding by Judge Hong. Accordingly, the exception is overruled. Judge Hong also found: ²⁹⁷ “....

Respondent presented himself as an effective entertainment lawyer with connections in the music industry that could make AG’s dreams come true. Meanwhile, Mrs. Boyd was dying of cancer. Respondent made seven (7) cash withdrawals in February 2010 totaling $3,650.00, and paid a Verizon bill on February 22, 2010 in the amount of $552.62 using funds from his trust account.... As of February 23, 2010, Respondent’s invoices indicate he had only worked two billable hours on behalf of AG....

Accordingly, his trust account should have had a balance of $4,500.00, but the balance of Respondent’s trust account on that date was $97.38.... .... Respondent then suggested to Ms. Boyd that they contact Michael ‘Blue’ Williams, a manager in the recording industry, to help facilitate contact with Rick Ross [apparently an established rap singer]. Mr. Williams quoted a price of $25,000.00 [to Respondent] to get Rick Ross to perform a song with AG. Ms. Boyd, using her home as collateral, secured a loan in the amount of $25,000.00 from investors in Washington[State].

On March 29, 2010, Ms. Boyd deposited $9,000.00 into Respondent’s trust account.... She made another deposit into Respondent’s trust account in the amount of $16,000.00 on March 30, 2010.... On April 2, 2010, Mr. Williams emailed Respondent requesting a wire transfer ‘for Rick Ross and DJ Khalid’ in the amount of $12,500.00 into a Chase Bank account held by Family Tree Entertainment.... Respondent never made a wire transfer.

On April 2, 2010, Respondent made a $12,-5000.00 cash withdrawal in Baltimore [from the trust account]. He traveled by train to New York City. Mr. Williams picked him up at the train station, and Respondent handed the money to him in the car. A $12,500.00 cash withdrawal was posted to Respondent’s trust account on April 5, 2010....

No contract or agreement memorializing that the funds were transferred for the purpose of securing the appearance of Rick Ross to record a commercial quality track was executed.... The parties never signed a contract or recording agreement with Rick Ross. Mr. Williams ²⁹⁸ ceased communication with Respondent sometime in June 2010, and Respondent claimed he had not spoken with Mr. Williams since that time. However, Respondent admitted to giving Blue Williams $1,000.00 from the trust account after he terminated his representation in July 2010.

Respondent reimbursed himself for the transaction on December 10, 2010 using funds from the trust account____Neither Ms. Boyd nor AG authorized the payment, and Respondent could not state why he made that particular disbursement to Mr. Williams. On May 24, 2010, Respondent spoke with Ms. Boyd about the Essence Music Festival in New Orleans, Louisiana that would feature an author known as ‘Zane’____Respondent asked Ms. Boyd if she wished to sponsor the event for $2,500.00.... Ms. Boyd agreed to the sponsorship.... Respondent withdrew a check in the amount of $2,500.00 from his trust account and deposited the check into his operating account on May 27, 2010....

Respondent could not produce any receipt or other documentation proving he made the payment for the sponsorship.... .... On June 24, 2010, Respondent issued check number 1696 drawn on his trust account payable to Gardner Law Group in the amount of $399.40.... The memo line on the check indicated that the purpose was for, ‘Paul’s Airfare for Client Event New Orleans 7/2/10 (Vivian McGee).’ ... Respondent did not use the airline ticket, and never refunded the money from the disbursement back into his trust account after the event was canceled.

The balance in Respondent’s trust account at the end of June 2010 was $9,022.98____Out of the $30,000.00 given to Respondent, he should have been holding $9,630.00 in his trust account in light of an email from Ms. Tyner detailing expenses for the representation of AG. Respondent disbursed a $1,500.00 check from his trust account, made payable to the Garner Law Group, on July 6, 2010---- The memo line notes that the check was for Vivian Boyd McGee — weekend outing + plane tickets.’____ ²⁹⁹ However, Respondent testified on cross-examination that Ms. Boyd had purchased the airline tickets herself. Respondent drew another check on his attorney trust account made payable to Gardner Law Group in the amount of $2,845.00 on July 19, 2010.... Respondent spent between two and three hours with the group during their trip....

Alter Ms. Boyd realized Respondent would not be able to help her and AG, she emailed Respondent about returning the remaining $20,500 out of the money that was supposed to go to Rick Ross. Aaron Garner also attempted to contact Respondent numerous times about returning the money. He called Respondent approximately thirty (30) times between July and September 2010, but Respondent did not answer the calls. Respondent finally answered one of Garner’s calls and told him he could not return the money until Blue Williams returned the $12,500.00 to him.

Respondent eventually returned $4,500.00 to Ms. Boyd on July 26, 2010.. .. According to his ledger, this left a balance of $2,087.50 in the trust account. Respondent did not return the money to his clients, and could not explain what happened to those funds.... The disbursement of $2,845.00 [to Respondent] made on July 19, 2010 is listed on the ledger for [against the original]$5,000.00 retainer and also listed as being deducted from the $25,000.00 payment according to an email from Rosalind Tyner to Ms. Boyd dated July 26, 2010.. .. ....

When Respondent did not return the money to Ms. Boyd, [her] investors foreclosed on her home, her house was taken away, and she died of cancer shortly thereafter. Christopher ‘AG’ Holden is now detailing cars trying to get his music career back on track.” Respondent took several exceptions to the various factual findings regarding this portion of the Boyd matter. As we stated above in Zimmerman, 428 Md. at 134 , 50 A.3d at 1214 and London, 427 Md. at 343 , 47 A.3d at 995 “... deference [to the hearing judge’s findings of fact] is appropriate because the hearing judge is in a position to assess the demeanor-based credibility of the witnesses.” While there ³⁰⁰ were certain conflicts in the testimony between Petitioner’s witnesses and Mr. Gardner, there was more than sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support Judge Hong’s findings in the Boyd matter. Accordingly, Respondent’s exceptions are overruled.

CONCLUSIONS IN RESPECT TO BAR COUNSEL’S COMPLAINT Judge Hong reached the following conclusions of law in respect to Respondent’s conduct in the matters contained in Bar Counsel’s Complaint: She found “by clear and convincing evidence” that Respondent failed to hold client funds in a separate account and failed to maintain records as required by Title 16 of the Maryland Rules and accordingly had violated the provisions of Rule 1.15(a) in respect to the PIP check relating to Mr. Gordon. Respondent does not except to this conclusion nor to the findings of fact supporting the conclusion. Maryland Rule 16 — 759(b) Review by Court of Appeals provides, in relevant part, “If no exceptions are filed [in respect to findings of fact], the Court may treat the findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions, if any.” Upon our de novo review of the evidence presented, we find it to be clear and convincing, and we, thus, determine that Judge Hong did not err. We agree with the hearing judge that Respondent violated the provisions of Rule 1.15(a).

She next concluded by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent had violated the provisions of Rule 5.4(a) in writing the four checks from the trust account to Ms. Tyner. Respondent does not except to this conclusion nor to the findings of fact that support the conclusion. Upon our de novo review of the evidence presented, we find it to be clear and convincing. The hearing judge did not err in concluding that Respondent violated the provisions of Rule 5.4(a).

The hearing judge, based upon her findings of fact, concluded that Respondent had violated Rule 8.4(a) by violating the ³⁰¹ requirements of Rule 1.15(a) (the Gordon matter) and the provisions of 5.4(a) (the improper sharing of fees with Ms. Tyner). Respondent did not except to this conclusion of law by Judge Hong nor to the findings of fact supporting that conclusion. Upon our de novo review of the evidence, we find it to be clear and convincing, and, thus, we agree with Judge Hong that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(a). The hearing judge did not err.

Judge Hong concluded, based upon her findings of fact, that Respondent had violated the provisions of 8.4(c) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in respect to the Gordon matter. She quoted from our case of Attorney Grievance Commission v. Herman, 380 Md. 378, 400 , 844 A.2d 1181, 1195 (2004) that “ ‘Absent compelling extenuating circumstances, misappropriation by an attorney is an act infected with deceit and dishonesty.’ ” Respondent took no exception to this conclusion nor to the findings of fact supporting it. Upon our de novo review of the evidence, we find it to be clear and convincing, and, thus, we agree with the hearing judge that Respondent has violated the provisions of Rule 8.4(c). She concluded, based upon her findings of fact, that Respondent had violated the provisions of Maryland Rule 16-606.1(a) that requires a lawyer to create and maintain records for all attorney trust accounts.

She concluded that Respondent admitted to violations of this Rule, but that he blamed it on “sloppy accounting practices.” She asserted that a violation of this rule was further proven by the fact that Respondent had allowed a check drawn on his trust account to bounce. Respondent took no exception to this conclusion of law nor to the supporting facts. Upon our de novo review of the evidence, we find it to be clear, convincing and supportive of the findings of fact and the hearing judge’s conclusions based upon those findings, and, thus, we agree with Judge Hong’s conclusion. She also held that he failed to reconcile his attorney trust account on a monthly basis and thus violated the provisions of Maryland Rule 16-606.1(b).

Respondent ³⁰² took no exception to this conclusion of law. Upon our review of the evidence and the findings, we agree with Judge Hong that Respondent violated these rules. Judge Hong concluded that