Attorney Grievance Commission v. Harper

PER CURIAM. The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Horace Sherrwood Harper, Jr., alleging violations of the disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We referred the matter, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 b, to Judge Edward J. Angeletti of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, Judge Angeletti filed detailed findings and conclusions as follows: “The testimony offered at the hearing together with the exhibits received establish clear and convincing evidence of the following facts relevant to this controversy. “BC Docket No. 82-296-16-1 Findings of Fact “In late 1978 or early 1979, the Respondent undertook a trademark matter on behalf of Ruth Fader and Baltimore Rent-a-Tour, applying on January 22, 1979, for a 'service mark’ on behalf of Baltimore Rent-a-Tour.

Between January, 1979, and September, 1980, the Respondent was paid approximately $350 by Mrs. Fader, but failed to take any ¹⁹⁵ further steps regarding the application for the ‘service mark’, which necessitated the refiling of that application in September, 1982. Respondent failed to follow up on the refiled application or to communicate or correspond with Mrs. Fader. "Conclusions of Law “(1) The Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) (1) (5) and (6) in that his failure to follow through on a matter for which he was retained is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct reflecting adversely upon his fitness to practice law. “(2) The Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101 (A) (1) (2) and (3) in that he undertook a trademark matter without adequate preparation, neglected that matter when he failed to take any action subsequent to the filing of the application, and failed to associate himself with an attorney competent to handle such matters when he knew, or should have known, he was not competent to handle it. “(3) The Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 7-101 (A) (1) (2) and (3) in that he intentionally failed to carry out a contract of employment and to seek the lawful objectives of his client by his failure to take any steps in furtherance of the trademark application and his client was prejudiced by the failure to pursue her ‘service mark.’ “BC Docket No. 83-1-16-1 Findings of Fact “In January, 1979, the Respondent purchased the patent law practice of the firm of Samuels, Clark and Everett from the surviving partner, J. Wesley Everett, who was acting through the agency of his wife, Mrs. Nora Everett. At the time of the purchase the firm’s bank accounts were transferred to the Respondent, including the escrow account which had a balance of $2,815.50 as of January 31, 1979. ¹⁹⁶ Thereafter, on two occasions in April, 1979, and July, 1979, the Respondent drew checks on that escrow account payable to himself in the amounts of $1,000 and $1,100 respectively.

Respondent commingled those escrow funds with his own and utilized them for his own personal purposes. Respondent began neglecting client matters, which resulted in the firm’s major client, the John B. Stetson Company, terminating his services on April 9, 1982. Respondent failed to turn the Stetson files over to their new counsel as requested by them. Respondent allowed a patent issued to a client, William Hooper and Sons, to lapse for failure to pay the balance of the fee due the U.S. Patent Office.

Sometime in the spring of 1982, the Respondent abandoned his offices in the Keyser Building in Baltimore, leaving most of his client files, furniture, bank records, correspondence and personal belongings. He failed to notify clients, the post office, or others of his change of address or how he could be contacted. In July, 1982, Mrs. Everett, in accordance with the security agreement executed in connection with the sale of the partnership, repossessed the files of former clients of her husband, which included some twenty-six (26) cartons of material which she mailed to the John B. Stetson Company in that the Respondent had failed to turn over this material upon their requests. “In November, 1982, Mrs. Everett was required to place all of the remaining files, material, and furniture, including materials involving Respondent’s own clients and various personal belongings, into storage at her expense. “Conclusions óf Law “(1) The Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) (1) (3) (4) (5) and (6) in that he misappropriated monies from the firm’s escrow account, commingled those monies with his own funds, and utilized those monies for purposes other than the purpose for which they were entrusted to the firm. This misappropriation of funds, as well as his abandonment of his practice, constitutes conduct involving moral tur ¹⁹⁷ pitude, dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, conduct which is prejudicial to the