Attorney Grievance Commission v. Heinze

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. We shall here reprimand Respondent F. George Heinze, III, for his neglect. Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to the provisions of Maryland Rule BV9, filed a petition with us on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking disciplinary action against F. George Heinze, III, a member of the bar of this Court. The petition alleged that through a Pennsylvania attorney a corporation of that state referred to Heinze six substantial claims against Maryland residents for the purpose of collection.

Pursuant to Rule BV9 b, we referred the matter for hearing to a judge of the Circuit Court for Charles County. ¹⁹⁴ In his findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Rea said in pertinent part: "Much of the record in the proceedings is basically admitted by the Respondent. To summarize the record, the Court makes the following finding of fact: The Respondent is a middle-aged member of the Bar, was admitted to the District of Columbia in 1959 and admitted to practice in the State of Maryland, who practices in Charles County and is in apparently good health. On February 3, 1978, one Patrick Reb, Esq., attorney in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, through mail correspondence ... requested the Respondent to pursue the collection of claims for the Lebanon Chemical Corporation against six alleged debtors here in the State of Maryland .... The Respondent, by correspondence, attempted to contact all of the alleged debtors in an effort to collect the debts.

The attorney, Mr. Reb, attempted to contact the Respondent several times as to the status of the cases .... The Respondent, just prior to leaving for Europe, dictated a letter to his secretary, Rita L. Mattia, bearing the date of April 25, 1979 .... By this letter, the Respondent indicated suit had been filed on the various debtors. The Respondent, however, admits in the transcript of the record that at no time were any suits ever filed against these alleged debtors.

He indicated that he took the suit papers with him to the airport with the intent to mail them to the proper court to be filed but that the present whereabouts of the suit papers is unknown. He further indicated that he failed to mail them while at the airport, took them to Europe with him, but that due to serious personal problems, he forgot the matter. These personal problems included the fact that he had a cablegram that his teen-aged son had had a gasoline fire with a farm tractor .... "On February 28, 1980, Dennis Sober, representing the Lebanon Chemical Corporation, filed ¹⁹⁵ complaint with the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission.

As a result thereof, on July 1, 1981, the Respondent gave to the Lebanon Chemical Corporation a promissory note in the amount of $18,000, and the Respondent never collected a fee from the alleged client. The Court is of the opinion that this is a good, valid, properly secured note, the Respondent’s wife being a co-maker and the Respondent having considerable real property assets in Charles County, Maryland. "It is the conclusion of the Court that what the Attorney Patrick Reb sent to the Respondent originally is what is commonly referred to by members of the Bar as collection cases. The Court questions in its mind whether any or all of these claims were ever valid collectible items, but finds that this is not material to this case, because it is obvious that the client has been more than amply paid for the original indebtedness by representation of the promissory note.

However, the Court finds that the Respondent did violate certain of the Disciplinary Rules. Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (5) was violated by the Respondent in that he did engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. ... The Court does find that the Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101 — Failing to Act Competently and Disciplinary Rule