Attorney Grievance Commission v. Johnson

⁴⁷⁶ ADKINS, Judge. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondents Renard D. Johnson and Will Purcell. Bar Counsel alleged that Respondent Johnson violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) 1.15(b) 1 , 5.1(b) and (c) 2 , 5.3(b) and (c) 3 , and 8.4(a) and (c) 4 ⁴⁷⁷ and that Respondent Purcell violated MRPC 1.15(b) and 8.4(a) and (c). These allegations stemmed from Respondents’ involvement in a “lease/buy-back” agreement regarding residential real property.

On December 2 and 3, 2008, Judge Debelius conducted evidentiary hearings in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Judge Debelius filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that included the following findings: Respondent, Renard Johnson was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 17, 1997. He currently maintains his law office in Lanharn (Prince George’s County). Respondent, Will Purcell was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 24, 1999.

He is also admitted to the District of Columbia Bar and maintains his law office in Washington, D.C. At the time of the events described herein, Respondent Johnson was the owner and president of Apple Title International, LLC (“Apple Title”), which maintained its office in Silver Spring (Montgomery County). Respondent Purcell conducted real estate settlements for Apple Title as an independent contractor. At the beginning of 2005, Calvin and Christine Barnes (“Mr. & Mrs. Barnes”) were the titled owners, subject to a mortgage lien, of a residential property located at 2345 Leyton Court, Waldorf, Maryland 20604 (Charles County). Due to financial difficulties they were experiencing, Mr. & Mrs. Barnes contacted a mortgage broker named Michal ⁴⁷⁸ Johnson (not related to Respondent Renard Johnson), then affiliated with Montgomery Capital Corporation, to explore the possibility of refinancing their home mortgage with the additional goal of consolidating some of their other debts.

Without fully explaining to Mr. & Mrs. Barnes that he had been unable to obtain their desired refinancing, Michal Johnson brokered a deal by which an individual named Shreco Thompson-Burnett agreed to purchase the Barnes-es’ home. Michal Johnson generated a Sales Contract, dated March 8, 2005, and an Addendum, dated March 28, 2005, containing terms for the sale of 2345 Leyton Court from Mr. & Mrs. Barnes to Ms. Thompson-Burnett. The original Sales Contract provided for a sale price of $360,000.00 and contains the purported signatures of Mr. & Mrs. Barnes as Sellers and Shreco Thompson-Burnett as Purchaser. The Sales Contract Addendum provided for a reduction of the sale price to $352,000.00 and also provided that the settlement date was “extended to 4/4/05.” The addendum contains the purported signatures of Mr. & Mrs. Barnes but was not signed by Ms. Thompson-Burnett.

Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Barnes actually signed either the Sales Contract or the Sales Contract Addendum. Michal Johnson arranged one hundred percent (100%) financing for Ms. Thompson-Burnett’s purchase of 2345 Leyton Court with first and second mortgage loans of $281,600.00 and $70,400.00, respectively, issued by Home Loan Corporation, doing business as Expanded Mortgage Credit. Michal Johnson referred the pending real estate transaction involving 2345 Leyton Court to Apple Title to conduct settlement. The settlement was scheduled for April 5, 2005 at Apple Title’s office in Silver Spring.

On April 5, 2005, Mr. & Mrs. Barnes and Ms. Thompson-Burnett, along with Michal Johnson, appeared at the office of Apple Title. The Barneses were greeted by Respondent Renard Johnson upon arrival, expecting to refinance their home, but shortly after their arrival, Michal Johnson explained to the Barneses that he was not able to arrange refinancing for them and he explained to them that he had ⁴⁷⁹ arranged for Mr. & Mrs. Barnes to remain in their home at 2345 Leyton Court under a “lease/buy-back” arrangement with Ms. Thompson-Burnett, a buyer he had located. Though the Barnes had never met or had knowledge of Ms. Thompson-Burnett, or contracted with her, a settlement then ensued. The settlement was conducted by Respondent Will Purcell as Apple Title’s designated “settlement agent,” with Respondent Renard Johnson also present at the settlement.

The settlement was irregular in many respects. The parties were advised that the Barneses would remain in their house and that Apple Title would hold an escrow from the Barneses’ sales proceeds equal to one year of rent payments. The plan was for the Barneses’ monthly rent to be calculated in an amount equal to the combined amount of Ms. Thompson-Burnett’s monthly first and second mortgage payments. There was no documentation of the proposed “lease/buy-back” arrangement between Mr. & Mrs. Barnes and Ms. Thompson-Burnett or of the parties’ related rent escrow, nor was such an escrow identified or itemized on Apple Title’s HUD-1 settlement form.

Respondent Johnson signed a deed, dated April 5, 2005, by which the 2345 Leyton Court property was conveyed from Mr. & Mrs. Barnes to Ms. Thompson-Burnett. By his signature, Respondent Johnson certified that the deed had been prepared by or under his supervision. As of April 5, 2005, Cheryl Bruce, a non-lawyer, was employed as Apple Title’s office manager. In that position, she participated in preparing settlement documents and handled the disbursement of settlement funds related to the sale of 2345 Leyton Court.

Apple Title generated a document titled “Assignment of Funds,” dated inconsistently as “Today’s Date: April 5, 2005” and “Executed this 4th day of April, 2005.” That document, purportedly signed by both Calvin Barnes and Christine Barnes, authorized the assignment of “all proceeds or, in the alternative $18,000” of the sellers’ proceeds at settlement to Michal Johnson. Such a payment was ⁴⁸⁰ presumptively improper as an illegal kickback or finders fee in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RE SPA”) and was not identified or itemized on Apple title’s HUD-1 settlement sheet. As settlement agent, Respondent Purcell signed a HUD-1 settlement statement by which he acknowledged the document to be “a true and accurate account of the funds which were received and have been or will be disbursed by the undersigned as part of the settlement of this transaction,” i.e., the sale of 2345 Leyton Court. The settlement statement signed by Respondent Purcell includes a line item, at line 603, of cash due to the sellers (Mr. & Mrs. Barnes) in the amount of $68,203.90, but the only cash disbursement actually made to Calvin and Christine Barnes was in the amount of $21,286.90 by wire transfer on April 6, 2005.

A separate wire transfer in the amount of $18,000.00 was made to an account held by Michal Johnson on April 6, 2005, pursuant to the Assignment of Funds (infra). After deducting the sum ($39,-286.90) of the two aforementioned wire transfers, the balance of cash due to the sellers was $28,917.00. Apple Title never disbursed that amount to Mr. & Mrs. Barnes, nor did they prepare any escrow agreement by which they or anyone else would hold any portion of the sellers’ proceeds to be applied toward rent payments under the contemplated “lease/buy-back” arrangement. Mr. & Mrs. Barnes understood that the remaining balance of their sellers’ proceeds would be held in escrow by Apple Title and applied toward the rent payments they believed were to be made on a monthly basis in an amount equal to Ms. Thompson-Burnett’s mortgage payments.

Although Apple Title did not have a signed authorization or other directive from Calvin and Christine Barnes to disburse the remaining balance of their sellers’ proceeds, or any portion thereof, to Michal Johnson, Shreco Thompson-Burnett or any other third party or entity, on April 25, 2005, Apple Title issued a check drawn on its real estate escrow account in the amount of $27,168.00, made payable jointly to ⁴⁸¹ Shreco Thompson-Burnett and Michal Johnson. Cheryl Bruce issued that check at the request of Michal Johnson and forwarded it to him. Such funds were never used to pay Ms. Thompson-Burnett’s monthly mortgage payments. At the time of settlement on April 5, 2005, Mr. & Mrs. Barnes, Ms. Thompson-Burnett and Michal Johnson had an undocumented agreement whereby Ms. Thompson-Burnett was not going to occupy the premises at 2345 Leyton Court but instead would be “renting” the property back to Mr. & Mrs. Barnes.

In dereliction of his fiduciary responsibilities to the mortgage lender, Respondent Purcell processed settlement documents containing false information, including an Occupancy Affidavit executed by Ms. Thompson-Burnett as the borrower. In a Closing Certification for the sale of 2345 Leyton Court, Respondent Purcell inaccurately certified that “the HUD-1 Settlement Statement which I have prepared is a true and accurate account of the funds which were (i) received, or (ii) paid outside closing, and the funds received have been or will be disbursed by the undersigned as part of the settlement of this transaction.” As previously stated, the settlement statement did not report the payment of $18,000.00 to Michal Johnson, nor did it report the withholding of $28,917.00 from the sellers’ proceeds and the subsequent disbursement of $27,168.00 made by Cheryl Bruce upon Michal Johnson’s instruction, nor was the HUD-1 settlement statement ever amended to reflect any such change. Respondent Johnson had supervisory authority over Respondent Purcell when Purcell acted as Apple Title’s agent and over Cheryl Bruce, a non-lawyer employed by Respondent Johnson at Apple Title. Both Respondent Purcell and Respondent Johnson were present and had knowledge of the “lease/buy-back” agreement of the parties, which was nothing more than an equity stripping transaction, and knew that it was improper and in violation of the mortgage lender’s closing instructions pursuant to which they were entrusted ⁴⁸² monies by the lender.

Their acts and conduct in the subject transaction including, but not limited to, Respondent Purcell’s certifying false HUD-1 settlement statements, not amending them, submitting knowingly false Affidavits of Occupancy, and Respondent Johnson’s knowing acquiescence in and oversight of the same, and his authorization of disbursements which were illegal, unauthorized and/or inconsistent with the HUD-1 settlement statements were dishonest, fraudulent and deceitful. The Barrieses were not provided with copies of any of the settlement documents by Apple Title, and the deed of transfer was not recorded until many months later, in January of 2006. (Emphasis added.) Based on these findings of fact, the hearing judge drew the following Conclusions of Law as to Respondent Purcell: This court finds that Respondent Purcell, by his acts and omissions as set forth herein, engaged in professional misconduct as defined in Maryland Rule 16—701(i) and that he violated the following Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812: Rule 1.15 Safekeeping Property. (pre-July 1, 2005 version) (b) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person.

Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. Rule 8.4 Misconduct. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: ⁴⁸³ (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation^] The hearing judge drew the following Conclusions of Law as to Johnson: This court finds that Respondent Johnson, by his acts and omissions as set forth herein, engaged in professional misconduct as defined in Maryland Rule 16-701(i) and that he violated the following Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812: Rule 1.15(b) Safekeeping Property. (pre-July 1, 2005 version) Rule 5.1 Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer.

(pre-July 1, 2005 version) (b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the rules of professional conduct. (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the rules of professional conduct if: (1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. [Emphasis added.] Rule 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Non-lawyer Assistants. (pre-July 1, 2005 version) With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer: ⁴⁸⁴ * * * (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the rules of professional conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if: (1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. [Emphasis added.] Rule 8.4.[(a) and (c).] Misconduct. DISCUSSION Standard Of Review In Attorney Grievance v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351, 368 , 952 A.2d 226, 235-36 (2008), we articulated the standard of review we employ in deciding attorney grievance matters: This Court has original and complete jurisdiction over attorney discipline proceedings in Maryland.

Even though conducting an independent review of the record, we accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. This Court gives deference to the hearing judge’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses. Factual findings by the hearing judge will not be interfered with if they are founded on clear and convincing evidence. All proposed conclusions of law made by the hearing judge, however, are subject to de novo review by this Court.

(Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Bar Counsel took no exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of ⁴⁸⁵ law by the hearing judge. Johnson and Purcell took the exceptions discussed below. Lichtenberg And Davis Both Respondents look to our decisions in Attorney Grievance v. Lichtenberg, 379 Md. 335 , 842 A.2d 11 (2004), and its companion case, Attorney Grievance v. Davis, 379 Md. 361 , 842 A.2d 26 (2004) for the general proposition that an attorney acting solely as a title agent cannot be liable for MRPC violations. Purcell contends that “[i]n both Lichtenberg and Davis , this Court held that an attorney acting as a settlement agent, who did not have any attorney-client relationship with the parties to the settlement, was not subject to disciplinary proceedings under the Rules of Professional Conduct.” Johnson also cites Lichtenberg and Davis , contending that Bar Counsel failed to establish that Johnson was acting as attorney during any relevant time of the real estate transaction.

Johnson argues that our holdings in Lichtenberg and Davis warrant dismissal of the instant matter. In Lichtenberg , title agent Myles Louis Lichtenberg was the president of a real estate title company, Guaranteed Title and Escrow (“GTE”). Though licensed as an attorney, Lichtenberg had never been actively involved in the practice of law. Key to the charges against Lichtenberg was Section 22-103 of the Insurance Article, which required a title insurer or its agents to pool settlement and trust funds from its clients that otherwise would not generate interest of more than $50.00, or an insufficient amount to cover the cost of maintaining a separate account for the proceeds of each individual settlement.

See Md.Code (2002 RepLVol.) § 22-103(b) of the Insurance Article. Section 22-103(c) provided that the interest earned on funds deposited into this account were to be paid to the Maryland Affordable Housing Trust (“MAHT”). Section 22-103(f) provided for the procedures to be followed for settlement proceeds that are expected to generate interest in excess of $50.00 and provided for the creation of a “deposit or investment vehicle” that was “specified by the client or beneficial owner” or “agreed on by the client or beneficial owner and ⁴⁸⁶ the title insurer or its agent.” GTE maintained both a MAHT account for settlement proceeds generating less than $50.00 in interest, and a non-MAHT account for proceeds generating more than $50.00 in interest. Judge Irma Raker, writing on behalf of the Court, summarized the parties arguments: Bar Counsel argues that respondent violated the statute and that as a result, we should discipline him in his capacity as a lawyer.

Bar Counsel maintains that respondent violated § 22-103(f) by not securing the consent of any “beneficial owner” before he retained the interest on settlement proceeds, notwithstanding the fact that he secured the consent of his client. Bar Counsel also alleges that the statute requires consent that conformed to the applicable administrative regulation, which mandates that any funds not deposited into a MAHT account must be pursuant to a written agreement that is either (1) a separate agreement or (2) “if part of another agreement, in conspicuous type and initialed by the buyer or beneficial owner.” COMAR. 31.16.03.05B. Respondent argues that although GTE retained all of the interest earned on the settlement proceeds which were received in the Gigioli transaction and maintained by GTE’s non-MAHT escrow account, he complied with all the statutory requirements of § 22—103(f). Respondent’s argument is twofold: First, respondent argues the statute is written in the disjunctive and that the use of the word “or” clearly contemplates that consent of either the beneficial owner or the client satisfies the statute; and respondent obtained the consent of Mr. Gigioli in the HUD-1 Addendum in accordance with all applicable statutes, a finding of fact by the hearing court to which Bar Counsel does not take exception.

Second, respondent argues that obtaining consent from every conceivable “beneficial owner” is not possible and was not contemplated by the statute. As result, he argues the disciplinary petition must be dismissed. Lichtenberg, 379 Md. at 354-55 , 842 A.2d at 22-23 . Judge Raker distilled Bar Counsel’s argument to its essence: “Bar Counsel’s complaint against respondent boils ⁴⁸⁷ down to one contention: that by depositing into his title insurance company’s account the interest from funds entrusted to him by clients of the title insurance company, without the express consent of the ‘beneficial owners,’ respondent violated the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.” Lichtenberg, 379 Md. at 353 , 842 A.2d at 21 .

As the Court saw it, if Lichtenberg did not violate the Insurance Article, then he did not violate any rules of professional conduct. Rather than addressing Bar Counsel’s contentions regarding the Insurance article—or the responses proffered by Lichtenberg—we determined that it was “injudicious under the circumstances to engage in an analysis of the Insurance Article and to construe the statute and the obligations of a title agent vis-a-vis the trust account and MAHT account” because “[i]n order for us to address this issue, we would be required to interpret a provision of the Insurance Article that has not previously been addressed judicially.” Id. at 355 , 842 A.2d at 23. This analysis would have required a determination of “whether § 22-103® of the Insurance Article was violated when [Lichtenberg] did not inform the ‘beneficial owners’ of the interest-sweeping provision in the contract.” Id. We observed that this interpretation was “not at all self-evident” and there was a “complete absence of any case or authority on this issue in this State or elsewhere in the country.” Id.

The Court also noted that the Insurance Commissioner was not a party to the disciplinary proceedings and “thus would be precluded from input on an issue of significant importance to many title insurance agents and brokers practicing in this State.” Id. at 355, 842 A.2d at 23. We held: [Njeither party can refer us to a single opinion, decision, or action issued by the Insurance Administration on this question; indeed, at oral argument, Bar Counsel informed us that he had contacted the Commissioner of the Insurance Administration but had received no answer to his inquiry on the issue. Instead, they both would have us opine without receiving any input from the agency in charge of administering this statute. We decline to do so. ⁴⁸⁸ Neither a criminal conviction nor a statutory violation is a prerequisite for this Court to proceed with disciplinary action against an attorney.

Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, where the basis of Bar Counsel’s complaint relates to conduct not connected with the practice of law, it would be inappropriate for this Court to determine in the first instance if respondent violated the Insurance Article, and then to impose sanctions with respect to his license to practice law, particularly where the Commissioner was aware of the conduct and declined to exercise his authority to regulate respondent’s conduct as an agent or broker. Accordingly, Bar Counsel’s exception to the hearing court’s interpretation of § 22-103 is overruled. Id. at 356-57, 842 A.2d at 23-24 (citation omitted, emphasis added). Without any violation of Insurance Article Section 22-103, the alleged Rule 1.15 violation could not stand: Bar Counsel alleges that respondent violated Rule 1.15(a), (b), and (c), dealing with a lawyer’s safekeeping of property.

We agree with the hearing court with respect to Rule 1.15(a) and (c), and find no violation of those provisions because respondent’s actions were not in connection with legal representation of a client. Rule 1.15(b), unlike (a) and (c), does not indicate explicitly whether it applies to actions outside the course of legal representation. We do not decide the question of whether 1.15(b), like (a) and (c), contemplates some sort of nexus with legal representation, because the only plausible violation of this provision by respondent arises only if he violated § 22-103(f) of the Insurance Article by not notifying the beneficial owners, which we have already discussed and dismissed. Thus, Bar Counsel’s exception is overruled.

Id. at 357-58, 842 A.2d at 24 (emphasis added). In stark contrast to Liehtenberg, the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case are not dependent on a violation of the Insurance Article, and so our reasons in Liehtenberg for refusing to find a violation do not apply. ⁴⁸⁹ In Davis , Respondent Gary E. Davis was both an attorney in private practice and founder of Allegiance Title & Escrow, Ltd. (“Allegiance Title”). Davis did not attend or conduct any settlements on behalf of the company, but did contribute to the operation of Allegiance Title by reviewing and signing deeds. Davis set up a MAHT account for funds less than $150,000, as these funds were likely to generate less than $50.00 in interest or the cost of administering a separate account.

Deposits of $150,000 or greater were to be deposited into the company’s existing escrow account. Monies held in the existing escrow account were transferred or “swept” by the Bank at the end of each banking day into a separate interest bearing account maintained for the benefit of the company. Davis admitted that the beneficial owners were not given notice and their consent was not acquired prior to Allegiance Title depositing trust money into its escrow account and the sweep account. The Attorney Grievance Commission initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Davis, alleging that as an attorney, his title insurance company could not retain the benefit of the interest earned in the sweep accounts because this constituted a violation of Insurance Article Section 22-103.

The hearing judge accepted Bar Counsel’s argument that Allegiance Title’s retention of the interest earned from their sweep account violated the Insurance Article since the “beneficial owners” within the meaning of the statute did not have knowledge of the funds allocation, nor had they consented to Allegiance Title’s retention of the interest. The hearing judge, nonetheless, found no misconduct under the MRPC. Judge Raker, again writing for the Court, stated that Davis presented the same issue that the Court addressed in Lichtenberg and that the facts in the two cases were “in all relevant aspects, similar.” Davis, 379 Md. at 379-80 , 842 A.2d at 37 . “Here, as in Lichtenberg , Bar Counsel essentially complains that respondent did not get the consent of the ‘beneficial owners’ before he retained the interest in the accounts.” Id. at 380 , 842 A.2d at 37. We employed the same reasoning in Davis that we did in Lichtenberg—that “we discipline attor ⁴⁹⁰ neys for violation of Rule 8.4 when it is clear that a law has been violated, even if there is no criminal conviction, but not when such a violation is unclear[.]” Id., 842 A.2d at 37-38.

We concluded: This case differs from those eases in which we proceeded with disciplinary actions in the absence of a criminal conviction where, for example, the lawyer has failed to file or pay income taxes. There the violation is clear but the prosecution is uninitiated. Here, not only is the violation vague and unsubstantiated, but the presence and the advice of the regulating authority, an agency charged with protecting the public, is strikingly absent from any part of these proceedings. In this respect, this case is no different from Lichtenberg and will be dismissed.

Id. at 381 , 842 A.2d at 38. Again, our refusal to find a MRPC violation in Davis turned on Davis’s failure to violate a specific MRPC rule because of the absence of any substantiation of an Insurance Article violation. Respondents differ with our interpretation of Lichtenberg and Davis and find support for their views in Attorney Grievance v. Goff, 399 Md. 1 , 922 A.2d 554 (2007). Goff involved a trust account overdraft by an attorney who was also licensed as a title agent.

Respondent Goff relied on Lichtenberg and Davis to bolster his argument that because he was not practicing law, he was not subject to disciplinary action. Overruling this exception, we distinguished Lichtenberg and Davis on the grounds that Goff had not been charged by bar counsel in his capacity as a title agent like the respondents in Lichtenberg and Davis had: This case is nothing at all like Lichtenberg and Davis . In neither of those cases was it contended, or even arguable, that the attorneys in those cases were practicing law. Indeed, in Lichtenberg , the Court clearly stated the context for its holding: “The heart of Bar Counsel’s complaint against respondent boils down to one contention: that by depositing into his title insurance company’s account the interest from funds ⁴⁹¹ entrusted to him by clients of the title insurance company, without the express consent of the ‘beneficial owners,’ respondent violated the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.

Respondent does not engage in the active practice of law but instead was acting as a title agent whose main business activity is to conduct real estate settlements, which is governed pursuant to the Insurance Article of the Maryland Code, by the Commissioner of the Insurance Administration.” 379 Md. at 353, 842 A.2d at 21. Davis , of course, involved the same issue. 379 Md. at 380, 842 A.2d at 37. At issue here is not the insurance company account, rather the respondent’s escrow account. Also, here, the respondent undertook the representation of a client; that is not disputed and it was this representation that was the genesis of the issue, with the resolution of which the respondent was subsequently charged and which he was pursuing when the charged conduct occurred.

Id. at 30, 922 A.2d at 570-71 (emphasis added). Respondents contend that Goff reinforces their argument that the key to our holdings in Lichtenberg and Davis was that the respondents were not practicing law. While it is true that the question of whether their conduct constituted practicing law was a component of our holdings in these cases, this does not absolve either Johnson or Purcell from liability under MRPC 1.15(b), 8.4(a) and (c), or Johnson from liability under MRPC 5.1(c) or 5.3(c). As we previously discussed in Lichtenberg— and reiterated in Goff—Lichtenberg turned on the respondent’s alleged violation of the Insurance Article.

In Lichtenberg , we did not decide “the question of whether 1.15(b), like (a) and (c), contemplates some sort of nexus with legal representation, because the only plausible violation of this provision by respondent arises only if he violated § 22—103(f) of the Insurance Article^]” Lichtenberg, 379 Md. at 358 , 842 A.2d at 25 . Insurance Article Section 22-103 is not involved here, and different violations, based on different actions by Johnson and Purcell, have been alleged and proven. ⁴⁹² MRPC 1.15(b) We addressed the scope of Rule 1.15(b) in Attorney Grievance v. Clark, 363 Md. 169 , 767 A.2d 865 (2001). In Clark , the respondent admitted to failing to timely file withholding tax returns and/or to remit the taxes reportedly withheld and to hold in trust those taxes; we determined that these violations fell within Rule 1.15(b). While it is true that the tax violations in Clark were still related to the attorney’s law practice, we held, more generally, that Rule 1.15(b) encompassed a broad scope of attorney conduct: Rule 1.15(a) and (c) are specific to a lawyer’s duties “in connection with a representation” while Rule 1.15(b) refers generally to a lawyer’s duty to act with the care of a professional fiduciary for any property held by an attorney on behalf of third persons.

As articulated in the preamble to the Maryland Rules, “[a] lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs.” See MARYLAND RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Preamble. As an officer of the court, the lawyer is a public servant; and as a public servant, the lawyer has a special responsibility to act in the public interest. Id. at 182 , 767 A.2d at 872 (emphasis added). Because MRPC 1.15(b) has been interpreted by this Court to apply “generally” to the fiduciary duties connected with an attorney’s holding of “any property[,]” the practice of law is not a prerequisite for an attorney to have violated MRPC 1.15(b).

Accordingly, we overrule Johnson and Purcell’s exception based on the “Lichtenberg/Davis defense” with regard to MRPC 1.15. Purcell’s Additional MRPC 1.15(b) Exception Purcell also contends that the hearing judge erred in finding that he violated MRPC 1.15(b) because he had never held any property of a client or third party to the transaction. MRPC 1.15(b) contemplates scenarios in which a lawyer re ⁴⁹³ ceives funds from a client or third person. An attorney is in violation of this Rule when the attorney fails to promptly notify the client or third person, deliver funds to the client or third person, or render a full accounting regarding such property.

Bar Counsel alleges a delivery violation here because, inter alia, the full disbursement amounts indicated on the HUD-1 were not delivered to Mr. and Mrs. Barnes. According to Purcell’s counsel, he is not in violation of MRPC 1.15(b) because his “role at settlement was essentially ministerial, primarily encompassing the role of answering any questions about the line items on the HUD-1, and securing the signatures of all the parties subscribing to the HUD-1, and lastly placing his signature on the HUD-1 after all others had approved and signed it.” The record demonstrates, however, that Purcell, beyond “ministerial” tasks, undertook fiduciary responsibilities. Purcell signed a document entitled “Closing Certifieation[,]” which stated, pertinently: To the best of my knowledge, the HUD-1 Settlement Statement which L have prepared is a true and accurate account of the funds which were (i) received, or (ii) paid outside closing,