Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kovacic

²³⁴ BELL, C.J. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751, 1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Kristin E. Kovacic, the respondent. The petition charged that the respondent violated Rules 1.3, Diligence, 2 1.4, Communication, 3 and 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters, 4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812. We referred the case, pursuant to Rule 16-752(a), 5 to the Honorable Karen H. Abrams, of the Circuit Court for St. ²³⁵ Mary’s County, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757(c). 6 Although she was served, the respondent did not file a response, prompting the entry of an order of default, which the respondent did not move to vacate. Following a hearing, at which the petitioner offered, and the hearing court accepted, two exhibits, one of which was that of the complainant, the hearing court found facts by the clear and convincing standard and drew conclusions of law, both as follows. “Delores Shelby, formerly known as Delores Glasper, retained Ms. Kovacic to represent her in her divorce case against Robert Glasper, Jr., case no.

CA01-1189 in the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, Maryland. A Judgment of Divorce was entered on August 14, 2002. Pursuant to the Judgment of Divorce, the parties were to have a backhoe and grader appraised, and Mr. Glasper was to pay half of the appraised value to Ms. Shelby. The Court retained jurisdiction for purposes of approving a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, awarding $ 13, 237.11 to Ms. Shelby.

Ms. Kovacic was supposed to see that the equipment was appraised and that the QDRO was submitted to the Court. “Ms. Kovacic did not send a copy of the Judgment of Divorce to Ms. Shelby until September 19, 2002, over a month after the Judgment had been entered. Ms. Shelby made numerous attempts to contact Ms. Kovacic in the ensuing months to check on the status of the case, but Ms. Kovacic failed to respond. Ms. Kovacic did not have the equipment appraised and did not submit a QDRO to the Court. Ms. ²³⁶ Shelby .wrote to Ms. Kovacic on January 9, 2003, discharging her as counsel because she felt Ms. Kovacic had abandoned her case. “Ms. Shelby submitted a complaint to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, which was received by the Commission on March 4, 2003.

Office of Bar Counsel wrote to Ms. Kovacic five times, demanding that she respond to Ms. Shelby’s complaint. Assistant Bar Counsel called the Respondent on four occasions. Ms. Kovacic acknowledged receipt of the complaint. The Commission never received a response from her prior to the Peer Review meeting held on October 2, 2003. “Respondent violated Rule 1.3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by not acting diligently in arranging for an appraisal and preparing a QDRO.

Respondent failed to take care of those matters although she had five months to do so after the Judgment of Divorce was entered. “Respondent violated Rule 1.4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to send a copy of the Judgment of divorce to her client until over a month after it was entered and by failing to respond to her client’s inquiries about the status of the case. “Respondent also violated Rule 8.1(b) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to respond to numerous inquiries by the Office of Bar Counsel regarding Ms. Shelby’s complaint.” Neither the petitioner nor the respondent has excepted to the hearing court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Only the petitioner filed a recommendation for sanction and appeared at the hearing. This time, 7 the petitioner’s recom ²³⁷ mendation, rather than a reprimand, is that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. That sanction is required, it submits, where, as here, the respondent abandoned her client’s case and there has been no showing of mitigation.

It contrasts this case with Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tolar, 357 Md. 569 , 745 A.2d 1045 (2000), a case in which the respondent therein committed the same violations. This Court imposed a reprimand in that case in consideration of the respondent’s remorse and history of rendering assistance to the Director of the Lawyers Assistance Program of the Maryland State Bar Association. The purpose of disciplinary proceedings and the sanctions that flow from them is well settled. It is, as we have stated often, to protect the public.

Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Pennington 387 Md. 565, 601-602 , 876 A.2d 642, 663-64 (2005); Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Kreamer, 387 Md. 503, 533-34 , 876 A.2d 79, 97-98 (2005); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Steinberg, 385 Md. 696, 703 , 870 A.2d 603, 607 (2005); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stein, 373 Md. 531, 533 , 819 A.2d 372, 375 (2003); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheinbein, 372 Md. 224, 255 , 812 A.2d 981, 999 (2002); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Powell, 369 Md. 462, 474 , 800 A.2d 782, 789 (2002); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hess, 352 Md. 438, 453 , 722 A.2d 905, 913 (1999); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Webster, 348 Md. 662, 678 , 705 ²³⁸ A.2d 1135, 1143 (1998); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435 , 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997). It is not to punish the erring attorney. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Christopher, 383 Md. 624, 639 , 861 A.2d 692, 701 (2004); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Wyatt, 323 Md. 36, 38 , 591 A.2d 467, 468 (1991). That purpose is achieved when sanctions are imposed that are commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed.

Awuah, 346 Md. at 435 , 697 A.2d at 454 ; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448, 483 , 671 A.2d 463, 480 (1996); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440, 447 , 635 A.2d 1315, 1318 (1994). This is so, because such sanctions promote general and specific deterrence, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sliffman, 330 Md. 515, 529 , 625 A.2d 314, 321 (1993); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Berger, 326 Md. 129, 131 , 604 A.2d 58 (1992) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 334, 355 , 587 A.2d 511, 521 (1991)), protect the integrity of the legal profession, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cassidy, 362 Md. 689, 698 , 766 A.2d 632, 637 (2001), further the public’s confidence in the legal profession, Stein, 373 Md. at 533 , 819 A.2d at 375 (2003); Powell, 369 Md. at 474 , 800 A.2d at 789 , and take account of the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including any mitigating factors. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Atkinson, 357 Md. 646, 656 , 745 A.2d 1086, 1092 (2000); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gavin, 350 Md. 176, 197-98 , 711 A.2d 193, 204 (1998). Relevant to the question of the existence of mitigating factors are, we have held, whether the respondent acted out of a selfish motive, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thompson, 367 Md. 315, 330 , 786 A.2d 763, 772-73 (2001); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jaseb, 364 Md. 464, 481-82 , 773 A.2d 516, 526 (2001); Glenn, 341 Md. at 488-89 , 671 A.2d at 483 , whether the attorney has remorse for the misconduct, whether the conduct is likely to be repeated and whether the attorney has a “prior grievance history.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Post, 379 Md. 60, 71 , 839 A.2d 718, 724-25 (2003); Wyatt, 323 Md. at 38 , 591 A.2d at 468 . ²³⁹ This case is practically on all fours with Tolar , in which this Court imposed a reprimand.

In that case, the respondent, as did the respondent herein, failed to complete a QDRO, failed to communicate with her client and did not timely respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries, 8 thus violating the same Rules, 1.3, 1.4, and 8.1(b). The reprimand in that case was based largely on the respondent’s remorse, a factor that could have been, and apparently was, explored in that