Attorney Grievance Commission v. Muhammad

PER CURIAM ORDER While an attorney disciplinary action was pending before the Court in the above entitled case, the Respondent instituted ⁶⁷⁷ an action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to remove the case to that Court. This Court, thereafter, issued an opinion and ordered that the Respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Maryland. Subsequently, this Court issued two separate orders staying the disbarment and sealing the disbarment opinion and order. Eventually, the United States District Court decided that there was no basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 , 1442 or 1443 (2000) and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

The Respondent next appealed the decision of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 3, 2006, that court dismissed the appeal in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the District Court and its mandate issued on November 22, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, it is this 6th day of December, 2006. ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the orders previously issued by this Court staying the disbarment and sealing the opinion of the Court be, and they are hereby, dissolved and the opinion and order of the Court disbarring the Respondent is reinstated, effective immediately.

BELL, C.J. Having received complaints from seven complainants, charging Patrick J. Muhammad, the respondent, with misconduct, consisting of violations of various of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812, acting at the direction of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Maryland Rule 16-751, 1 Bar Counsel filed against the respondent a Petition For Disciplinary Or Remedi ⁶⁷⁸ al Action. The Petition alleged multiple violations of Rules 1.3, Diligence, 2 1.4, Communication, 3 1.5, Fees, 4 1.16, Declining or Terminating Representation, 5 8.1, Bar Admission and Disci ⁶⁷⁹ plinary Matters, 6 and 8.4, Misconduct. 7 Also alleged was one violation each of Rule 1.1, Competence, 8 and Rule 1.2, Scope of Representation. 9 We referred the case, pursuant to Rule 16-752(a), 10 to the Honorable Edward R.K. Hargadon, of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757(e). 11 ⁶⁸⁰ Although he was served, the respondent did not file a response, resulting in the entry of an order of default. 12 Following a hearing, the hearing court made findings of facts, as follows: Complaint of Katrina Frisby “In September 2001, Katrina Frisby (hereinafter ‘Ms. Frisby’) retained Respondent’s services with respect to any and all claims she may have arising from an automobile accident that occurred on or about September 22, 2001. Respondent and Ms. Frisby signed a contingent fee retainer agreement on or about September 25, 2001. At the time she retained Respondent, Ms. Frisby gave Respondent her original medical bills and documents relating to her automobile accident. “In 2001, Respondent sent letters to Ms. Frisby’s medical care providers requesting Ms. Frisby’s medical records.

On or about January 9, 2002, Respondent sent a letter to the opposing party’s insurance company, State Farm Insurance Company, with copies of Ms. Frisby’s medical records and bills, requesting to discuss settlement. After January 2002, Respondent ceased communication with Ms. Frisby. Respondent did not return Ms. Frisby’s phone calls to his office or his cellular phone. Upon the request of Ms. Frisby, meetings ⁶⁸¹ were scheduled between Respondent and Ms. Frisby.

Respondent cancelled or failed to appear for these appointments. “In March 2003, Ms. Frisby went to James L. Rhodes, Esquire, Respondent’s former law partner, to assist her in obtaining her file. On March 31, 2003, Mr. Rhodes sent a letter to Respondent requesting the return of Ms. Frisby’s file. However, Respondent did not respond to that letter. Accordingly, on or about May 21, 2003, Mr. Rhodes sent another letter to Respondent, via certified mail, requesting the return of Ms. Frisby’s file.

On or about June 6, 2003, Respondent sent a letter to Mr. Rhodes refusing to return Ms. Frisby her file until she paid him $2000, which he claimed was an ‘earned fee in the event of termination before the completion of the representation.’ Ms. Frisby requested that Respondent provide her with his statement of services and accounting for his claim of $2000 in fees. Respondent, however, did not respond to her request. “On November 13, 2003, Ms. Frisby discharged Respondent and retained a new attorney, Phillip L. Potts. Esquire, who also requested that Respondent return Ms. Frisby’s file. Respondent still did not return Ms. Frisby’s original documents.

Approximately four (4) months later, on or about March 9, 2004, Respondent filed a one page complaint in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City on behalf of Ms. Frisby. The complaint was hand-written on a form Statement of Claim. Respondent did not advise Ms. Frisby or her new attorney that he filed a complaint on her behalf. The complaint was filed after Ms. Frisby filed a grievance complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland.

No other action was taken after Respondent filed the complaint. “Other than writing the letters to the medical care providers and the insurance company, Respondent performed no other work on behalf of Ms. Frisby during the time he was retained by her. Although Respondent filed a complaint in court on behalf of Ms. Frisby, he did so several months after Ms. Frisby discharged him and he failed to advise her that he had done so. During the time he was retained by Ms. Frisby, ⁶⁸² Respondent failed to communicate with her regarding the status of her case. “On May 16, 2003, Bar Counsel sent a letter to Respondent requesting copies of his file for Ms. Frisby. On or about May 29, 2003, Respondent sent a letter to Bar Counsel stating that he would not release his file of Ms. Frisby to Bar Counsel until he received an executed release by Ms. Frisby, and to direct any further communication to his attorney, Jill P. Carter, Esquire.

On June 26, 2003, Deputy Bar Counsel sent Respondent’s purported attorney, Ms. Carter, the requested executed authorization of Ms Frisby permitting the release of her file. Ms. Carter later advised Assistant Bar Counsel Marianne J. Lee, that she was not representing Respondent. On October 14, 2003 and November 3, 2003, Assistant Bar Counsel Lee sent letters to Respondent, again requesting copies of his client file of Ms. Frisby. Respondent did not respond to those letters. “Complaint of Wanda Owens “In September 2000, Respondent was retained by Wanda Owens (hereinafter ‘Ms. Owens’) to represent her in a personal injury claim.

Ms. Owens was injured in September 2000, after a fall at Lexington Market in Baltimore, Maryland. Respondent agreed to handle Ms. Owens’ matter on a contingent fee basis. The terms of the contingent fee agreement were not communicated to Ms. Owens in writing. However, Respondent advised Ms. Owens that he would file suit on her behalf. “During the course of the representation, Ms. Owens tried to communicate with Respondent.

Ms. Owens called Respondent on several occasions, often leaving messages asking Respondent to contact her. However, many of her phone calls went unreturned. From approximately September 2001 until September 2003, Respondent took no action on behalf of Ms. Owens with respect to her claim. Accordingly, on or about September 4, 2003, Ms. Owens sent a letter to Respondent discharging him and requesting that he surrender her papers ⁶⁸³ to her, so that she could retain a new attorney.

Respondent did not return Ms. Owens’ papers to her. On September 8, 2003, or four (4) days after being terminated by Ms. Owens, Respondent filed a Complaint in the District Court of Maryland on behalf of Ms. Owens against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, Andy’s Steaks and Subs, Cajun Joe’s Take Out, and Berger’s Food. Respondent presented a check drawn from his business account, in the amount of $20, to the Clerk of the District Court of Maryland, for the filing fee. However, the check was returned for insufficient funds.

The court clerk notified Respondent of his returned check, but he did not present a new check to the District Court of Maryland for payment of the filing fee until November 3, 2003, two (2) months after the initial filing of the Complaint. On or about September 10, 2003, the District Court of Maryland sent a Memorandum notifying Respondent that the writs of summons could not be issued until he provided to the court clerk the names of the officers, resident agents or persons authorized to accept service for the named defendants in the Owens Complaint. Respondent failed to do so. As a result.

Respondent failed to perfect service on the defendants. “During Bar Counsel’s investigation. Respondent failed to respond in a timely manner to requests for information. Despite repeated requests, Respondent failed to provide copies of his client file of Ms. Owens to the Office of Bar Counsel. On October 14, 2003 and November 25, 2003, Assistant Bar Counsel Lee sent letters to Respondent requesting copies of his file of Ms. Owens.

On or about December 15, 2003, Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Lee stating that he would provide her with ‘all requested information prior to the Christmas holiday.’ However, Respondent did not do so. s-c % sfc “Complaint of Star J. Branch “On or about April 24, 2002, Star J. Branch (hereinafter ‘Ms. Branch’) retained Respondent to represent her in a disability contract and discrimination claim against the apart ⁶⁸⁴ ment complex where she resided, Bren Brook Apartments. Respondent agreed to handle Ms. Branch’s matter for a flat fee of $5,000, plus a ten percent (10%) contingency fee of any monies collected from settlement or trial. Respondent and Ms. Branch executed the retainer agreement on April 24, 2002. Ms. Branch paid Respondent $3,000 on March 11, 2002.

She paid the remaining balance of the $5,000 flat fee, in installments, by May 28, 2003. “On September 23, 2002, Respondent filed a Complaint for housing discrimination in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on behalf of Ms. Branch against Bren Brook Apartments and its management company, Equity Management, Inc. On February 21, 2003, the Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint. On March 11, 2003, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 28, 2003, Respondent filed a Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment; however, the response was insufficient and did not comply with the Maryland Rules. Respondent’s one-page Response was approximately three sentences long and contained a completely different caption than that of Ms. Branch’s case, naming the Defendants as ‘General Motors.’ Respondent also failed to attach an affidavit in response to Defendants’ allegations. “A hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff s Response was set for August 7, 2003.

Notice of the hearing was sent to Respondent on or about July 9, 2003. Respondent failed to appear at the August 7, 2003 hearing. On or about August 6, 2003, Respondent allegedly prepared a Request for Postponement of the August 7, 2003 hearing, but he did not file it with the Court. Moreover, Respondent did not advise Ms. Branch of the August 7, 2003 hearing.

Furthermore, Respondent did not advise Ms. Branch that he would not appear at the August 7, 2003 hearing. “On August 7, 2003, The Honorable Patrick Cavanaugh granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, ⁶⁸⁵ Motion for Summary Judgment. Respondent did not advise Ms. Branch that the Court granted the motions. On September 8, 2008, Respondent filed an Interlocutory Appeal in the Court of Special Appeals. However, Respondent failed to file a Prehearing Information Report, as required by Maryland Rule 8-205.

On November 3, 2003, the Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal filed by Respondent for failure to file an Information Report. Respondent did not advise Ms. Branch that the Court of Special Appeals dismissed her appeal. Respondent took no other action on behalf of Ms. Branch after the dismissal of the appeal. “Respondent essentially abandoned Ms. Branch in her civil matter. After retaining Respondent, Ms. Branch tried to communicate with him, via telephone; however, Respondent failed to answer or return her calls. “During Bar Counsel’s investigation, Respondent failed to respond to requests for information from the Office of Bar Counsel.

On December 22, 2003, Assistant Bar Counsel Lee sent a letter to Respondent requesting his written response to the allegations in Ms. Branch’s complaint. Respondent did not respond to that letter. On January 7, 2004, Ms. Lee sent another letter to Respondent, via certified mail, requesting his written response to Ms. Branch’s complaint. Respondent, again, did not respond to Ms. Lee’s letter.

The certified letter was returned marked, ‘unclaimed.’ >■< 5j{ }¡í 5jC * “Complaint of Mitchell Lee Gresham “In October 2003, Mitchell Lee Gresham (hereinafter ‘Mr. Gresham’) retained Respondent to represent him in a criminal matter. Mr. Gresham retained Respondent to file a motion for modification of his sentence and to assist him in obtaining home detention. “Mr. Gresham’s wife, Felicia Aminah Gresham (hereinafter ‘Ms. Gresham’), paid Respondent an initial retainer of $3,500. After receipt of the $3,500, Respondent took no action on behalf of Mr. Gresham and did not keep his client informed about the status of his representation. Respondent also did ⁶⁸⁶ not respond to inquiries made by Mr. and Mrs. Gresham.

Based upon Respondent’s failure to provide services of any value and to pursue any action advancing the client’s interests, the fees accepted and retained by Respondent were unreasonable.” “Although Respondent stopped all work on Mr. Gresham’s matter, he did not take steps to protect Mr. Gresham’s interest, such as giving reasonable notice that the representation was terminated and refunding any advance payment of fee that had not been earned. Moreover, Respondent failed to respond to Mr. and Mrs. Gresham’s requests for a refund of the $8,500 paid to Respondent. “During Bar Counsel’s investigation of Mr. Gresham’s complaint. Respondent failed to respond to written requests for information. More specifically, Respondent did not respond to letters from the Office of Bar Counsel dated January 8, 2004 and January 28, 2004, requesting his written response to Mr. Gresham’s complaint. “Complaint of Leonard A. Washington, Sr. “On or about April 5, 2003, Leonard A. Washington, Sr. (hereinafter ‘Mr. Washington’) retained Respondent’s services to secure post conviction relief to obtain a modification of his sentence.

Respondent agreed to represent Mr. Washington for a retainer fee of $1,250. Respondent signed the retainer agreement on or about April 5, 2003. The retainer agreement provided that ‘the attorney will not enter his appearance on behalf of client in any court referred to herein until $700 of the fee has been paid.’ On or about April 5, 2003, Gwendolyn Washington, on behalf of Mr. Washington, paid Respondent $700. “On or about June 20, 2003, Respondent sent Mr. Washington a letter advising him of the work he had done on his behalf. However, Respondent never produced to Mr. Washington copies of the work he claimed that he had done on Mr. Washington’s behalf.

After receipt of the $700, Respondent did not enter his appearance in court on behalf of Mr. Wash ⁶⁸⁷ ington and did not keep Mr. Washington informed about the status of the representation. Mr. Washington wrote letters to Respondent requesting information regarding the status of his matter. However, Respondent did not respond to any of Mr. Washington’s letters or inquiries. “Based on Respondent’s failure to provide services of any value and to pursue any action advancing the client’s interests, the fees accepted and retained by Respondent were unreasonable. Although Respondent stopped all work on Mr. Washington’s case, he did not take steps to protect Mr. Washington’s interest, such as giving reasonable notice that the representation was terminated and refunding any advance payment of the fee that had not been earned.

Furthermore, Respondent failed to respond to Mr. Washington’s request for a refund of the $700 retainer. “During Bar Counsel’s investigation of Mr. Washington’s grievance complaint, Respondent failed to respond in a timely manner to written requests for information. He did not respond to letters from the Office of Bar Counsel, dated January 29, 2004 and February 13, 2004, requesting his written response to Mr. Washington’s complaint. 5j« Jj{ Jj{ ^4 JjC “Complaint of Kimberly Hawkins “On or about April 30, 2003, Kimberly Hawkins (hereinafter ‘Ms. Hawkins’) retained Respondent to represent her with respect to any claims she may have had arising from an automobile accident that occurred on April 28, 2003. Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Hawkins on a contingent fee basis. Respondent and Ms.