Attorney Grievance Commission v. Nisbett

BLACKWELL, Judge. The Petition for Disciplinary Action filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission (Commission) alleges that Respondent, David Keith Nisbett (Nisbett) failed to perform legal services that he agreed to furnish eight different clients, ⁴⁶⁶ and that he did engage in misconduct as defined by Maryland Rule BVlk. Pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9b, this Court referred the matter to the Honorable Graydon S. McKee, III of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. After a hearing, Judge McKee made the following findings which he summarized: THE THOMAS FERGUSON COMPLAINT Mr. Ferguson retained Respondent in June 1986 to represent him in connection with the Estate of his deceased wife.

Respondent failed to take any positive action in administering the estate including failure to have the estate opened. Mr. Ferguson eventually handled the estate on his own. Mr. Ferguson asked Respondent to refund the retainer fee of Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00), but Respondent in his deposition admitted not returning the fee or filing the case. Respondent does agree to return the fee of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).

THE LAWRENCE KUTEYI COMPLAINT This court finds that the Respondent was retained by Lawrence Kuteyi in or about July, 1986 and that Mr. Lawrence Kuteyi paid a One Thousand Five Hundred Dollar ($1,500.00) retainer. Respondent failed to take any substantive action on Mr. Kuteyi’s case. Respondent told Mr. Kuteyi he had been ill, but would work on the case. Respondent did not withdraw from the case and did not refund any portion of the retainer to Mr. Kuteyi.

Respondent has stated he intends to refund all of Mr. Kuteyi’s $1,500.00 fee and admitted he had not charged a fair fee. THE EMMA DAVIS COMPLAINT Ms. Davis retained the Respondent in a divorce action in the District of Columbia in February, 1986. Respondent failed to pursue the divorce action, respond to inter ⁴⁶⁷ rogatories, communicate with Ms. Davis and withdraw from the case when asked. THE ROSILANB HORTON COMPLAINT In August of 1983, Ms. Rosiland Horton retained the Respondent in connection with a medical malpractice claim arising in North Carolina.

Respondent was not a member of the North Carolina bar. Therefore, he associated with Jason Parker, Esquire, North Carolina counsel. Without permission, Respondent signed Mr. Parker’s name to a complaint, interrogatories and request for production of documents. Respondent failed to pursue Ms. Horton’s claim, it was dismissed and subsequently barred by the statute of limitations.

Respondent represented to Ms. Horton in February, 1986 and May, 1986 that her case was still pending in the North Carolina courts when it had actually been dismissed before February 1986. After May, 1986 Respondent had no further communications with Ms. Horton. ‘... [Ajlthough I have to admit that I did nothing to check on the case, I did nothing to work on it further. It should have dawned on me that I needed to check on the case.’ THE VICKI COWARD COMPLAINT In August of 1983, Ms. Coward had an automobile accident and shortly thereafter retained Respondent. She incurred medical bills which she gave to Respondent for processing.

Respondent submitted a bill to Ms. Coward’s insurance carrier and they in return forwarded a check in payment back to the Respondent. Neither Ms. Coward nor the doctor ever received full payment due from the Respondent. The Respondent did not make a claim for Ms. Coward’s lost wages with the Personal Injury Protection carrier despite Ms. Coward’s entitlement to same. THE FRANK WEIZIOLOWSKI COMPLAINT A Ms. Ruby Russell was appointed personal representative of the Estate of Eunice A. McSween by the Orphans’ ⁴⁶⁸ Court for Prince George’s County.

Ms. Russell retained Respondent in January, 1985 to assist in the administration of the testate estate. Respondent failed to file a final accounting with the court or subsequent counsel in the case or disburse all the funds from the estate checking account. The Respondent was not a signatory of the estate account. He did prepare checks for Ms. Russell’s signature and mailed them out.

Some of the payees of the estate did not receive their checks. When Ms. Russell presented this problem to Respondent he did nothing. Ms. Russell eventually sought help from another law firm, Halpren, Brown and Darienzo, and retained Mr. Frank Weiziolowski in Brooklyn, New York. Respondent failed to supply Ms. Russell or new counsel with a final accounting of the estate.

THE COMPLAINT OF GERALDINE MILLER Mrs. Miller retained the Respondent in or about October, 1981 to represent her claim arising from an automobile accident. From October 1981 to October 1984 Mrs. Miller lived overseas predominately in Germany with her husband who was in military service. Contact between Respondent and Mrs. Miller was occasional until suit was actually filed on October 24, 1984. The opposing party propounded Interrogatories to Mrs. Miller and made a request for documents.

Respondent did not file the answers to interrogatories despite the fact that Ms. Miller had completed them. Respondent failed to file a response to the counterclaim or a motion to compel discovery. The Respondent falsely represented to Mrs. Miller that her case would be tried even though it had been dismissed. THE PEGGY MAXEY COMPLAINT Peggy Maxey retained Respondent for the first time in June of 1982 in connection with personal injuries suffered ⁴⁶⁹ at a subway station in Takoma Park, Maryland.

She again retained Mm in August 1982 to represent her in connection with personal injuries she received while a passenger on a Greyhound bus. Ms. Maxey also retained Respondent in connection with her divorce. The judgment of Absolute Divorce had Ms. Maxey’s name misspelled as her surname Mahey.’ Mrs. Maxey had asked Respondent to have the name changed to the correct spelling. Respondent admitted that he had never done as he was asked to do by Ms. Maxey.

In the two personal injury actions, Respondent filed the claim but took no further action. The Complaints (both) were dismissed for want of prosecution and simultaneously the statute of limitations expired. After the dismissals the Respondent falsely advised Ms. Maxey that a trial date was scheduled for those two cases. Respondent further advised Ms. Maxey that he was ill and would need to postpone the trials.

The judge concluded there were sixty-three violations involved in these cases. To fully itemize the violations would serve little purpose. The judge found the Respondent repeatedly violated the following disciplinary rules: 1 DR 1-102 Misconduct. (A) A lawyer shall not: (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. (6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on Ms fitness to practice law. DR 6-101 Failing to Act Competently. (A) A lawyer shall not: ⁴⁷⁰ (3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

DR 7-101 Representing a Client Zealously. (A) A lawyer shall not intentionally: (1) Fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR 7-101(B). A lawyer does not violate this Disciplinary Rule, however, by acceding to reasonable requests of opposing counsel which do not prejudice the rights of his client, by being punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments, by avoiding offensive tactics, or by treating with courtesy and consideration all persons involved in the legal process. (2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but he may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110, DR 5-102, and DR 5-105.

(3) Prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship, except as required under DR 7-102(B). DR 7-102 Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law. (A) In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not: (5) Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact. The judge also found that Nisbett failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s numerous requests for information in connection with each of the complaints and that he failed to attend the Inquiry Panel hearing held despite having received notice.

The judge therefore found Respondent violated Rule 8.1 “BAR ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINARY MATTERS” which states: An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not: (b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand ⁴⁷¹ for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. Md. Rule 1230, Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, Appendix (1987). The Respondent filed no