Attorney Grievance Commission v. Page

GREENE, J. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”), acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751(a), filed a “Petition For Disciplinary Or Remedial Action” against Alfred Amos Page, Jr. (“Respondent” or “Page”), on January 20, 2012, and an “Amended Petition For Disciplinary Or Remedial Action,” on April 4, 2012. Initially, Petitioner charged Respondent, stemming from his representation of Pamela Jackson (“Ms.Jackson”), with violating various Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC” 1 or “Rule”), including Rule 1.1 (Competence) 2 ; Rule 1.3 (Diligence) 3 ; Rule 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication) 4 ; Rule 1.15(a) and (c) (Safe ⁶⁰⁷ keeping Property) 5 ; Rule 1.16(a) and (d) (Declining or Terminating Representation) 6 ; Rule 5.5(a) and (b) (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law) 7 ; and ⁶⁰⁸ Rule 8.4(a), (c) and (d) (Misconduct) 8 . In the amended petition, Bar Counsel charges Respondent made false representations in his “Petition for Reinstatement” to this Court and violated Rule 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal) 9 ; Rule 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) 10 ; and Rule 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). This Court referred the matter to Judge Katherine D. Savage of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a hearing to determine findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-757 (Judicial Hearing).

On May 16, 2012, Judge Savage conducted an evidentiary hearing, during which Respondent was represented by counsel, and thereafter, the hearing judge issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in which she found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent’s acts and omissions constituted violations of MLRPC 1.1; 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 1.15(a) and (c); 1.16(a) and (d); 5.5(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2); 3.3(a)(1); 8.1(a); and 8.4(a), (c) and (d). In so doing, Judge Savage made the following findings of fact regarding Respondent’s background, representation of Ms. Jackson and the filing of Respondent’s “Petition for Reinstatement” to this Court: Findings of Fact Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June ⁶⁰⁹ 24, 1998. 1 Mr. Page holds an undergraduate degree in accounting from Towson University, a Master’s degree in finance from the University of Baltimore and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Maryland. Respondent is also a Certified Public Accountant and has taught accounting and paralegal studies at Montgomery College since 1988. 2 At trial, Petitioner offered the testimony of Respondent and Ms. Jackson. Petitioner’s documentary exhibits were admitted without objection.

Respondent testified in his defense and also offered documentary exhibits. The Jackson Complaint On May 25, 2006, Respondent entered into a retainer agreement with Ms. Jackson for the purpose of representing her in a dispute over alleged defects in the construction of Ms. Jackson’s new home. Ms. Jackson agreed to pay Respondent $5,000 as an “initial fee” with the proviso that an additional fee may be required to meet unforeseen circumstances [citations omitted here and throughout]. Respondent testified that, at the time the agreement was executed, he knew that the claim between Ms. Jackson and the builder was contested.

The retainer agreement further provided that “no hourly billings will be kept nor shall be expected.” Mr. Page did not keep time records regarding his work on Ms. Jackson’s case. Ms. Jackson made an initial payment to Mr. Page of $2,500, which Respondent deposited into his attorney trust account on June 12, 2006. The funds were subsequently removed from the trust account. Mr. Page presented no credible evidence that the funds were earned at the time they were removed from the trust account. ⁶¹⁰ Less clear is what happened to the second payment of $2,500 Ms. Jackson made to Respondent on March 12, 2007 by check number 7858805.

When questioned by Petitioner’s counsel, Respondent testified that the signature endorsing check number 7858805 was his. When questioned by his own counsel, Respondent testified that he had no recollection of receiving check number 7858805 and that he had no idea who owned the account into which the check was deposited. In response to the Court’s question as to whether or not the signature was his, Respondent testified, “Your Honor, I’ve got a crazy signature. I have to say that it looks, when I’m writing fast, it could very well be, but as to the signature on it, it appears to be, it looks like my signature.

It appears to be my signature.” Mr. Page later changed his testimony to state that the signature was not his. Respondent also testified that he frequently endorsed checks with a stamp and not a handwritten signature. On balance, and after weighing the credibility of both Mr. Page and Ms. Jackson, the Court accepts Ms. Jackson’s testimony. Her memory of events was cogent, clear and internally consistent.

Mr. Page, on the other hand, appeáred confused as to some events, forgetful of others, and evidenced an overall lack of clarity in recalling basic facts about this matter. The Court therefore finds that Respondent both received and endorsed check number 7858805, and caused the check to be deposited in a non-trust account held at Wachovia Bank. Respondent presented no evidence that the funds from either payment were maintained in trust until earned. By his own admission, Respondent agreed that he did not maintain a client ledger, time records or any other documentation relating to the receipt, maintenance or disbursements of funds received from Ms. Jackson.

From May 25, 2006 through December 7, 2006, Ms. Jackson forwarded all relevant documents relating to her claim to Respondent. Despite Ms. Jackson’s repeated requests to move her case along, Respondent continually delayed. Respondent would tell Ms. Jackson that he was ⁶¹¹ working on her case, that he was going out of town or that he was waiting for the resolution of the case filed by the county in the District Court for Prince George’s County related to building permit violations. Mr. Page claims that during this time he was accumulating evidence on Ms. Jackson’s behalf and meeting with Prince George’s County building inspectors to evaluate their potential usefulness as witnesses in the lawsuit he was preparing to file.

Respondent informed Ms. Jackson that her complaint would be filed before the end of the year, 2006. The Court notes that the resolution of the Prince George’s County case was not necessary to Ms. Jackson’s case because it did not involve work that was the subject of her complaint against the builder. Despite arguing that he was accumulating evidence on Ms. Jackson’s behalf between May 2006 and the time of filing, Respondent presented no billing records or communications to demonstrate his work on the case. On February 23, 2007, nearly nine months after being retained, Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Ms. Jackson in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

The complaint contained six counts: breach of contract, negligence, breach of implied warranty of good and workmanlike construction, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Respondent testified that at the time the complaint was filed, he did not know that an expert witness would be required to establish the standard of care, breach or causation. Ms. Jackson made requests for a copy of the complaint by voicemail and e-mail. Respondent never provided Ms. Jackson with a copy of the complaint.

She eventually went to the courthouse and purchased a copy from the clerk. The Defendants were served on April 11 and 18, 2007. On May 16, 2007, Respondent filed a premature Motion for Default alleging that all Defendants were served on April 11, 2007. On May 17, 2007, the Defendants filed an Answer denying all material facts and any liability and asserting a ⁶¹² number of affirmative defenses.

Respondent received the Defendants’ Answer, but at the instant hearing could not recall whether he had reviewed it. The trial court denied the Motion for Default. Beginning in or before July 2007, Respondent made multiple representations to Ms. Jackson that he would prepare and file a motion for summary judgment. He initially represented that a motion would be filed on or before October 18, 2007.

Mr. Page eventually filed the motion in March 2008. In October 2007, Respondent began employment with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). IRS policy prohibited Respondent from maintaining a private practice or representing any client without first obtaining approval from the IRS. Both Mr. Page and Ms. Jackson, who had previously been employed by the IRS, testified that they were both aware of the IRS policy.

Mr. Page testified that he reported his active cases to his IRS manager, as required, and that he received permission to wrap-up matters with several clients. Mr. Page agrees with Petitioner that he never received clearance to continue work on Ms. Jackson’s case. On October 28, 24, 25 and November 27, and 29, 2007, Ms. Jackson attempted to contact Respondent for updates on her case. Respondent did not respond to any of her requests for information.

On December 4, 2007, Ms. Jackson was finally able to contact Respondent and Respondent assured her that the motion would be filed before Christmas. On December 18 and 19, 2007, Ms. Jackson left messages for Respondent to call her. Respondent did not return the messages. On January 7, 2008, while Ms. Jackson’s case was still pending, Mr. Page consented to a thirty (30) day suspension from the practice [of] law in the State of Maryland.

On January 15, 2008, Ms. Jackson left a voicemail message for Respondent. On January 16, 2008, Ms. Jackson reached Respondent by telephone. Respondent did not inform Ms. Jackson of his suspension but did, for the first time, inform Ms. Jackson that he had begun employment with the IRS in ⁶¹³ October 2007 3 and noted that he would need to receive IRS approval to continue her case. The Court finds that Respondent led Ms. Jackson to believe that he had requested approval to continue her case.

Mr. Page also acknowledged that Ms. Jackson repeatedly asked if approval had been granted. Respondent admitted at the instant hearing that he never sought the necessary IRS approval to continue Ms. Jackson’s case. Respondent conducted no discovery in Ms. Jackson’s case. In his testimony, Mr. Page demonstrated that he did not understand what the discovery process entailed.

On March 6, 2008, while suspended from the practice of law and without IRS permission to continue representing Ms. Jackson, Respondent filed “Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability” (hereafter “Motion”). 4 Mr. Page never fully explained the delay in filing the Motion, but he did testify that he believed it was unlikely the motion would be granted. The Motion contained facts outside the record and was not supported by an affidavit. The complaint itself was not verified. Respondent testified at trial that he did not know what a “verified complaint” was.

The Motion contained the following misrepresentations: 1. Paragraph 1 of the Motion states “No dispute of material facts exists on the issue of whether Plaintiff contributed to the [sic] neither Breach of Contract nor negligence.” The statement is a misrepresentation. Defendant’s answer at paragraph 73 provides “The Plaintiffs claims are barred by contributory negligence.” Because Respondent ⁶¹⁴ did not propound any discovery, at the time the Motion was filed, he had no evidence to prove the facts disputed by the Defendants. 2. Paragraph 3 of the Motion states “No dispute of material fact exists as to whether or not Plaintiff sustained damages from the breach of contract and negligence committed by the defendants.” The statement is a misrepresentation.

The Defendants denied all damages. 3. Paragraph 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Motion all contain facts alleged by Respondent as “not in dispute.” Each fact alleged was specifically denied by the Defendants. When questioned by Petitioner’s counsel on the issue of “disputed facts” in the summary judgment motion, he stated that the facts were not disputed by his client. He further explained that he accepted his own facts and documents referenced in his argument for summary judgment.

Clearly, Mr. Page has little to no understanding of summary judgment law. At one point, he testified that he did not even recall when he actually filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Prince George’s County court denied the Motion in an order dated May 21, 2008. On May 27, 2008, Respondent left a voicemail message for Ms. Jackson informing her that the court had denied the Motion.

Mr. Page stated that “[he’s] not gonna be able to proceed in litigation at this point, ‘cause I still haven’t received clearance from IRS to do, to do any further litigation.” Ms. Jackson sent Respondent a termination letter dated June 17, 2008, requesting that her file be transferred to substitute counsel and that Respondent provide an itemized statement of all expenses incurred with a check for the balance remaining from the retainer of $5,000. Several weeks later, and after Ms. Jackson paid $50 for copying costs, Respondent delivered Ms. Jackson’s file to substitute counsel. Respondent never provided Ms. Jackson with an itemization of fees and expenses, nor did he refund any unearned fees. Respondent ⁶¹⁵ never informed Ms. Jackson that he had been suspended from the practice of law.

Petition for Reinstatement On January 7, 2008, Petitioner and Respondent filed a Joint Petition for Suspension of Respondent, by Consent, for 30 Days in the Court of Appeals. The Joint Petition was signed by Respondent under penalty of perjury and upon personal knowledge and states “Respondent agrees to comply with Maryland Rule 16-760.” Respondent testified that he reviewed the Petition prior to signing it and that he had an opportunity to and did, in fact, discuss the Petition with his attorney. The Court of Appeals, by order dated January 7, 2008, suspended Respondent from the practice of law for thirty days. Respondent did not comply with Maryland Rule 16-760.

Specifically, Mr. Page admitted at trial that he failed to adhere to subsection (c)(1) by continuing to represent Ms. Jackson. In doing so, Respondent also violated subsection (c)(2) by failing to take any steps to protect Ms. Jackson, and subsection (c)(3) by failing to conclude Ms. Jackson’s matter within 15 days of the order of the Court of Appeals. In violation of subsection (c)(4), Mr. Page did not identify to Bar Counsel any currently pending client matters. Mr. Page violated subsection (c)(5) by failing to mail to Ms. Jackson and opposing counsel a letter notifying each of them of the order and the fact that he would be unable to practice law after the effective date of the order.

Respondent violated subsection (c)(6) by failing to withdraw within 60 days from Ms. Jackson’s pending lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Respondent violated subsection (c)(8) by failing to deliver promptly to Ms. Jackson any papers or other property to which she was entitled, and subsection (c)(10) by failing to file an affidavit with the Commission. 5 ⁶¹⁶ On March 28, 2011, Respondent filed a Petition for Reinstatement in the Court of Appeals. Respondent prepared and filed the Petition for Reinstatement pro se. Respondent asserted, at Paragraph 3, that he “has abided by Md. Rule 16-760 since the 7th day of January, 2008.” Contrary to this assertion, Respondent admitted at trial that he did not comply with Md. Rule 16-760.

Mr. Page also stated in his Petition for Reinstatement, at Paragraph 4, that he “has not had any cases pending before any court in the State of Maryland or any other court in the United States since the 7th day of January, 2008.” Respondent admitted at the hearing that the statement was “incorrect.” Respondent asserted, at Paragraph 5 of the Petition for Reinstatement, that he “has not had any legal clients or engaged in the practice of law in the State of Maryland or anywhere in the United States since the 7th day of January, 2008.” Respondent again admitted at the instant hearing that the statement was “incorrect.” On April 5, 2011, Petitioner filed a Response to Petition for Reinstatement stating in part that Respondent failed to file an affidavit pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-760(c)(10) and did not provide any information concerning his compliance with Maryland Rule 16-760. On April 8, 2011, Respondent filed a Response under penalty of perjury in which he stated that, at the time of his suspension, he had “ceased the active practice of law and did not have any legal clients.” Respondent admitted at hearing that the statement was false. On April 18, 2011, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Response to Petition for Reinstatement alleging, inter alia, that Respondent had failed to advise Ms. Jackson or opposing counsel in Ms. Jackson’s case of his suspension, that Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Ms. Jackson’s case while suspended from the practice of law and that Respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law following his suspension on January 7, 2008. The Court of Appeals denied Respondent’s Petition for Reinstatement by Order dated April 21, 2011. ⁶¹⁷ On April 27, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion to Modify Order for Reinstatement under MD Rule 16—60(k)(2)(l) and request for Reconsideration of Order Denying Petition for Reinstatement under penalty of perjury.

In his Motion to Modify, Respondent stated: “prior to voluntary suspension on or before December 31, 2007, [Respondent] informed [Ms. Jackson] that legal representation would be terminated as a condition of employment with the federal government.... ” The Court finds that Respondent’s statement was false. Respondent first told Ms. Jackson of his employment with the IRS sometime in early 2008, and Respondent informed Ms. Jackson that the representation would be terminated because of the IRS policy in a voice-mail message on May 27, 2008. In his Motion to Modify, Respondent stated that he “has substantially complied with sections (c) and (d) of MD Rule 16-760 for 36 months.... ” At the instant hearing, Respondent admitted that he had failed to comply with subsections (c) and (d), as discussed above, and that the statement in his Motion to Modify “would be a presumed inaccurate statement.” The Court finds that Respondent failed to comply with Rule 16-760 at all, and that the representation that he had “substantially complied” was false. The Court of Appeals denied Respondent’s Motion to Modify by Order dated May 20, 2011.

Bar Counsel Investigation of Ms. Jackson’s Complaint “By letter dated April 5, 2011, Respondent provided a response to Bar Counsel regarding the complaint filed by Ms. Jackson. Respondent’s April 5 letter contained multiple misrepresentations. Respondent stated: I represented Ms. Jackson up through the Summary Judgment phase, which was denied. Subsequently, after I received the Summary Judgment denial I was offered and I accepted a position with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).” The undisputed testimony at the hearing was that Respondent’s employment "with the IRS began in October 2007, seven months prior to the denial of the Motion for Summary ⁶¹⁸ Judgment.

Respondent admitted at trial that his statement to Bar Counsel was a misrepresentation. In his letter of April 5, 2011, Respondent stated to Bar Counsel that he, “applied for permission to continue [Ms. Jackson’s] case along with my teaching as an adjunct professor at an area college. IRS granted me my continued teaching employment but never granted permission to continue any legal cases, including Ms. Jackson’s case.” At trial, Respondent admitted that he had never applied to the IRS for permission to continue Ms. Jackson’s case following his employment with them in October 2007. Further, in his letter of April 5, 2011, Respondent stated to Bar Counsel that “to the best of my knowledge, I closed all of my legal cases on or before December 31, 2007, including Ms. Jackson’s case.” At trial, Respondent admitted that this statement to Bar Counsel was false.

Conclusions of Law The Jackson Complaint Judge Savage entered detailed conclusions of law concerning both complaints. As to Ms. Jackson’s complaint, the hearing judge began by pointing out that Respondent violated MLRPC 1.1 on numerous occasions. According to Judge Savage, Respondent’s Motion for Default in the Jackson case was premature, and his Motion for Summary Judgment did not meet the requirements of Maryland Rule 2-501. Page did not understand fully the requirements for filing a Motion for Summary Judgment because he claimed that there were no disputes of material fact when, in reality, the builder disputed all the facts in Ms. Jackson’s complaint.

Further, Judge Savage concluded: Respondent’s testimony made it clear that he did not understand the legal meaning of “facts not in dispute.” When questioned on the subject, Respondent admitted that Defendants did, in fact, dispute all facts asserted by Ms. Jackson in her complaint. Respondent attached the Consent Order to Enforce Compliance with the Building Code ⁶¹⁹ from the District Court case to the Motion. The Consent Order was not certified or authenticated. Mr. Page testified that he “felt the County proved my case.” He later testified that it was not “proof positive” but rather “strong evidence for a complaint.” The Consent Order addressed permit violations of the builder, and did not constitute proof of either a breach of contract claim or a negligence claim in Ms. Jackson’s case.

Additionally, Respondent testified that he “didn’t think [the summary judgment motion] was going to be approved” but that he wanted to “preserve the record.” Respondent failed to pursue any discovery on behalf of Ms. Jackson’s claim. At trial, Respondent testified that his “discovery” consisted of exhibits attached to the original complaint and that he “didn’t have any other additional discovery to produce because [he] provided it with the complaint.” Respondent did not request any discovery from the defendants and it is unclear whether or not Respondent even understands the legal meaning of discovery. These facts combined establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Page violated MRPC 1.1 in his handling of Ms. Jackson’s case. MLRPC 1.3.

Diligence. Respondent violated Rule 1.3 on multiple instances in the course of Ms. Jackson’s representation. At the outset of the representation, Respondent represented to Ms. Jackson that he would gather documents, prepare and send a demand letter to the builder and investigate whether the potential defendants had filed for bankruptcy protection. Respondent failed to do any of the tasks outlined.

The Court finds that Respondent’s nine-month delay in filing Ms. Jackson’s complaint is a violation of Rule 1.3. Ms. Jackson provided Mr. Page with multiple documents at the outset of their relationship, and Respondent could provide no creditable explanation for the delay. The complaint eventually filed by Respondent required expert witness testimony to establish either a breach of ⁶²⁰ contract or negligence. Respondent failed to consult with or retain an expert.

Additionally, and as noted above, Respondent failed to prepare or propound any discovery on behalf of Ms. Jackson after the complaint was filed. The record indicates that the Circuit Court never issued a scheduling order in Ms. Jackson’s case but, given Ms. Jackson’s repeated requests to Respondent to move the case forward, the Court finds that Respondent’s failure to pursue discovery of Ms. Jackson’s complaint in any meaningful manner following its filing was a violation of Rule 1.3. Mr. Page’s claim that he spent the time between May 2006 and February 2007 investigating Ms. Jackson’s claim is not credible. It is clear to the Court that he did little to nothing in furtherance of his client’s claim, and is therefore found to be in violation of MRPC 1.3.

MLRPC 1.4. Communication. The Court finds Respondent violated Rule 1.4(a)(2) and (3) by faffing to keep Ms. Jackson reasonably informed about the status of her case, by failing to promptly return her phone calls and emails, by failing to promptly respond to her requests for information and by failing to provide copies of documents requested. The Court finds Respondent violated Rule 1.4(a)(4) by failing to inform Ms. Jackson that he could no longer represent her in October 2007 when his employment with the IRS began and by failing to inform her that he was suspended from the practice of law in January 2008.

The Court finds Respondent violated Rule 1.4(b) by failing to explain the terms of his representation to Ms. Jackson to the extent reasonably necessary to permit her to make informed decisions about the representation. The retainer agreement prepared by Respondent and executed by Ms. Jackson fails to adequately outline the terms of the representation and the fees that would be associated with the representation. The retainer agreement refers to the $5,000 fee as an “initial fee” and then as a “flat rate.” The retainer agreement goes on to provide that, “An additional ⁶²¹ fee or retainer may be required if [sic] becomes evident that I must prepare for unforeseen contestion [sic].” The retainer agreement does not in any [way] define what “unforeseen contestion” is or provide what additional fee may be required, whether an additional flat fee or hourly fee and if so how that fee would be calculated. The Court finds that Respondent violated Rule 1.4(b) by failing to adequately explain the summary judgment process to Ms. Jackson.

Respondent admitted at trial that, at the time the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed, he did not think it would be successful. Respondent failed to convey that information to Ms. Jackson, depriving her of the ability to make informed decisions about her case. Respondent testified that he maintained appropriate communication with Ms. Jackson, noting that she frequently sent him documents and e-mails prior to the filing of the lawsuit. The Court finds that, while there may have been communication prior to the filing of the suit, the bulk of this communication was from Ms. Jackson to Mr. Page and that during the pendency of the suit, during the transition to employment with the IRS, and during the suspension, Mr. Page violated MRPC 1.4.

MLRPC 1.15. Safekeeping Property. The Court finds Respondent violated Rule 1.15(a) by failing to deposit and maintain certain funds received in trust. While the initial payment of $2,500 was deposited into Respondent’s IOLTA account, Respondent was unable to provide any documentation or other credible evidence that the fees were maintained in trust until earned.

There is no evidence that the second payment of $2,500 was either deposited or maintained in trust until earned. The Court has previously found that Ms. Jackson did, in fact, make the second payment of $2,500 to Mr. Page. He acknowledged his endorsement on the check, albeit in a contradictory fashion; the amount was debited from Ms. Jackson’s account; and Mr. Page made no further request for any unpaid balance. Mr. Page has failed to maintain the necessary and appropriate documentation of this receipt of funds. ⁶²² The Court finds Respondent violated Rule 1.15(e).

Ms. Jackson did not give her informed consent, confirmed in writing, for Respondent to deposit unearned funds in any account other than a trust account. MLRPC 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation. The Court finds Respondent violated Rule 1.16(a) by failing to terminate the representation and withdrawing from Ms. Jackson’s matter following his suspension from the practice of law on January 7, 2008.

Additionally, the Court finds Respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to promptly deliver to Ms. Jackson her papers, property and requested accounting following her termination of the representation on June 17, 2008. Respondent’s suggestion of perhaps obtaining a new attorney in early 2008 falls short of the expectations of MRPC 1.16, which requires a lawyer to cease representation and take reasonably practicable steps to protect a client’s interests. While Mr. Page did eventually provide a copy of his case file to Ms. Jackson, for a fee, Respondent did not return unearned fees, or provide any accounting as to how said fees were earned. Mr. Page failed to provide reasonable notice of his inability to continue in the representation either because of the IRS prohibition, which became apparent in October 2007, or when his license to practice law was suspended in January 2008.

Instead, Respondent informed Ms. Jackson that the representation would be terminated because of the IRS policy in a voicemail message on May 27, 2008. MLRPC 5.5. Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law. Respondent conceded at trial that he violated Rule 5.5 and the Court finds accordingly.

The Court of Appeals suspended Respondent from practice for a thirty-day period on January 7, 2008. Respondent failed to apply for reinstatement at the expiration of the thirty-day period. At trial, Respondent testified that he worked on the Motion for ⁶²³ Summary Judgment in January and February of 2008. On March 6, 2008, while suspended from the practice of law, Respondent filed the Motion for Summary Judgment.

MLRPC 8.4. Misconduct. The Court, having concluded that Respondent violated several of the Rules of Professional Conduct including MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16 and 5.5, concludes that Respondent has also committed misconduct in violation of Rule 8.4(a). See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359, 411 , 983 A.2d 434, 465 (2009).

The Court finds Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) during the course of his representation of Ms. Jackson. In January 2008, Respondent first notified Ms. Jackson that he had accepted and begun employment with the IRS. Respondent chose to deceive Ms. Jackson as to whether he actually had permission from the IRS to continue the representation. Respondent admitted at trial that he never sought permission from the IRS to continue Ms. Jackson’s case.

Respondent knew, based on Ms. Jackson’s repeated requests as to whether or not the IRS had granted approval, that Ms. Jackson believed that he had requested permission to continue the representation. In May 2008, Respondent left a voicemail message for Ms. Jackson in which he stated that he “still [hadn’t] received clearance from IRS to do, to do any further litigation.” This voicemail message was an intentional misrepresentation. He, by his own admission, had never sought such clearance. The Court finds Respondent’s conduct, as it relates to his employment with the IRS and the information that he provided to Ms. Jackson, to be basically dishonest.

The Court further finds that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d) for the reasons outlined as violations of 8.4(c). Bar Counsel Complaint MLRPC Rule 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal. The Court finds Respondent violated Rule 3.3(a)(1) for the reasons stated in the MRPC 8.1 analysis below. ⁶²⁴ MLRPC 8.1.

Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters. The Court finds Respondent knowingly made false statements of material fact to the Court of Appeals in his Petition for Reinstatement filed March 28, 2011. 6 Specifically, the statement made by Respondent in paragraph 3 that he “had abided by Md. Rule 16-760 since the 7th day of January, 2008” was false. Respondent did not comply with subsections (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(8)(9)(10)(12) of Rule 16-760(c). The statement made by Respondent in paragraph 4 that he “has not had any cases pending before any court in the State of Maryland or any other court in the United States since the 7th day of January, 2008” was false.

As admitted at trial, Respondent continued to represent Ms. Jackson, whose matter was pending in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County until June 2008, five months following his suspension from the practice of law. Finally, the Court finds the statement made in paragraph 5 that he “has not had any legal clients or engaged in the practice of law in the State of Maryland or anywhere in the United States since the 7th day of January, 2008” is false. As discussed, Respondent continued to represent Ms. Jackson after January 7, 2008. As established at trial, Ms. Jackson’s complaint was not forwarded to Respondent until after he filed his Petition for Reinstatement.

It is clear to the Court that when Respondent filed his petition, he knew that he had represented Ms. Jackson while suspended. The totality of the evidence and the particular timeline involved here, leads this Court to conclude that Respondent made his misrepresentations to the Court of Appeals while having no reason to believe that Bar Counsel already knew of his unauthorized practice. Once Respondent was put on notice that Bar Counsel, in fact, knew about his unauthorized practice, Respondent made additional intentional misrepresentations to the Court ⁶²⁵ of Appeals in an attempt to cover up and excuse his unauthorized practice of law. The Court finds Respondent knowingly made false statements of material fact to the Court of Appeals in his Response to Bar Counsel filed April 8, 2011.

Specifically, the statement of Respondent in paragraph 2 that he “did not have any legal clients at the time of the agreed suspension” was false. The Court finds Respondent also knowingly made false statements of material fact to the Court of Appeals in his Motion to Modify Order filed April 27, 2011. Specifically, Respondent stated in paragraph 3 of the motion that prior to his suspension, Respondent “informed client [sic] that legal representation would be terminated as a condition of employment with the federal government before any suspension was contemplated.” The Court finds that the first time Respondent informed Ms. Jackson that the representation would be terminated was in his voicemail message to Ms. Jackson on May 27,