Attorney Grievance Commission v. Pinno

McDonald, j. In this attorney discipline case, the facts are uncontested: an experienced attorney failed to perform agreed-upon legal work for several clients, and appears to have abandoned his law practice — and his clients — without notice and without returning unearned fees. We confirm that those actions violated several provisions of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”), note that no mitigating circumstances have been proffered or found, and accordingly disbar the attorney. Background Procedural Context This matter consists of two consolidated cases.

In the first, No. 30, Bar Counsel, on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission (“the Commission”), filed a petition in September 2011 charging Lawrence Paul Pinno, Jr. with violating MLRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (duty to keep safe funds of client or third parties), 1.16(d) (duties upon declining or terminating representation), 8.4(b) (criminal actions that reflect on attorney’s fitness as a lawyer), 8.4(c) (dishonest, fraudulent, or deceitful conduct), and 8.4(d) (engaging in misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) in the representation of four clients. In the second case, No. 40, filed a few weeks later, the Commission charged Mr. Pinno with similar violations as to two additional clients. In addition, he was also charged in that case with violating Maryland Rule 16-609 (prohibited transactions relating to attorney trust accounts) and Maryland Code, Business and Occupations Article (“BOP”), § 10-306 (misuse of trust money). ⁷⁴ Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-752(a) and Maryland Rule 16-757, we referred this matter to the Honorable Angela M. Eaves (“the hearing judge”) of the Circuit Court for Harford County to conduct a hearing and to provide findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law. After some initial difficulty in effecting service, Mr. Pinno was personally served in Pennsylvania with a summons with respect to both cases in February 2013.

However, he did not respond to the petitions and, at the request of Bar Counsel, the hearing judge entered an order of default on April 9, 2013. Mr. Pinno also failed to appear for the hearing scheduled for April 29, 2013. 1 At that hearing, Bar Counsel withdrew charges related to one of the clients in Case No. 40. 2 Bar Counsel also withdrew allegations related to attorney escrow account violations — specifically, alleged violations of Maryland Rule 16-609, BOP § 10-306, and MLRPC 1.15 and 8.4(b) and (c). The hearing judge considered the pleadings and affidavits submitted by Bar Counsel at the hearing and, in June 2013, issued a memorandum making various findings of fact, concluding that Mr. Pinno had violated several provisions of the MLRPC, and observing that no evidence of mitigating circumstances had been presented. No exceptions have been filed to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.

Mr. Pinno did not appear in this Court on the date scheduled for oral argument. Facts Mr. Pinno was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 19,1975. During the period of time relevant to these proceedings, he maintained a solo law practice in Bel Air, Maryland. ⁷⁵ On April 7, 2011, after the events recounted below, but before the filing of charges in these cases, Mr. Pinno was decertified from the practice of law in Maryland for failure to pay the annual assessment to the Client Protection Fund. 3 We accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact, 4 which relate the following events: Small Complaint On October 15, 2007, Hope L. Small retained Mr. Pinno to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf. She paid Mr. Pinno a fee of $1,200.

She also gave him $295 to cover the fee for filing the petition. Mr. Pinno did not file the bankruptcy petition until more than a year and a half later, in August of 2009. Mr. Pinno did not inform Ms. Small that a creditors’ meeting had been scheduled in her bankruptcy case and, as a result, she did not attend the meeting. Nor did Mr. Pinno attend.

Although Ms. Small had provided Mr. Pinno with certain tax documents, he failed to submit those documents as required by the Bankruptcy Court. Ms. Small’s bankruptcy petition was dismissed as a result of the failure to provide the required tax records. Ms. Small asked Mr. Pinno to refile her bankruptcy petition. Although Mr. Pinno agreed to refile the petition, he never did so.

After Ms. Small’s bankruptcy petition was dismissed and the automatic stay that had been in place was lifted, one of Ms. Small’s creditors began garnishing her wages. Mr. Pinno wrote to Ms. Small, promising to “advance to [her] any sums ⁷⁶ withheld by [her] employer until this case is refiled.” 5 Mr. Pinno reimbursed Ms. Small once, in the amount of $156.76, a portion of the $3,919 garnished by her creditor. Ms. Small eventually retained new counsel to refile her bankruptcy petition. England Complaint During May 2010, Timothy S. England retained Mr. Pinno for two separate matters.

Mr. England sought Mr. Pinno’s help in obtaining a passport for his daughter. Mr. England also sought Mr. Pinno’s help in a matter involving litigation with his ex-wife. Mr. England paid Mr. Pinno a $1,000 fee. Mr. England repeatedly tried to contact Mr. Pinno about both matters by phone and in writing.

With regard to the passport matter, Mr. Pinno did not take any action to obtain a passport for Mr. England’s daughter in the time frame necessary for her travel plans. Mr. England demanded that Mr. Pinno refund the fee that was paid to him. Although Mr. Pinno agreed to refund the fee, he never did so. With regard to the litigation involving Mr. England’s ex-wife, Mr. Pinno failed to appear at a scheduled meeting with Mr. England to prepare for an upcoming hearing and failed to enter his appearance in the case or attend the hearing.

Hankins Complaint During October 2010, Joseph E. Hankins retained Mr. Pinno to represent him in a criminal case. Mr. Hankins paid Mr. Pinno a fee of $750. Mr. Pinno did not keep Mr. Hankins updated about his case. Mr. Pinno did not appear at trial or notify the court that he would be unable to appear.

Although Mr. Pinno agreed to refund the fee, he did not do so. Snyder Complaint During August 2009, Billy G. Snyder retained Mr. Pinno to represent him to collect on a promissory note and to recover ⁷⁷ stock promised to Mr. Snyder by his deceased brother-in-law. Mr. Snyder paid Mr. Pinno a fee of $5,000. Despite monthly calls in which Mr. Pinno led Mr. Snyder to believe that he was taking the two matters to court, Mr. Pinno did not file any lawsuits on Mr. Snyder’s behalf.

Mr. Pinno did not return the fee he had accepted from Mr. Snyder. Since December 2010, Mr. Snyder has been unable to make contact with Mr. Pinno. Mr. Snyder attempted to retain a different attorney to handle his case, but was advised that the statute of limitations had expired. Juliano Complaint During the summer of 2009, Robert A. Juliano retained Mr. Pinno to represent him in a gender discrimination and wrongful discharge claim against his former employer.

Mr. Juliano paid Mr. Pinno a total of $700 in two installments. Mr. Pinno told Mr. Juliano he had sent his former employer a letter about Mr. Juliano’s allegations and advised Mr. Juliano to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Mr. Juliano filed a complaint with the EEOC, which was later dismissed. Mr. Juliano lost contact with Mr. Pinno, who closed his law office without notifying Mr. Juliano and without returning unearned fees to Mr. Juliano.

Mitigation Evidence The hearing judge noted that Mr. Pinno had not participated in the proceedings and that there was no evidence of “mitigating or extenuating reasons” for Mr. Pinno’s conduct. Discussion After analyzing the facts described above, the hearing judge concluded that Mr. Pinno had violated several rules of professional conduct — in particular, MLRPC 1.1 (competence), MLRPC 1.3 (diligence), MLRPC 1.4 (communication), MLRPC 1.16 (declining and terminating representation), and MLRPC 8.4(d) (engaging in misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) with respect to one or more of the five complainants. 6 We consider the hearing judge’s conclu ⁷⁸ sions of law without according them special deference. Maryland Rule 16 — 759(b)(1). Violations of MLRPC MLRPC 1.1 MLRPC 1.1 provides that “a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.

Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” Although Ms. Small retained Mr. Pinno to represent her in October of 2007, Mr. Pinno did not file her bankruptcy petition until more than a year and a half later, in August of 2009. This Court has previously found that failing to timely file a bankruptcy petition constitutes incompetence and violates MLRPC 1.1. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Granger, 374 Md. 438, 455 , 823 A.2d 611 (2003); cf. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532, 564-69 , 894 A.2d 518 (2006) (attorney’s 10-month delay in filing charging documents in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case was a violation of MLRPC 1.1). Moreover, Mr. Pinno also did not appear at a creditors’ meeting concerning Ms. Small’s bankruptcy petition, offered no explanation for his failure to appear at the meeting, and did not even notify Ms. Small of the meeting.

This Court has found that missing a client’s hearing without just cause constitutes incompetence and violates MLRPC 1.1. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harris, 366 Md. 376, 402-03 , 784 A.2d 516 (2001) (“Competent representation, however, encompasses more than an attorney’s legal knowledge, skill or preparedness. It necessarily includes, at a minimum, the attorney’s presence at any court proceeding for which he or she was ⁷⁹ retained, absent an acceptable explanation for that attorney’s absence.”); see Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325, 335 , 68 A.3d 862 (2013); Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Butler, 426 Md. 522, 532 , 44 A.3d 1022 (2012). Finally, Ms. Small provided Mr. Pinno with certain tax records for the proceeding.

When the court required that these documents be submitted, Mr. Pinno failed to do so. Failing to provide materials requested by a court without an appropriate justification constitutes incompetence and violates MLRPC 1.1. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Tinksy, 377 Md. 646, 650-53 , 835 A.2d 542 (2003). Mr. Pinno violated MLRPC 1.1.

MLRPC 1.3 MLRPC 1.3