Attorney Grievance Commission v. Pollack

ORDER This Court having considered the recommendation of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City and the record filed in the above entitled matter and no exceptions having been filed to the recommendation, it is this 24th day of January, 1977 ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the recommendation be adopted and that Herbert Leonard Pollack be, and he is hereby, suspended from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland for a period of six months, beginning February 22,1977; and it is further ORDERED that the clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Herbert Leonard Pollack from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees ²²⁶ of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State in accordance with Rule BV13. /s/ Robert C. Murphy_ /s/ Frederick J. Singley, Jr. /s/ Marvin H. Smith_ /s/ J, Dudley Digges_ •/s/ Irving A. Levine_ /s/ John C. Eldridge_ /s/ Charles E. Orth, Jr._ Filed: January 24, 1977 /s/ James H. Norris, Jr. Clerk Court of Appeals of Maryland MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE PANEL Watts, Karwacki, and Sullivan, JJ. On June 21, 1976, The Bar Counsel of Baltimore City (The Bar Association) filed in this Court a petition instituting disciplinary proceedings against Herbert L. Pollack, a member of the Maryland Bar since 1958. On July 6, 1976, The Court of Appeals of Maryland entered an Order pursuant to ‘Maryland Rule BV 9, et seq. referring the matter for hearing and determination to a three-judge panel of the Eighth Judicial Circuit. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland has charged that Herbert L. Pollack, a member of the Maryland Bar since 1958, did violate DR 6-101 (A ) (3) and DR 7-101 (A) (2), Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 1230, Appendix F, Maryland Rules of Procedure, through his neglect of legal matters entrusted to his professional care.

There are three allegations of professional misconduct. (i) Failure to secure a divorce and child support for Mrs. ²²⁷ Evelyn E. Hicks after receiving a retainer fee of Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($350.00) in advance. (ii) Failure to secure a divorce for Mr. Fred Matheson after receiving a retainer fee of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). (iii) Failure to represent Mrs. Bonnie L. Rouiller as administratrix of her late husband’s estate.

Pollack failed to transfer stock certificates, change an automobile title, and to process a small insurance policy. A hearing on these charges was held on September 24, 1976 and October 1, 1976. The finding of facts of the three judge panel follows: HICKS (Mrs. Evelyn Hicks died in the fall of 1975. Counsel stipulated to the following facts:) In September, 1973, Pollack was retained by Mrs. Evelyn Hicks (Hicks) to handle a domestic case for her.

He was paid three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) in advance, and was also to be paid for any cost incurred. On October 23, 1973, he filed on her behalf a Bill of Complaint and a Show Cause Order for permanent alimony. He also appeared at two hearings, outside of the equity courts, with regard to support and arrearages owed Mrs. Hicks by her husband. (T, p. 63).

A complaint was filed by Hicks with the Bar Association in June, 1974. This complaint formed part of the subject matter of the hearing of February 12, 1975. Subsequent to this hearing her case was transferred, with her permission to Mr. Crawford by Mr. Pollack. Before her death in the fall of 1975 Pollack returned one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175.00) to her.

(T., p. 100). At the time of the panel hearing in October, 1975, she advised the Bar Association that she no longer wanted to pursue the matter. (T., p. 63). ²²⁸ MATHESON In January of 1974, Mr. Fred Matheson (Matheson) consulted Pollack for the purpose of obtaining a divorce from his wife, Willie Matheson. (T., p. 108).

During their preliminary negotiations, Matheson explained to Pollack that his wife had a long history of alcoholism, had been institutionalized several times, and that her last known address was Spring Grove State Hospital. The couple had been separated for approximately eight (8) year's. (T., pp. 30-32). The contract entered into between Matheson and Pollack provided for a five hundred dollar ($500.00) fee to be paid in advance; one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) was paid after the initial meeting, and in March, 1974, Matheson gave Pollack a check for the balance of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00).

(T., p. 33). About two or three months after the initial contact with Pollack, Matheson experienced difficulty in contacting him at either his office or his home for a period of several months. (T., p. 7). Matheson subsequently wrote to the Bar Association of Baltimore City (Bar Association) and requested their assistance in ascertaining what action, if any had been taken on his behalf.

(P. X 1). In response to his letter, Matheson received a telephone call from the Bar Association and a letter which confirmed the telephone conversation. (T., p. 8). Counsel for the Bar Association advised Matheson to telegram Pollack, which he did, but the telegram could not be delivered.

(T., p. 10). Matheson subsequently had several phone conversations with an attorney for the Bar Association and received notice of a preliminary hearing to be held on the subject matter of his complaint. (T., p. 12). A hearing was set for February 12, 1975, which Matheson did not attend.

(T., p. 13). Subsequent to that hearing Matheson was directed by the Bar Association to contact Mr. James E. Crawford, Esq. (Crawford) and was told that he was to handle the divorce proceeding for Mr. Pollack. (T., p. 15).

Matheson spoke with Crawford who thereupon contacted Mr. Pollack. Pollack telephoned Matheson about ²²⁹ two weeks later. (T., p. 12). Pollack indicated to Matheson that a hearing would be held on his divorce on or before April 15,1975.

(T„ pp. 19-20). Matheson had not heard from Pollack by April 15, 1975, and wrote a second letter to the Bar Association. (P. X 2). Subsequent to this letter he was notified that there would be a hearing on his complaint.

(T., p. 21). Mr. Pollack contacted Matheson and asked him if he knew that a hearing had been scheduled. He excused the delay through illness, domestic strife, and difficulties in serving Mrs. Matheson. (T., p. 22).

A hearing scheduled by the Bar Association on October 15, 1975, was continued at Matheson’s request because he was satisfied with Pollack’s explanations. (T., p. 23). However the hearing was subsequently scheduled on October 28, 1975, which was postponed because Matheson's witness could not appear. A second hearing was set for February 6, 1976, from which the divorce decree issued.

On March 5, 1976, the Matheson divorce became final. (T., p. 28). At his appearance before the three judge panel on September 24, 1976, Pollack described a long history of marital difficulties as mitigation. An already poor marital situation grew progressively worse from 1972 - 1974.

The summer of 1974 was a period of rapid deterioration. As a result of a violent argument in July of 1974, the couple separated. In December of 1974, Mrs. Pollack took an overdose of sleeping pills and called Mr. Pollack. That evening Mr. Pollack drove to Atlantic City and brought her back to Baltimore.

Both he and Mrs. Pollack’s daughter convinced her to consult a psychiatrist because of her depressed state of mind. At this hearing, the following exchange took place. (T., p. 96). “THE CHAIRMAN: That is your mental state and condition and relationship with your wife was to the extent that you couldn’t function completely and that is the reason for all three? (three separate complaints) MR.

POLLACK: I would say that was a contributing factor. If you are talking in regards to ²³⁰ the Matheson case, we had trouble getting service. I had trouble resolving to myself that I could go on publication with a history like Willie Matheson, that is Fred Matheson’s wife, having been in and out of institutions for alcoholism, I was hesitant. I had contacted, yes, I guess it did affect me because it was after one of the hearings, I think, after that I sent registered letters to, registered and regular mail, to three different addresses hoping that some place she would get a letter and it did work out that way because the supervisor from Spring Grove forwarded it to her and she contacted me and I told her she has to get an attorney to file an answer.

She wrote a direct letter to the court and the matter was heard before Master Kenney, and resolved.” (T., p. 97). Later, during his testimony at the hearing, Pollack was asked: (T., p. 106). MR. HOWARD: With regard to the Matheson matter, when did you send the three letters, one of which ultimately reached her through the director of Spring Grove?

POLLACK: October 25, 1975. JUDGE KARWACKI: That was the first of the letters? POLLACK: That was when I sent the letters to Spring Grove. It was after that that I had knowledge she was at Spring Grove.

That was after the panel hearing, if that is what you are referring to. JUDGE KARWACKI: My original question is what did you do between the summer of 1975 and the panel hearing? POLLACK: The summer of 1975 and the panel hearing, I tried to contact, I made phone calls, to her brother, I had tried to call the hospital, the hospital wouldn’t give you any information and it was after that I finally sent these letters out. ²³¹ It is apparent that Pollack did little in furtherance of his client’s interests between the summer of 1975, and the Bar Association’s hearing on October 15, 1975. Moreover, the Bar Association had contacted James E. Crawford, Esq., and arranged for him to handle the matter for Pollack.

Mr. Pollack failed to act before the hearing was held before the Grievance Committee. As a result, Mr. Matheson’s divorce was delayed for a period of two years. ROUILLER In December of 1972, Mrs. Bonnie Rouiller (Rouiller) retained Pollack for the purpose of settling the estate of her husband, Richard E. Rouiller, who had died in November of 1972. (T., pp. 39-40).

Prior to that time the estate was opened, bond was obtained, notice to creditors was published, and Mrs. Rouiller was appointed the administratrix of the estate. (P. X 4). Rouiller explained to Pollack that the matter involved changing the name of several stock certificates from her husband’s to her own and her daughter’s names, transferring a car title to her, and settling a small insurance policy. (T., p. 40).

Between December, 1972, and February, 1974, Rouiller had several phone conversations with Pollack on these matters. In March of 1974 Rouiller informed Pollack that her oldest daughter would be marrying and asked him if that would involve another name change on the stock certificates. (T., p. 40). Rouiller believed that, at the time of her husband’s death, his car was titled in the name of his company, W. K. Ports & Co. (T., pp. 53-54).

Because she did not hear from Pollack on this matter, Rouiller obtained a copy of the registration from the Department of Motor Vehicles (T., p. 48); this title was in her husband’s and her own name. (T., p. 54). When she sold the car, sometime in 1974, she presented this duplicate and a copy of her husband’s death certificate to the purchaser. (T., p. 48).

In October, 1974 Pollack visited Rouiller at her place of employment and asked her to sign several papers. He ²³² indicated that they concerned the estate, but she did not understand their legal significance. Pollack told Rouiller that the whole matter would be settled within two weeks. Pollack also visited Rouiller at her home on October 28th.

He brought her some papers to sign and told her that the estate was about to be closed. (T., p. 58). Because she had not heard from Pollack, Rouiller filed a grievance with the Bar Association in May of 1975. (P. X 3).

On September 3, 1975, she met with Crawford who was acting as Pollack’s attorney at the request of the Bar Association. (T., p. 43). He told her that he had been unable to contact Pollack by phone and that he had sent a registered letter to him. Rouiller was unable to determine what legal action had been taken on her behalf and decided to consult another attorney, Claude L. Callegary (Callegary).

Callegary made several inquiries and informed Rouiller that the estate had been closed since October, 1974. In September of 1975, Pollack turned the stock certificates over to Callegary who has held them since that time. (T., p. 44). During his appearance before the three judge panel, Pollack was asked to explain his handling of this matter.

Mr. Pollack had no explanation for his inaction except his state of mind. (T., p. 94): “POLLACK: For me, to, well, I can’t offer an excuse for my being dilatory. I can say that my favorite expression, hindsight, I can look back and give reasons why I acted a certain way and the reasons I acted that way is because my mind, I was going through a traumatic period and my mind was not functioning properly. Or, I wasn’t in a mental state where I, where I would carry through or complete something that I had started.

This didn’t happen everyday and this didn’t happen every matter, but, this situation with Mrs. Rouiller and the stocks, the court has before it the file from West Baltimore County that will reflect there were three cases that I ordered letters, twelve copies of ²³³ letters of administration which had to