Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ross

McDonald, j. An attorney has a duty not only to represent a client diligently, but also to act as a fiduciary with respect to client funds entrusted to the attorney and to maintain appropriate documentation as to the attorney’s services, fees, and disposition of client funds. That is true whether the client is a saint, a sinner, or someone in between. This case concerns the manner in which relatively new attorney, David A. Ross, handled client funds, billing, and communications for several matters in which he represented Brian Murphy, who had been convicted of possession of child pornography shortly before he first retained Mr. Ross to appeal that conviction.

The Attorney Grievance Commission (the “Commission”) charged Mr. Ross with violating numerous provisions of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”), several other Maryland Rules, and Maryland Code, Business Occupations & Profession Article (“BOP”), § 10-306. The alleged violations all concern the manner in which Mr. Ross handled client funds, assessed and collected fees, and maintained records relating to his representation of Mr. Murphy. Pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-752(a) and 16-757, we referred the matter to Judge Sharon V. Burrell of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct a hearing and to provide findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law. The record developed before Judge Burrell during a three-day hearing offers two starkly different accounts of the attorney-client relationship.

While there is relatively little common ground in these two accounts, both apparently agree that Mr. Ross was diligent in his representation of Mr. Murphy and achieved some degree of success on his client’s behalf and both versions agree that Mr. Ross was charged with establishing a family trust of some kind on behalf of Mr. Murphy and his wife. In one version, offered by Mr. Murphy and his wife, Mr. Ross took advantage of them to divert $93,000 entrusted to him for the family trust and attempted to justify that misappropriation with unreasonable and untimely bills for past ⁵⁹ services. In the other account, offered by Mr. Ross and supported in some respects by several friends with a variety of ties to his practice, the funds were always intended and, in the end, proved inadequate recompense for Mr. Ross’ services in other matters related to the child pornography charges; in this account, his billing records were “recreated” after the fact because the originals were allegedly stolen by Mr. Murphy and the ledger for his client trust account similarly disappeared. Judge Burrell had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility.

She largely credited the client’s version of events and concluded that Mr. Ross had committed all the violations charged, including violations of MLRPC 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping property), and 8.4 (misconduct); Maryland Rules 16-604 (trust accounts—required deposits), 16-606 (name and designation of trust account), 16-606.1 (trust account record keeping), and 16-609 (prohibited transactions); and BOP § 10-306 (misuse of trust money). Mr. Ross filed 25 numbered exceptions 1 to both the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and raised ⁶⁰ other legal arguments attacking the disciplinary proceedings against him. The Commission did not file any exceptions. From our review of the record, we cannot say that Judge Burrell’s assessment of the facts was clearly erroneous. 2 Those findings lead to the conclusion that Mr. Ross misappropriated client funds and created false records in response to a disciplinary investigation.

In such a case, disbarment is the only appropriate discipline. We elaborate below. Background 3 Mr. Ross was admitted to the Maryland Bar in June 2007. He started a solo practice, operating out of a Rockville office for two years and later out of his home in Washington Grove.

Less than a year after he was admitted to practice, Mr. Ross commenced the representation that has resulted in this proceeding. Introduction to Client Shortly after he began practicing law, Mr. Ross met, through a mutual acquaintance, an attorney named Constance Camus. One of Ms. Camus’ clients was Brian Murphy, a former Maryland State Police trooper who had been charged with multiple counts of possession of child pornography. While represented by Ms. Camus, Mr. Murphy was found guilty on five counts of that offense in February 2008 in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Washington County.

Ms. Camus noted an appeal on Mr. Murphy’s behalf to the Circuit Court for Washington County, where the charges would be tried de novo. ⁶¹ In March 2008, Ms. Camus introduced Mr. Ross to Mr. Murphy. She believed that Mr. Ross, who had some past experience in financial matters, 4 could help Mr. Murphy and his wife protect their assets and also assist with the appeal. During several telephone calls, Mr. Ross described to Mr. Murphy the legal assistance he could provide. He also began doing some legal research related to the case, although he had not yet entered into an agreement to represent Mr. Murphy.

Retainer Agreement concerning Criminal Matter and Initial $5, 000 Payment Judge Burrell found that Mr. Murphy did not agree to retain Mr. Ross until May 8, 2008, when the two signed a retainer agreement (the “Agreement”) for services “in the criminal matter currently pending before the Circuit Court of Washington County[.]” The Agreement stated that Mr. Murphy would be billed at the rate of $250 per hour for Mr. Ross’ services and also included rates of $150 per hour for paralegal work and $75 per hour for the work of administrative personnel, all “for legal services that have been, or will be, performed by the Firm in this matter.” The Agreement did not mention representation or work by any attorney other than Mr. Ross. The Agreement indicated, among other things, that time charges would be recorded in increments of 1/10 of an hour and that billing statements would be sent monthly. In accordance with the Agreement, Mr. Murphy paid an initial retainer of $5,000 with a personal check bearing the memo notation “legal retainer fee.” Although the Agreement recited that the initial retainer would be deposited in “the Firm’s Trust Account,” Mr. Ross deposited the check into his personal checking account. At the hearing before Judge Burrell, Mr. Ross testified that he did not deposit the initial retainer check in the trust account because he had already earned that amount for ser ⁶² vices performed prior to the Agreement.

Judge Burrell, however, found that Mr. Murphy paid the $5,000 solely in anticipation of future legal services and that Mr. Ross was not owed any fees prior to its payment. She relied on the portion of the Agreement drafted by Mr. Ross, which stated that “[t]he initial retainer payment, and any additional retainer payments that are requested by the Firm, will be deposited in the Firm’s Trust Account, from which withdrawals will be made periodically as fees are earned and costs are incurred.” In addition, the Agreement further provided that representation would begin when the initial retainer was paid. Given the explicit provisions of the Agreement, Judge Burrell determined that Mr. Murphy had not agreed to pay for whatever previous work Mr. Ross had performed and did not intend his $5,000 check to be deposited in Mr. Ross’ personal account as a payment for services previously provided. Mr. Ross did not enter his appearance in the criminal case as Ms. Camus’ co-counsel until May 13, 2008.

Mr. Ross excepts to this finding, claiming that Mr. Murphy had authorized him to begin working prior to May 8 and that the $5,000 payment had been earned prior to its receipt. Before May 8, he asserts, he had prepared for trial and related pretrial hearings, as well as drafted a memorandum to respond to a State discovery motion. 5 He contends that the Agreement had actually been drafted and delivered to Mr. Murphy before May 8, but was “re-prepared” on that date to reflect a small change. This is contradicted, however, by a May 8 “contact sheet” — described by Mr. Ross as a contemporaneous recording of client interactions — on which he had noted “Write retainer letter.” Accordingly, Judge Burrell did ⁶³ not find credible 6 Mr. Ross’ testimony that the Agreement had been prepared prior to May 8, that it did not mean what it said with respect to the initial retainer, and that the $5,000 check was intended to pay for past services. Rather, she determined that the representation had commenced when the Agreement was signed.

This finding was not clearly erroneous. Representation on Other Matters; Second Payment of $Jp,565 In addition to the criminal case, Mr. Ross also agreed to represent Mr. Murphy in an administrative proceeding to review a determination by the Washington County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) that Mr. Murphy was responsible for child sexual abuse. The administrative hearing was scheduled for June 4, 2008, in Hagerstown. At about the same time, Mr. Ross also agreed to assist Mr. Murphy and his wife, Dawn Murphy, with a contract dispute they had with Richmond American Homes concerning construction of a new house in West Virginia and with the establishment of a family trust.

The family trust was apparently intended to shield their assets from future law suits and to protect funding for the purchase of the West Virginia residence. There were significant developments in both the criminal case and the DSS administrative hearing on June 4, 2008. On that day, pursuant to an agreement with the State’s Attorney, Mr. Murphy dropped his de novo appeal of the criminal case in the circuit court. In exchange, the State’s Attorney agreed ⁶⁴ not to pursue additional criminal charges arising from allegations that Mr. Murphy had abused a child of a family friend. 7 On that same day in the administrative proceeding, Ms. Camus requested and was granted permission to withdraw as counsel, and the hearing was postponed to July 29, 2008.

Mr. Ross became Mr. Murphy’s sole counsel of record in that matter. At that time, Mr. Murphy gave Mr. Ross another personal check, this time in the amount of $4,565. According to memo notations written on the check, the payment covered “hotel, DSS, RAH, Trust, Prop. Release.” Of that total, $65 was intended to reimburse Mr. Ross for his hotel stay in Hagerstown the night before the DSS hearing originally scheduled for on June 4.

The remaining $4,500 was payment of attorney’s fees for legal services related to various matters: representation in the DSS hearing; representation of Mr. Murphy and his wife in the contract dispute with Richmond American Homes (“RAH”); establishment of a trust for the Murphys; and obtaining a release of Mr. Murphy’s property held by the Maryland State Police. Unlike the “criminal law matter” referenced in the original retainer agreement, these services were not the subject of a written fee agreement. Judge Burrell found that Mr. Ross had not communicated the basis for or rate of his legal fees to Mr. Murphy or his wife for any services outside of the “criminal law matter” referenced in the original Agreement. As he had done with the initial $5,000 retainer, Mr. Ross deposited this check in his personal bank account rather than in an attorney trust account.

Although Mr. Ross produced no time records or other documentation that the $4,500 was payment for services provided before the payment, 8 he con ⁶⁵ tended that he had earned this payment in full at the time it was made as a result of time he had spent negotiating the agreement with the State’s Attorney concerning Mr. Murphy’s appeal and the potential new criminal charges; responding to a discovery motion; preparing for a criminal appeal; and attending a brief DSS hearing on June 4. Judge Burrell concluded that it was “not clear” that Mr. Murphy paid that sum in anticipation of future services, noting that it was undisputed that Mr. Ross had prepared for both the criminal matter and DSS hearing prior to June 4. Accordingly, she could not find by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ross had not earned that amount of the second check at the time of payment. Accordingly, she did not find that this check should have been deposited into Mr. Ross’ trust account. “Case Status Letter” dated June SO, 2008 Mr. Ross produced no time records or other contemporaneously-created records to document that he had provided nearly $10,000 of legal services prior to June 4.

Before Judge Burrell he relied on a four-page, unsigned “Case Status” letter addressed to Mr. Murphy dated June 30, 2008. The letter states that Mr. Ross expected to work “in excess of 150 hours over the next several weeks in preparation” for the upcoming DSS hearing and that the total bill “could exceed $50,000.” Attached to the letter was an invoice, also dated June 30, listing fees and expenses totaling $24,857.80, less the two credited payments amounting to $9,565 for a balance due of $15,292.80. Mr. Murphy testified that he never received the ⁶⁶ letter or the invoice from Mr. Ross and that they did not accurately reflect the status of the representation or the fee obligations that had been communicated to him. Judge Burrell found that Mr. Ross fabricated these documents in 2010 to defend against the attorney grievance complaint. 9 In his exception to the finding that he created the “Case Status” letter and invoice as an after-the-fact response to the attorney grievance complaint, Mr. Ross faults Judge Burrell for crediting Mr. Murphy’s testimony instead of his own. 10 Mr. Ross has provided no other documentation of the many hours he claims to have spent on Mr. Murphy’s case prior to the June 4 payment.

Based on our review of the documentary evidence and the testimony of Mr. Ross and Mr. Murphy, we cannot say that Judge Burrell’s determination that the case status letter and invoice had been fabricated is clearly erroneous. DSS Administrative Hearing — July 29, 2008 The DSS administrative hearing concerning alleged child abuse by Mr. Murphy was held on July 29, 2008. It resulted in a favorable determination for Mr. Murphy that no child sexual abuse had occurred. Mr. Ross testified that he spent a significant amount of time preparing for this proceeding.

However, he did not produce, and Judge Burrell found that he did not maintain, contemporaneously-created records that doc ⁶⁷ umented the extraordinary number of hours he later claimed to have worked. Family Trust and $85,000 Bank Check Mr. and Mrs. Murphy both testified that, during June and July 2008, they discussed with Mr. Ross the establishment of a “personal trust” into which the couple would place their financial assets. The Murphys were concerned about possible civil litigation brought by the family that had accused Mr. Murphy of child sexual abuse and believed that a trust would protect their savings from possible future judgments. Later, Mr. Ross and the Murphys discussed a trust as a possible vehicle for securing funds for the Murphys’ future children or for the purchase of a home.

In July 2008, Mr. Ross drafted a “Trust Indenture” designed so that the Murphys’ parents could, using the Murphys’ money, potentially purchase a home and obtain a mortgage on the couple’s behalf. Mr. Ross met with Mrs. Murphy and her father to discuss the trust, and later prepared another draft of the document. On July 24, 2008, the Murphys withdrew $85,000 from a joint bank account at the State Employees Credit Union (“SECU”) and purchased an official bank check in that amount made payable to: DAVID A. ROSS, ESQ. IOLTA TRUST ACCOUNT RE: BRIAN & DAWN MURPHY TRUST Judge Burrell found that the purpose of this check was to fund the trust that Mr. Ross was to establish for them.

However, Mr. Ross took no further steps to establish any trust for the Murphys. After the Murphys obtained the $85,000 bank check — and possibly at the July 29, 2008, DSS hearing — Mr. Murphy presented the check to Mr. Ross, but Mr. Ross told him that he was unable to deposit a check that referenced “BRIAN & DAWN MURPHY TRUST.” On July 30, Mr. Murphy returned to SECU and obtained a new bank check in the same amount that omitted that reference. That check was forwarded to Mr. Ross, who deposited it into his attorney trust ⁶⁸ account on August 8. Judge Burrell found that Mr. Ross failed to create and maintain a contemporaneous ledger or record for this deposit. 11 “Case Status Letter ” dated August 6, 2008 Mr. Ross takes exception to the finding that the $85,000 bank check was intended to be placed in a trust, arguing that the payment was, in fact, intended to compensate him for legal fees, and that he had Mr. Murphy’s permission to withdraw fees from that deposit as they were earned.

To support this claim, he submitted into evidence a copy of a two-page “Case Status” letter dated August 6, 2008, and addressed to Mr. Murphy. The letter purportedly acknowledges receipt of the $85,000 check “for payment on your account.” Attached to this letter is an invoice, also dated August 6, that reflects total billing charges of $54,131.80 and a balance due of $40,433.20. Mr. Murphy testified that he never received this letter from Mr. Ross. Judge Burrell found that the August 6 letter and invoice, like the similar documents dated June 4, were fabricated as part of Mr. Ross’ defense in the attorney grievance investigation. $8,000 Bank Check On October 15, 2008, Mr. Murphy obtained another bank check at SECU, this time in the amount of $8,000, which he gave to Mr. Ross.

Judge Burrell found that this check was intended as an additional deposit into the “personal trust” that the Murphys believed Mr. Ross had established for the their benefit. 12 ⁶⁹ “Case Status Letter” dated November 2, 2008 Mr. Ross submitted into evidence a third “Case Status” letter and invoice — addressed to Mr. Murphy and dated November 2, 2008 — that made no reference to the $8,000 bank check. Mr. Ross could not recall how this “Case Status” letter and invoice were sent to Mr. Murphy; Mr. Murphy testified that he never received them from Mr. Ross. Judge Burrell concluded that these documents, like the two other “case status letters” described above, were not in fact sent by Mr. Ross to Mr. Murphy. 13 Mr. Ross excepts to this finding. He relies on the testimony of Lucretia Strippoli, a friend who assisted him "with administrative work and was the purported author of the November 2 letter.

Ms. Strippoli testified that Mr. Ross dictated the letter to her over the telephone and that she obtained the invoice amounts from time sheets that had been stored on a USB flash drive. 14 She stated that she then ⁷⁰ signed the letter — even though, Mr: Ross testified, it was intended only to be a draft — and left the documents in his office for review. She did not testify that these documents were ever actually sent to Mr. Murphy. Mr. Ross also asserts that he met with the Murphys to review the bill and that they expressly approved the charges. According to Mr. Ross, this meeting was held on November 3 at the apartment of his girlfriend, Jill Pumphrey, who testified that she was present and overheard a discussion between the Murphys and Mr. Ross about the bill.

Judge Burrell apparently did not credit this testimony. A review of the letter and invoice — which, as discussed below, contained numerous inaccuracies — as well as the testimony by Mr. Ross, Ms. Strippoli, Ms. Pumphrey, and the Murphys, does not reveal clear error in Judge Burrell’s determination that the documents had been fabricated. Mr. Ross’ exception is overruled. Deposit of $8,000 Bank Check and Corresponding Withdrawal Although the supposed November 2, 2008, invoice makes no mention of the $8,000 bank check Mr. Ross had received from Mr. Murphy, his attorney trust account records show that he deposited that check into the account on November 3, 2008.

On that same day, Mr. Ross cashed a check in the amount of $8,000, drawn on that same account and made payable to himself. 15 That check did not have a memo notation specifying any client matter or other purpose. ⁷¹ This was not the only questionable withdrawal from Mr. Ross’ attorney trust account. The account records show that, beginning in June 2008 and continuing through February 2010, Mr. Ross authorized payments from the account to various personal creditors, including American Express, Chase Home Finance, and Wells Fargo Bank. Judge Burrell found that these payments were not related to any client matter but were payments of Mr. Ross’ personal bills directly from the trust account. 16 Late 2008-2009: DSS Appeal and Home Contract Dispute Through the end of 2008 and into 2009, Mr. Ross had intermittent correspondence with the Murphys regarding the Murphys’ contract dispute with RAH. Meanwhile, the DSS appealed the administrative decision concerning Mr. Murphy to the circuit court, where a hearing was scheduled for April 30, 2009.

Mr. Ross represented Mr. Murphy in that hearing, and the administrative decision in Mr. Murphy’s favor was upheld. March 2010 Invoice Mr. Ross testified that he wrote to Mr. Murphy on March 25, 2010, to inform him of outstanding legal fees. According to Mr. Ross, Mr. Murphy responded by requesting a detailed bill accounting for the hours worked. On March 31, 2010, Sandy Sivits, who assisted Mr. Ross’ with billing, e-mailed Mr. Murphy an invoice on Mr. Ross’ letterhead.

Judge Burrell found that, although the Agreement provided that “[statements will be sent monthly,” this was the first invoice Mr. Murphy had received during the course of the representation. The invoice billed Mr. Murphy $233,500 for ⁷² 934 hours of work, including 185 hours attributed to Joyce N. Jacobson, a solo practitioner who assisted Mr. Ross with legal work on an informal basis. There was no provision in the Agreement for the services of Ms. Jacobson or any other attorney, and Judge Burrell found that Mr. Murphy was unaware that Ms. Jacobson had participated in his case. 17 Ms. Jacobson was never paid by Mr. Ross for any of the services attributed to her on the invoice. Notable charges on the invoice included 192 hours spent on “Office of Administrative Hearings DSS v. Murphy” ($48,-000); 123 hours spent on “Modification of Sentence” ($30,750); seven hours spent on “Modification of Sentencing Hearing continuance” ($1,750); 42 hours spent on “DSS Review of Record Transcript” ($10,500); 125 hours spent on “DSS-Respondent’s Answer” ($31,250); and 153 hours spent on “Trial Prep” ($38,250).

The invoice also reflected four payments that were inaccurately credited, even under Mr. Ross’ version of events: a $5,000 payment credited on March 15, 2008; a $7,000 payment credited on May 15, 2008; a $80,000 payment credited on October 15, 2008; and a $7,000 payment credited on October 30, 2008. The balance due was shown as $134,710.70. After further communication with Mr. Murphy, Ms. Sivits sent a revised invoice reducing the amount due to $94,710.70. 18 The revised invoice did not correct the inaccurately recorded payments. ⁷³ The March 31, 2010, invoice is marked by numerous examples of imprecise charges for vaguely described services, including cumulative representations of time allegedly spent by Mr. Ross and Ms. Jacobson on various matters. These large time blocks were inconsistent with the original Agreement’s provision that time for charged services would be “kept in increments of one-tenth (1/10) of an hour.” Although Mr. Ross testified that he worked all of the hours he billed, he did not produce incremental time records that supported any of the invoice’s charges.

The March 31, 2010, invoice also contradicted some of Mr. Ross’ testimony at the hearing. For example, Mr. Ross testified that he never drafted a trust to hold money for the Murphys’ future children. However, the invoice provides a charge of $1,500 for six hours on September 6, 2008, spent drafting a “Trust for any refund of retainer fee to be deposited to for the benefit of Dawn Murphy and per stirpes children.” In a detailed analysis based on these facts, Judge Burrell concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ross violated MLRPC 1.4 (communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping property), and 8.4 (misconduct); Maryland Rules 16-604, (trust accounts — required deposits), 16-606 (name and designation of trust account), 16-606.1 (trust account record ⁷⁴ keeping), and 16-609 (prohibited transactions); and BOP § 10-306 (misuse of trust money). Discussion We review the hearing judge’s conclusions of law de novo pursuant to Maryland Rule 16—759(b)(1), in light of the exceptions filed by Mr. Ross. 19 For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the conclusions of the hearing judge.

MLRPC14 MLRPC 1.4(a)(2) requires a lawyer to “keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.” MLRPC 1.4(b) requires a lawyer to “explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” The record is replete with failures of communication. For example, Mr. Ross did not provide Mr. Murphy with monthly billing statements as required by the Agreement, nor did Mr. Ross otherwise inform the Murphys of the actions he was taking on their behalf and how much those efforts would cost. The Murphys believed that Mr. Ross was estabhshing a trust on their behalf; Mr. Ross failed to establish this trust and did not communicate his progress on the matter. The Murphys believed they had placed $93,000 in that trust; Mr. Ross did not tell them that he had taken that money for legal fees.

The Murphys were also not made aware of the considerable number of hours Mr. Ross was billing for Ms. Jacobson’s work on the case — work that was not contemplated in the Agreement. These lapses in communication violated MLRPC 1.4(a)(2) and (b). ⁷⁵ MLRPC 1.5 MLRPC 1.5(a) forbids an attorney from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting “an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses,” and lists eight factors to be considered in the analysis. MLRPC 1.5(b) provides that “[t]he scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation[.] ... Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated to the client.” Paul Kemp, a local attorney with extensive experience representing criminal defendants, testified at the hearing as an expert witness called by Bar Counsel as to the customary and acceptable standards in the legal community for the keeping of time records, hourly billing, and reasonable fees.

Mr. Kemp opined that Mr. Ross billed an unreasonable number of hours related to the DSS proceeding and appeal. Specifically, Mr. Kemp questioned Mr. Ross’ charges for 182 hours in preparation for the administrative hearing, 42 hours for later review of the transcript and record of that hearing, 125 hours to file an appellate brief, and 163 hours to prepare for the appellate hearing. Mr. Kemp also believed the billing of 123 hours for a request for sentence modification was excessive. Judge Burrell found this testimony persuasive, and concluded that these fees charged by Mr. Ross were unreasonable and in violation of MLRPC 1.5(a).

Mr. Ross takes exception to this conclusion. He argues that he did all of the work for which he billed and that the positive results he obtained for his client were the result of extensive preparation and thorough briefing. He contends that Mr. Kemp did not have sufficient knowledge of the community billing standards and that his opinions were arbitrary. He also complains that Judge Burrell’s analysis did not explicitly address the eight factors of MLRPC 1.5(a).

This last objection has some merit. Judge Burrell did not explicitly address the factors set out in the rule, but consider ⁷⁶ ation of them leads to the same conclusion she reached. Six of the factors set out in MLRPC 1.5(a) are relevant here: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment of the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; ... (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; [and] (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services[.] MLRPC 1.5(a).

As to factor (1), Mr. Ross argues that Mr. Murphy’s legal matters were time-consuming and required extraordinary effort. He contends that the legal questions presented in the case were novel and complex, necessitating a great deal of research and preparation. As to factor (2), he asserts that his representation of Mr. Murphy foreclosed potential work for other clients. He did not, however, produce evidence of any particular matter that he was precluded from undertaking.

As to factor (4), Mr. Ross highlights the favorable outcomes he achieved for Mr. Murphy. As to factor (6), he notes that Mr. Murphy was his client for two years, and, as to factor (7), he asserts that he had “substantial knowledge in the area of this litigation” with “educational experience and work experience” in both child abuse cases and financial matters. Factor (4) unquestionably weighs in Mr. Ross’ favor: His efforts obtained favorable outcomes for his client in certain respects. However, factors (1), (3), and (7) do not lead to the conclusion that his fees were reasonable.

Mr. Kemp testified that, although some of Mr. Murphy’s issues may have been atypical, any “novelty and difficulty of the questions involved” ⁷⁷ did not rise to such a level as to require the excessive hours for which Mr. Ross billed. This is especially true given Mr. Ross’ contention that he had “substantial knowledge” of the subject matter and experience with these types of cases. Thus, factors (1) and (7) weigh against Mr. Ross. As an expert on the local billing standards, Mr. Kemp made clear that Mr. Ross’ charges did not accord with fees “customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.” Although Mr. Ross now claims that Mr. Kemp did not have adequate knowledge of community billing standards, he did not argue at the hearing that Mr. Kemp was unqualified to testify about those standards. 20 Mr. Ross presented no evidence that Mr. Kemp’s opinions were untrustworthy.

Factor (3) therefore supports a finding that those fees were unreasonable. A review of Mr. Ross’ invoices reveal numerous questionable expenditures of time. In applying the analysis contemplated by MLRPC 1.5(a), the results obtained by Mr. Ross are outweighed by consideration of the time required to do the work and the fees customarily charged in the community for that work. We agree with Judge Burrell’s conclusion that the fees set forth in his invoices, even had those invoices been created contemporaneously, were excessive and unreasonable.

Judge Burrell found that Mr. Ross violated MLRPC 1.5(b) by failing to adequately communicate the basis for his fees. The Agreement between Mr. Ross and Mr. Murphy explained Mr. Ross’ fees only in regards to the criminal appeal. In the other matters — which quickly became the focus of Mr. Ross’ representation — Judge Burrell found that the Murphys were not provided an adequate accounting of the hours Mr. Ross claimed to have worked. The Murphys were not informed of the basis for the fees that Mr. Ross charged. ⁷⁸ We agree with Judge Burrell that this was