Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tinsky

BATTAGLIA, Judge. The Respondent, Craig Robert Tinsky, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 15, 1994. He presently does not maintain a law office in Maryland. On March 19, 2002 and April 17, 2002, the Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-712(b)(5), 1 filed two petitions with this Court for disciplinary action against Tinsky, Respondent, alleging violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (hereinafter “MRPC”).

In its petition filed on March 19, 2002, the Commission charged Respondent with violations of MRPC 1.1 (Competence), 2 1.3 (Diligence), 3 1.4(a) and (b) ⁶⁴⁸ (Communication) 4 , 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 5 and 8.4(d) (Misconduct) 6 in Tinsky’s representation of Behrooz Irani in connection with his bankruptcy case. In its petition filed on April 17, 2002, the Commission charged Respondent with violations of MRPC 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(d) (Misconduct) in Tinsky’s representation of Robert Alonzo Taylor in connection with two criminal matters. Pursuant to Rule 16-757, 7 this Court referred the two petitions to ⁶⁴⁹ Judge Richard H. Sothoron of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. On July 16, 2002, Petitioner served Respondent with process on both petitions through the Client Protection Fund, after attempts to serve Tinsky personally were unsuccessful.

On March 7, 2003, an Order of Default was entered as to both petitions and notice of that Order was sent to Respondent at his last known address. The order allowed Respondent 30 days within which to move to vacate the order. No motion to vacate was filed. Judge Sothoron held a hearing on the Irani and Taylor matters on April 25, 2003 but Respondent neither attended nor participated.

Respondent did not appear for oral argument before this Court. I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law In a memorandum opinion addressing both matters, dated May 1, 2003, the hearing judge entered the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: “The Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Misc. Docket AG No. 7, September Term 2002, on March 19, 2002. On March 26, 2002, the Court of Appeals assigned the case to this Court for a hearing in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-757.

After attempts to serve the Respondent personally were unsuccessful, Petitioner served Respondent with process through the Client Protection Fund on July 16, 2002. This Court entered an Order of Default on March 7, 2003, and the Clerk of the Circuit Court sent notice of that Order to Respondent’s last known address. A hearing on this ⁶⁵⁰ matter was held on April 25, 2003. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. “Petitioner alleges that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d) and 8.4(d) in his representation of Behrooz Irani in connection with his bankruptcy case.

Petitioner produced at the hearing an affidavit of the Complainant, Shernaz Irani, and the pertinent documents from the bankruptcy case. “The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Behrooz Irani retained Respondent in September 1997 and was paid a total of $925.00 for his fee and expenses. Although Mr. Irani cooperated with Respondent and provided him all the information and documentation he requested, Respondent did not file his Chapter 7 petition for discharge until February 10, 2000. Respondent failed to attach to the petition the required schedules and statement of financial affairs. The Bankruptcy Court notified Respondent of the deficiencies, but Respondent failed to amend the petition.

The Bankruptcy Court dismissed Mr. Irani’s bankruptcy petition on February 29, 2000. Respondent filed a Motion to Strike the dismissal order on March 14, 2000. The Bankruptcy Court subsequently denied the Motion to Strike on June 13, 2000. Respondent’s Motion to Strike was not timely filed, contained no legal basis, and failed to include the additional financial information required by the Court.

Throughout the course of the representation, Respondent failed to return telephone calls from his client and he did not keep him informed of developments in the case. Respondent never refunded his fee, although the services rendered to Mr. Irani were of no value to him. Respondent closed his office in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. “The Court finds that by his conduct, Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d) and 8.4(d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent acted incompetently in violation of Rule 1.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to submit the required schedules and statement of financial affairs along with Mr. Irani’s bankruptcy petition, by failing to provide these materials when ⁶⁵¹ requested by the Court, and by failing to file a timely and appropriate opposition to the dismissal of Mr. Irani’s petition. “Respondent did not act with reasonable diligence in his representation of Mr. Irani, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, by delaying over two years after he was retained before filing the bankruptcy petition, then not filing additional materials requested by the Court in a timely manner, and by failing to file the Motion to Strike the dismissal order within the time permitted. “Respondent failed to keep his client informed of the status of the case and did not respond to his inquires regarding the case in violation of Rule 1.4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. “Respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by not refunding his unearned fee and by abandoning his practice. “Respondent’s lack of any effective action on behalf of his client in connection with the bankruptcy case, particularly in failing to supply information requested by the Court and his untimely filing of the Motion to Strike, was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. “Petitioner filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action in the Court of Appeals on April 17, 2002, in Misc.

Docket AG No. 20, September Term 2002. That case was assigned to this Court on April 22, 2002. Respondent was served by service on the Client Protection Fund. He filed no answer to the Petition for Disciplinary Action.

An Order of Default was entered on March 7, 2003, and the Clerk sent a notice to Respondent’s last known address. A hearing was held on March 25, 2003. 8 Respondent did not appear. ⁶⁵² “Petitioner alleges that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.16(d) and 8.4(d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct in this matter. Petitioner introduced at the hearing an affidavit from the Honorable Steven I. Platt and a certified copy of the Circuit Court file for the case of State of Maryland v. Robert Alonzo Taylor, Case No. CA00-4636J. “The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was retained by Robert Alonzo Taylor to represent him in two criminal matters pending in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland. Respondent received a fee and entered his appearance in those two cases.

He failed to appear at trials scheduled for February 5 and April 2, 2001. Without notice to the Court or his client, Respondent closed his law office in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. “Respondent’s failure to appear at his client’s criminal trial on two occasions was incompetent representation and showed lack of diligence, in violation of Rules 1.1 and 1.3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. His failure to notify his client of his closing of his office, his taking a fee without appearing at trial, and his disappearance while his client’s criminal cases were pending violated Rule 1.16 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, pertaining to termination of representation. His failure to appear in court and abandonment of his client, who was facing criminal charges in two cases, was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 1.6 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.” II.

Standard of Review This Court exercises “ ‘original and complete jurisdiction for attorney disciplinary proceedings in Maryland,’ and conducts ‘an independent review of the record.’ ” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Blum, 373 Md. 275, 293 , 818 A.2d 219, 230 (2003) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McLaughlin, 372 Md. 467, 492 , 813 A.2d 1145, 1160 (2002) (citations omitted)). “In conducting that review, we accept the hearing ⁶⁵³ judge’s findings of fact as prima facie correct unless shown to be ‘clearly erroneous,’ and we give due regard to the hearing judge’s opportunity to assess the credibility