Attorney Grievance Commission v. Walker

MURPHY, J. Alfred Walker, Jr., Respondent, was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 23, 1994, and was decertified by this Court on April 5, 2005 for failure to pay his Client Protection Fund assessments for 2005 and 2006. He has never been reinstated. On March 23, 2007, the Attorney Grievance Commission filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action in which it asserted that, subsequent to his decertification, Respondent violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.1, 1 1.3, 2 1.7, 3 5.5, 4 8.1, 5 and 8.4(d). 6 The record shows that, on May 8, 2007, Respondent was served personally with a copy of the Petition, as well as a copy of this Court’s March 28, 2007 Order directing that the charges against him “be heard and determined by Judge A. Michael Chapdelaine, of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-757[.]” ⁵ Respondent did not file a written response to the Petition. On May 30, 2007, Bar Counsel requested that an Order of Default be entered against Respondent.

That request was granted. The Order of Default, signed by Judge Chapdelaine on June 19, 2007 and entered in the record on July 3, 2007, included the following provisions: ORDERED, that the Clerk shall issue a notice to the Respondent at his last known address informing him that the Order of Default has been entered and that he may move to vacate the Order within thirty (30) days after entry; and it is further, ORDERED, that this matter be set for a hearing on the 17th day of August, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Respondent neither moved to vacate the Order of Default nor attended the August 17, 2007 hearing, subsequent to which Judge Chapdelaine filed an Opinion that included the following findings and conclusions: (4) That the respondent entered his appearance on behalf of [the defendant] in a criminal case [in] Prince George’s County, Maryland, (5) The respondent appeared more than two hours late for hearing in [that] case advising the Court that he had forgotten about the case. (6) That on February 2, 2006, the respondent entered his appearance on behalf of [a second defendant] in a criminal case [in] Prince George’s County, Maryland.

(7) The respondent failed to appear for a Motion [hearing] in [that] case on March 31, 2006 and was late for the trial on April 10, 2006. (8) That [a judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County], [ ] filed a Complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission as a result of the respondent’s conduct. (9) [An assistant bar counsel ... wrote to the respondent on April 28, 2006 advising him of the complaint from ⁶ [the judge] and also noting the respondent’s decertification and requested a response to those issues. (10) Respondent did not respond to the letter from bar counsel and a second letter was sent on May 11, 2006.

(11) The second letter was returned “unclaimed” and as a result, an investigator with the Attorney Grievance Commission obtained a telephone number for the respondent. (12) The investigator for the Commission placed a telephone call to the respondent’s number requesting a return call which [went unreturned]. (13) The Commission investigator ultimately contacted the respondent who indicated that he was not giving out his address because of fear from having been a victim of a robbery in February 2005 but agreed to meet with the investigator on September 5, 2006. (14) The respondent did not appear on September 5, 2006; called and left a message and said he could appear on September 6, 2006.

(15) The respondent did not appear for the meeting on September 6, 2006 either. (16) On September 7, 2006, the respondent contacted the office of the Attorney Grievance Commission and said that he would appear on September 8, 2006; once again respondent did not appear. Respondent has never responded to the written Complaint or submitted to an interview. As a result of the above facts, the Court concludes that the respondent violated Rule 1.1, 1.3, 8.4(d) by failing to appear for Court proceedings.

The Court further finds that the respondent violated Rule 5.5(a) by practicing law while he was decertified and that the respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) by knowingly failing to respond to requests for information from bar counsel. An additional Complaint herein involves the allegation of further violations in the matter of the respondent having ⁷ been charged as a co-defendant with [a third defendant], in [a