Attorney Grievance Commission v. Williams

GREENE, J. Garrett Vincent Williams (“Respondent”) was admitted to the Bar of this Court on June 21, 1995. At all times relevant to this case, he resided in Montgomery County, Maryland. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, (“Petitioner”), by Glenn M. Grossman, Bar Counsel, and Lydia E. Lawless, Assistant Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary Or Remedial Action against Respondent and after the ³⁵⁸ disciplinary hearing recommended that we disbar him for violating the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”). The petition alleged that Respondent, based on his representation of Leslie Valentine-Bowers, had violated several rules of the MLRPC: Rule 1.1 (Competence), 1 Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer), 2 Rule 1.3 (Diligence), 3 Rule 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 4 Rule 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 5 Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 6 Rule 8.1 (Bar ³⁵⁹ Admission and Disciplinary Matters) 7 and Rule 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d) (Misconduct). 8 This Court, by an Order dated February 10, 2015, transmitted the action to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and designated the Honorable Cheryl A. McCally of that court to make findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.

The hearing judge scheduled hearings on May 13, and June 25, 2015. Respondent failed to appear. On May 21, 2015, the hearing judge entered an Order of Default against Respondent for failure to respond to the Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action. Respondent failed to take any action to vacate the Order of Default or to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. 9 ³⁶⁰ Judge McCally accepted fully Petitioner’s proposed “Factual findings and Conclusions of Law.” Neither party filed exceptions to Judge McCally’s written factual findings and legal conclusions.

In addition, Respondent failed to offer any recommendation contrary to Petitioner’s written recommendation for disbarment. Under the circumstances, Judge McCally’s findings were not clearly erroneous, and her conclusions of law were supported by clear and convincing evidence. We disbarred Respondent in a per curiam order issued December 3, 2015. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Williams, 445 Md. 323 , 126 A.3d 1162 (2015).

In this opinion, we explain that decision. FINDINGS OF FACT 10 The hearing judge determined that at some point in 2008, Leslie Valentine-Bowers lost vision in her right eye. She claimed that her lost vision was attributable to the negligence of her medical providers. On May 22, 2008, Respondent met with Ms. Valentine-Bowers to discuss her claim.

As a result of that meeting, Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Valen ³⁶¹ tine-Bowers and “assured [her] that she had a good case.” They entered into a written agreement, “entitled ‘Legal Representation Agreement,’ ” whereby Respondent agreed to represent Ms. Valentine-Bowers “in the resolution of all claims arising from healthcare performed by Drs. Moffett and Phillips including any negotiations or subsequent litigation.” Under the terms of their written agreement, Respondent promised that he “would promptly notify her of all significant developments and keep her informed about the status of her case.” Ms. Valentine-Bowers further agreed “to pay the Respondent 33.3% of any recovery if resolved prior to filing a complaint and 45% of any recovery after a complaint had been filed.” Almost two years after agreeing to represent Ms. Valentine-Bowers, Respondent initiated a medical malpractice claim on behalf of his client. The hearing judge further found: On January 27, 2010, the Respondent, on behalf of Ms. Valentine-Bowers filed a Statement of Claim with the Maryland Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office. On March 23, 2010, the Respondent filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against Flora Feldman, O.D., Flora Feldman and Associates, Inc. [1] and Nicole Moffett, O.D. On September 14, 2010, the Respondent filed a second complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County against The Retina Group of Washington, P.C.

(hereinafter “TRG”). The Respondent failed to serve either of the complaints on any of the defendants for over a year. On September 12, 2011, the court consolidated the two cases. On November 4, 2011, TRG was served.

On December 2, 2011, Dr. Moffett was served. TRG filed a timely Answer and propounded Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on November 30, 2011. Dr. Moffett filed a ³⁶² timely Answer and propounded Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on December 20, 2011. The Respondent received TRG’s written discovery on or about November 30, 2011 and Dr. Moffett’s written discovery on or about December 20, 2011.

Pursuant to Maryland Rules 2 — 241(b) and 2-422(c), discovery responses were due December 30, 3011 and January 29, 2012, respectively. On January 31, 2012, having heard nothing from the Respondent, Dr. Moffet’s counsel wrote to the Respondent and requested the discovery responses be provided within ten (10) days. The Respondent responded and asked for a two-week extension of time. On February 29, 2012, having heard nothing from the Respondent, TRG’s counsel wrote to the Respondent and inquired when the discovery responses would be provided and asked for available dates for Ms. Valentine-Bowers’ deposition.

The Respondent failed to respond in any manner. Between November 30, 2011 and March 2, 2012, the Respondent made no effort to contact Ms. Valentine-Bowers regarding the discovery requests and made no effort to draft responses to interrogatories or document requests. On May 2, 2012, the Respondent, for the first time, contacted Ms. Valentine-Bowers about the discovery requests. He forwarded copies of the interrogatories to her by email and asked her to ‘forward [her] answer ... at [her] earliest opportunity.’ The Respondent did not advise Ms. Valentine-Bowers that the deadline for responding to discovery had passed or that TRG had requested available dates for her deposition.

On March 7, 2012, Dr. Moffett’s counsel wrote to the Respondent and requested [that] responses to discovery be provided in ten (10) days. The Respondent failed to respond in any manner. On March 15, 2012, TRG’s counsel sent a second letter to the Respondent regarding the overdue discovery and warned that if responses were not received by March 23, 2012, he would file a motion with the court and unilaterally note Ms. Valentine-Bowers’ deposition. On April 27 and 30, 2012, TRG’s counsel called the Respondent.

The Respondent failed to respond in any ³⁶³ manner to the March 23 letter or subsequent phone calls from TRG’s counsel. On May 4, 2012, Dr. Moffett’s counsel ‘attempted to reach the Respondent by telephone and, unable to reach him directly, left a voice-mail message advising that a motion to compel would be filed if the discovery responses were not provided by May 7, 2012. The Respondent did not respond to the voice-mail. On May 3, 2012, TRG filed a Motion to Compel and on May 4, 2012, TRG noted Ms. Valentine-Bowers’ deposition for July 6, 2012.

On May 8, 2012, Dr. Moffett filed a Motion to Compel. Between May 2, 2012, the date he forwarded the interrogatories to Ms. Valentine-Bowers, and May 11, 2012, the Respondent made no effort to contact his client. On May 11, 2012, after TRG and Dr. Moffett had filed motions, the Respondent forwarded the interrogatories to Ms. Valentine-Bowers again and stated: ‘Please see below.’ The Respondent did not advise his client that the deadline to respond to discovery had passed, that Motions to Compel had been filed or that her deposition had been noted for July 6, 2012. On May 15, 2012, Ms. Valentine-Bowers provided her responses to interrogatories to the Respondent by email and stated: “Let me know if you need more info.” The hearing judge found the delays with regard to addressing the discovery issues continued: The Respondent did not respond in any manner to the Motions to Compel.

On May 31, 2012, the circuit court granted TRG’s Motion to Compel and ordered Ms. Valentine-Bowers to provide answers to interrogatories and produce the requested documents by June 18, 2012. The court warned that failure to abide by the order may subject Ms. Valentine-Bowers to sanctions and/or penalties. The court denied Dr. Moffett’s May 8 Motion because it did not contain a Rule 2-431 Certificate. The Respondent did not advise his client of the May 31 Order.

On June 5, 2012, Dr. Moffett filed a Second Motion to Compel and attached a proper 2-431 Certificate. The Re ³⁶⁴ spondent failed to respond to Dr. Moffett’s Second Motion to Compel. On June 27, 2012, having heard nothing from the Respondent, TRG filed a Motion for Sanctions. On July 5, 2012, the circuit court granted Dr. Moffett’s Second Motion to Compel and ordered that Ms. Valentine-Bowers provide full and complete Answers to Interrogatories and produce all requested documents by or before July 12, 2012.

The court warned, again, that failure to comply could subject Ms. Valentine-Bowers to sanctions. The judge’s law clerk personally called the Respondent and advised him of the content of the July 12 Order. The Respondent faded to advise his client of the July 12 Order. The hearing judge determined that “on July 6, 2012, counsel for all defendants appeared for Ms. Valentine-Bower’s deposition as noted by TRG’s counsel.

Neither Respondent nor Ms. Valentine-Bowers appeared.” Ms. Valentine-Bowers’ failure to appear for her deposition led to TRG filing, on July 9, 2012, a Supplemental Memorandum in support of the Motion for Sanctions. This gave TRG an additional reason to support its request for a dismissal of Ms. Valentine-Bowers’ complaint. The hearing judge explained: Between May 15, 2012, the date Ms. Valentine-Bowers provided her draft answers to interrogatories to the Respondent, and July 12, 2012, the Respondent made no effort to contact Ms. Valentine-Bowers about her discovery responses or to finalize answers to interrogatories or responses to document requests. [ ] On July 12, 2012, the deadline established by the July 5 Order, the Respondent mailed unexecuted Answers to Interrogatories to Dr. Moffett and TRG. Also on July 12, 2012, the Respondent emailed the answers to interrogatories to Ms. Valentine-Bowers and stated: These are finally done.

Sorry for the delay, but we had some computer issues over here. Anyway, please read through both sets and make sure they are accurate and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief. If so, please sign the signature pages (the very last page of each document), and e-mail or fax [ ] the signed signature ³⁶⁵ pages back to me. If you have any minor corrections, please mark them on the document and also send those corrected pages with the signature pages.

If you have any questions regarding anything, please give me a call on my cell [ ]. Thank you. Counsel for Dr. Moffett and TRG received the unexecuted answers on July 17, 2012. Also on July 17, 2012, the Respondent mailed the signature page to opposing counsel.

After receiving the unexecuted, undated responses, TRG and Dr. Moffett consolidated all grounds for dismissal into one motion entitled Defendants’ Joint Motion for Sanctions (hereinafter Joint Motion) which was filed on July 20, 2012. The Respondent failed to advise his client of the Joint Motion. On or about August 10, 2012 the Respondent filed an Opposition to the Joint Motion. In the Opposition, the Respondent knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to the circuit court that ‘the delay in generating discovery was due to Plaintiffs Counsel’s inability to make contact with the Plaintiff and was not intentional or contumacious.’ On October 5, 2012, a hearing was held on the Joint Motion.

At the hearing, the Respondent made the following knowing and intentional misrepresentations to the court: • I was not able to [provide discovery to the defendants] because I was not able to communicate with my client. She’s been, we’d been unable to communicate with her for months until finally she called me, and I said, where have you been, I’ve been trying to get a hold of you. She said, oh, you know, I didn’t know. I said well, you know, have your numbers changed?

She said, yes. I said has your e-mail changed? She said, no. I said, well, I’ve sent you numerous e-mails, I said, what’s going on with that?

She said, well, I didn’t get them. Maybe they went to my spam folder, and she never confirmed whether they did or didn’t go to her spam folder, she just said she had never received them. And then ultimately, we drafted up the answers to the written discovery as soon as we could. ³⁶⁶ • The initial answers to interrogatories were sent out inadvertently without the signature page and that Ms. Valentine-Bowers did not appear for her scheduled deposition because the Respondent didn’t know where she was. • Unfortunately, [Ms. Valentine-Bowers] was out of communication with her counsel for some time. But as soon as I got a hold of her, she cooperated.

She’s in full cooperation. I have all of her contact information at this time, and we’re prepared to appear for a deposition as early as this coming week to get this case moving along. Contrary to the Respondent’s statements, Ms. Valentine-Bowers maintained the same mailing address, email address and phone number during the pendency of the litigation and it was the Respondent, not Ms. Valentine-Bowers, who failed to communicate about the pending discovery. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the Joint Motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The court stated, inter alia: [The Respondent] in his representations to the court says well we haven’t complied, we haven’t responded because I just didn’t know where my client was. It certainly appears to the court that he attempted to reach her by accepting his representations as true. But nonetheless, the requirement is hers to remain in contact with her counsel, and I would concur with [TRG’s counsel’s] representation that an individual who initiated a complaint such as this, remain interested in its pursuit would at a minimum have remained in contact with her counsel. And it appears many months have gone by where she didn’t.

The Respondent failed to advise his client that her complaint had been dismissed. On or about October 15, 2012, the Respondent filed Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. The Respondent admitted, and the court finds that the ³⁶⁷ Motion for Reconsideration was frivolous. On November 29, 2012, the court denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

The Respondent failed to advise Ms. Valentine-Bowers that the Motion for Reconsideration had been filed or denied. On December 26, 2012, the Respondent, without the knowledge or consent of his client, filed a Notice of Appeal. On September 18, 2013, the Respondent, without the knowledge or consent of his client, filed Appellant’s Brief in the Court of Special Appeals. [ ] On September 25, 2013, the Respondent filed his record extract. [] The Respondent failed to consult with Dr. Moffett or TRG about preparation of the record extract requiring the Appellee to file a supplemental extract containing relevant portions of the record. [ ] Appellees TRG and Dr. Moffett each filed briefs and, on January 7, 2014, oral argument was held in the Court of Special Appeals. [ ] During oral argument, the Respondent, knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to the Court of Special Appeals that, “Early in the case there was some difficulty getting in contact with the Plaintiff, the Appellant in this case, Ms. Bowers. Plaintiffs counsel had difficulty doing that via email, telephone, et cetera.

Finally after three or four months, contact was made.” [ ] In a reported opinion issued May 29, 2014, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the order of the circuit court. [ ] The Respondent failed to advise his client of the Opinion. [ ] Bar Counsel’s Investigation: On July 8, 2014, Bar Counsel sent a letter to Respondent, at the address maintained with the Client Protection Fund requesting information and documentation. [] Bar Counsel’s request included the following: 1. A complete copy of Ms. Valentine-Bower’s client file including, but not limited to all pleadings, filings, discovery, correspondence, notes and memorandum; 2. Please state whether you have ever failed to timely file a federal or state income tax return. If so, for each delinquent return provide the tax year, type of return ³⁶⁸ (personal, business, etc.) the jurisdiction, the date filed and any explanation you may have for your failure(s); 3.

Please state whether you have ever failed to timely pay any federal or state income tax liability. If so, for each delinquency, provide the tax year, the amount owed, the amount paid, the date paid and any explanation you may have for your failure(s); 4. Please state whether you have ever failed to timely pay any withholding tax. If so, state the tax year, the amount, the date and amount paid.

Bar Counsel requested that the information be provided by July 29, 2014. The Respondent failed to respond in any manner. On July 23, 2014, Bar Counsel sent a letter to Respondent at his home address, enclosing the July 8, 2014 letter and requesting a response by August 8, 2014. [ ] The Respondent received the July 23, 2014 letter from Bar Counsel on or about July 24, 2014. The Respondent failed to respond in any manner.

On August 12, 2014, Bar Counsel sent a letter to the Respondent at his home address, enclosing the two prior letters and requested a response within ten days. [ ] The Respondent received the August 12, 2014 letter from Bar Counsel on or about August 13, 2014. The Respondent failed to respond in any manner. On August 22, 2014, Robert C. Versis, Investigator, personally served the July 8, July 23, and August 12, 2014 letters on the Respondent’s mother-in-law at his home. [ ] Between August 29, 2014 and September 2, 2014, Mr. Versis made multiple attempts to contact the Respondent. [ ] The Respondent failed to respond in any manner. The Respondent has never responded to Bar Counsel during the pendency of the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

The hearing judge entered the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This [e]ourt finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated the following Rules of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct: ³⁶⁹ Rule 1.1. Competence Rule 1.1 provides: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. This [c]ourt finds the Respondent violated Rule 1.1.

The Respondent failed to timely serve the two complaints in 2010, he failed to respond to at least ten letters, phone calls, or notices and five separate motions filed by the defendants. He failed to appear for his client’s deposition and failed to comply with multiple court orders regarding production of discovery. When he did provide discovery responses, the responses were untimely, inadequate and incomplete. Notably, in addition to failing to respond to discovery, the Respondent failed to propound any discovery on behalf of his client or otherwise advance her claim in any manner.

The Respondent’s lack of competence resulted in his client’s complaint being dismissed -with prejudice. Following the dismissal, the Respondent filed a frivolous motion for reconsideration and a frivolous appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer Rule 1.2(a) provides [in part]: subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and, when appropriate, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.

A lawyer may take such action on behalf of