Maryland case law › Attorney Grievance Commission v. Wyatt

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Wyatt

323 Md. 36 (1991) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: OtherMurphy✓ Good law
HoldingEdward Gross Wyatt, a Maryland attorney of nearly thirty years, was charged with violating DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter) for failing to prosecute a workers' compensation claim entrusted to him by John Miskelly.

37 MURPHY, Chief Judge. Edward Gross Wyatt, a member of the Bar for almost thirty years, was found by Judge Dana M. Levitz of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to have violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him between 1982 and 1986. 1 The disciplinary charges grew out of Wyatt’s employment by John Miskelly in a worker’s compensation case. The record discloses, and Judge Levitz found, that Wyatt entered his appearance before the Commission as Miskelly’s attorney on April 20, 1982; that he postponed a hearing before the Commission scheduled for April 21 to prepare the case; that thereafter, although frequently prodded by Miskelly and the employer’s insurer, Wyatt “did virtually nothing in regard to this case from April 1982 until an Issues Form was filed by [Wyatt] with the ... Commission on or about December, 24, 1986”; that Wyatt was discharged by Miskelly in 1989; and thereafter Wyatt arranged a hearing in the case.

Judge Levitz found that because of Wyatt’s neglect, Miskelly’s medical bills were never paid. He found that various reasons given by Wyatt for not requesting a hearing were not credible. He found as a fact that while Wyatt had serious medical problems, they were not the cause of Wyatt’s neglect of the Miskelly case. Bar Counsel recommended a sixty-day suspension for Wyatt’s misconduct.

He pointed out that Wyatt’s neglect was complete and total; that the medical bills remain un 38 paid; and that while no actual monetary loss may have been sustained by Miskelly, nevertheless as a result of Wyatt’s neglect, it warranted a suspension. While readily acknowledging his misconduct,

This is a preview of Attorney Grievance Commission v. Wyatt. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.