Attorney Grievance v. Collins

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Natalie Thryphenia Collins, Miscellaneous Docket AG No. 8, September Term, 2019, Opinion by Booth, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTION – SUSPENSION Respondent Natalie Thryphenia Collins violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.1 (Competence); 19-301.3 (Diligence); 19-301.4 (Communication); 19-303.4(d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney); and 19- 308.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). Respondent’s violations arose from her failure to communicate with her client; failure to timely respond to discovery; failure to respond to two motions for sanctions; failure to obtain discovery from opposing counsel; failure to adequately prepare her client, witnesses, and herself for a hearing; failure to respond to requests made by the minor child’s court-appointed attorney to meet with her client; and demonstration of disregard for her professional obligations to her client, opposing counsel, court-appointed counsel for the minor child, and the court. These circumstances warrant a 60-day suspension. Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No.: 24-C-19-003765 AG Argued: Argument waived/submitted on papers IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc.

Docket AG No. 8 September Term, 2019 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. NATALIE THRYPHENIA COLLINS Barbera, C.J. McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran, JJ. Opinion by Booth, J. Filed: June 8, 2020 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2020-06-08 14:17-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk “I don’t know that there are any short cuts to doing a good job.” -Sandra Day O’Connor As part of the legal profession, attorneys are expected and required to diligently and competently undertake representation of their client’s interests, often in that client’s darkest hour. In any contested legal proceeding, preparation is paramount. This attorney grievance proceeding arises from an attorney’s representation of a client in a divorce and contested custody proceeding, in which the attorney failed to undertake the most basic preparation of her client’s case, and failed to communicate with her client, opposing counsel, and the attorney representing the minor child at the center of the custody dispute, which negatively impacted her client’s case.

This type of misconduct impairs the public’s confidence in the legal profession. We conclude that the appropriate sanction for Natalie Thryphenia Collins’s violation of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, as described herein, is suspension for 60 days. I Background A. Procedural Context On June 20, 2019, Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Commission”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Respondent, Natalie Thryphenia Collins. The Petition alleged that Ms. Collins violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) in connection with her representation of Crystal Davis.1 Specifically, Bar Counsel charged Ms. Collins with violating MARPC: (1) 19-301.1 (Competence); (2) 19- 301.3 (Diligence); (3) 19-301.4 (Communication); (4) 19-303.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney); and (5) 19-308.4 (Misconduct).

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722(a), this Court designated the Honorable Charles J. Peters (“the hearing judge”) of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to conduct a hearing regarding the alleged violations of the MARPC and to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law. The hearing took place on December 18 and 19, 2019. Ms. Collins represented herself throughout the hearing. The hearing judge issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on February 3, 2020, in which he found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Collins violated MARPC 19-301.1 (Competence); 19-301.3 (Diligence); 19-301.4 (Communication); 19- 303.4(d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney); and 19-308.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct).

The hearing judge also made findings of fact related to aggravating and mitigating circumstances for this Court’s consideration in devising an appropriate sanction. Neither the Commission nor Ms. Collins filed exceptions to any of the hearing judge’s findings or conclusions. This Court considered this matter on the papers submitted without oral argument.2 We accept a hearing judge’s findings as established when there 1 Crystal Davis has remarried and as a result, changed her last name. For purposes of this opinion, we will refer to her as Ms. Davis.

The Attorney Grievance Commission (“Commission”) filed a request to waive oral 2 arguments in this matter. Ms. Collins did not respond to the Commission’s request. The Court entered a Show Cause Order directing Ms. Collins to show cause why an oral 2 are no exceptions filed. Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A).

We summarize the hearing judge’s findings of fact. B. Facts Ms. Collins’s Credentials and Practice Ms. Collins was admitted to the Bar of Maryland on June 20, 1991, and currently maintains a law office in Baltimore City. The focus of her law practice since 2008 has been family law and juvenile law. In the fall of 2016, Ms. Collins and Amar Weisman, a family law practitioner in Towson, Maryland, discussed the possibility of joint representation of future clients.

Ms. Collins and Mr. Weisman agreed that Ms. Collins would work on some of Mr. Weisman’s family law matters on a case-by-case basis as an independent contractor. Mr. Weisman agreed to pay Ms. Collins on an hourly basis. In late 2016, Ms. Collins subleased office space in Mr. Weisman’s office building in Towson, Maryland. Representation of Crystal Davis This case grew out of Ms. Collins’s representation of her client, Crystal Davis, in Ray Davis v. Crystal Davis, Case No. 22-C-16-001040, in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County.

Prior to the commencement of Ms. Collins’s and Mr. Weisman’s representation of Ms. Davis, in July 2016, Dr. Ray Davis filed a complaint for divorce and custody in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County. The custody case involved Dr. Davis’s and Ms. argument should be held. Ms. Collins filed no response to the Court’s Show Cause Order. On April 9, 2020, the Court granted the Commission’s request to waive oral argument. 3 Davis’s minor daughter.

At the time of the suit, Ms. Davis was living in Illinois with her son from another marriage and the Davises’ minor daughter. Ms. Davis had not responded to Dr. Davis’s complaint, which resulted in the circuit court entering an order of default against her. After a pendente lite hearing (at which Ms. Davis had failed to appear), the court awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of the Davises’ minor daughter to Dr. Davis. In December, Dr. Davis obtained a temporary protective order in Illinois, and the Davises’ daughter was removed from Ms. Davis’s custody and returned to Maryland.

It was at this time that Ms. Davis became aware of the pending divorce proceeding and sought counsel in Maryland to represent her. In January 2017, Ms. Davis contacted Mr. Weisman about representation in the pending divorce and custody case. During their initial conversation, Mr. Weisman told Ms. Davis that both he and Ms. Collins would be working on her case. Ms. Davis agreed to the representation, signed a retainer agreement with Mr. Weisman, and paid him a retainer fee.

Both Mr. Weisman and Ms. Collins entered their appearance as “co-counsel” for Ms. Davis on January 9, 2017. After entering their appearance in the case, on January 12, 2017, Mr. Weisman and Ms. Collins filed several pleadings, including a motion to vacate order of default, an answer to the complaint, a motion to vacate the pendente lite order, and a counter-complaint for absolute divorce, custody and child support, a notice of change of party address, and a motion for postponement. These pleadings were signed by Ms. Collins on behalf of Mr. Weisman. In mid-January, the circuit court vacated the order of default and the pendente lite order.

A scheduling conference was set for February 13, 2017. 4 On January 24, Dr. Davis’s attorney, Kenneth Gaudreau, filed an answer to the counter-complaint. Counsel for Dr. Davis also served upon Ms. Collins and Mr. Weisman, via email, a notice of deposition and written discovery requests (interrogatories and requests for production of documents). Although Mr. Gaudreau served the answer on both Mr. Weisman and Ms. Collins, most of his communications were with Ms. Collins. The communications included issues related to the February 13 scheduling conference, scheduling Ms. Davis’s deposition, and establishing a visitation schedule. 1.

Ms. Collins’s Failure to Respond to Discovery Upon receipt of the written discovery requests propounded in January, Mr. Weisman sent a copy of the discovery requests to Ms. Davis that day. Ms. Davis promptly sent her draft responses back to Mr. Weisman’s paralegal, Matthew Fox, on January 29. Mr. Fox emailed the responses on to Ms. Collins that day, but she did not review them at that time, and did not finalize the responses. Despite receiving an email inquiry from Dr. Davis’s counsel in March 2017 concerning the overdue discovery responses, which Ms. Collins acknowledged that she received, she did not finalize or serve her client’s discovery responses.

Because no discovery responses were filed by Ms. Davis, counsel for Dr. Davis filed a motion for sanctions. In the motion, Mr. Gaudreau described his good faith attempts to obtain discovery responses from both Mr. Weisman and Ms. Collins. No response to the motion was filed. The motion was treated by the court as a motion to compel, and an order was entered compelling Ms. Davis to produce responses to discovery within 10 days.

At no time did Ms. Collins disclose to Ms. Davis that Mr. Gaudreau had filed the motion for sanctions or that an order had been entered compelling discovery responses. When Ms. 5 Collins continued to fail to produce discovery responses in accordance with the court’s order, Mr. Gaudreau filed a second motion for sanctions. Ms. Collins did not advise her client that a second motion was pending, or of the consequences for ignoring outstanding discovery requests. 2. Ms. Collins’s Failure to Follow up on Discovery Served on Dr. Davis On March 3, 2017, Mr. Weisman served Dr. Davis’s counsel with written discovery requests (interrogatories, request for production of documents, and request for admission).

Ms. Collins acknowledged that she signed the notice of service of the discovery requests on behalf of Mr. Weisman. On March 28, 2017, Mr. Gaudreau sent his client’s answers to Ms. Davis’s request for admission. No other discovery responses were ever provided by Dr. Davis. Ms. Collins failed to communicate with Mr. Gaudreau about the lack of response and did not file any motion to compel or motion for sanctions. 3.

Ms. Collins’s Representation of, and Communication with, Ms. Davis Prior to the Merits Hearing In February, Ms. Collins and Mr. Weisman filed a motion to expedite the pendente lite hearing as the minor child was in Dr. Davis’s “exclusive custody—without the order of any court—and will only permit [Ms. Davis] supervised visitation, citing a substantial likelihood of child abuse by Defendant.” The motion also asserted that Dr. Davis had not permitted Ms. Davis to speak to her daughter via phone or video-chat. The day before the February 13 scheduling conference, Ms. Davis drove from Illinois to Baltimore to meet with Ms. Collins and Mr. Weisman and to prepare for the 6 scheduling conference to be held the following day. After the meeting, Ms. Davis and Ms. Collins traveled together to Salisbury and discussed the case during the trip. During the scheduling conference, the parties agreed to dates for a merits hearing.

Ms. Collins confirmed that she was available on May 16 and 18 for the hearing. Additionally, Ms. Collins agreed to withdraw the motion to expedite the pendente lite hearing. The court also ordered that an attorney be appointed to represent the minor child. On March 2, the court entered an order appointing Angela DiPietro as the attorney for the Davises’ minor daughter.

In the first week of March 2017, Ms. Collins explained to Ms. Davis that she could not continue to represent her due to a dispute that Ms. Collins and Mr. Weisman had regarding their joint clients. Ms. Collins further advised Ms. Davis that she should speak with Mr. Weisman regarding the representation. After discussing the matter with Mr. Weisman, he agreed that he would withdraw his representation of Ms. Davis, and that Ms. Collins could continue representing her. Upon learning this, Ms. Collins agreed to continue representing Ms. Davis.

Mr. Weisman filed a notice of withdrawal, and in the notice, Mr. Weisman indicated that Ms. Collins would be representing Ms. Davis going forward. On March 16, the child’s attorney, Ms. DiPietro, wrote to Mr. Gaudreau and Mr. Weisman requesting their assistance with obtaining information from Dr. Davis and Ms. Davis, and with scheduling a meeting with each parent. Ms. Collins testified that she did not receive this letter, and Mr. Weisman was not able to confirm whether the letter had been forwarded to Ms. Collins. 7 Ms. Collins was in regular contact with Ms. Davis in the last weeks of February through March. Ms. Collins went on vacation from April 1–8, and again from April 17– 23.

During this time, she did not communicate with Ms. Davis. While Ms. Collins was away, Ms. DiPietro sent her a letter following up on her request to schedule a meeting with Ms. Davis. Ms. DiPietro also requested that Ms. Collins call her to schedule a telephone conference. Ms. Collins received this letter when she returned from vacation but did not contact Ms. DiPietro and did not immediately let Ms. Davis know about Ms. DiPietro’s request.

Ms. Collins had known for three months that the date of the merits hearing was May 16, yet she had done nothing to adequately prepare Ms. Davis or her son, Christopher. With the merits hearing approaching, Ms. Davis and Christopher left Illinois on May 10 to travel to Salisbury. They arrived in Salisbury on May 12. After Ms. Davis arrived in Salisbury, she and Ms. Collins spoke by phone regarding the overdue discovery responses and the need to finalize them.

On May 15, Ms. Collins finally served her client’s answers to interrogatories and responses to request for production of documents by fax, email, and mail to Mr. Gaudreau. Ms. Davis neither reviewed nor signed the discovery responses before Ms. Collins sent them to opposing counsel. The first time Ms. Collins met with Ms. Davis and Christopher about the hearing was on May 16—one hour before the hearing began. Ms. Davis and her son were completely unprepared to testify at the hearing. 8 4.

Merits Hearing On May 16, the parties and their counsel appeared at the hearing before Magistrate Connie G. Marvel in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County. At the beginning of the hearing, it was disclosed that no discovery had ever been received by counsel for Dr. Davis in response to the court’s order compelling the same and in response to Dr. Davis’s second motion for sanctions. It was further disclosed that the minor child’s attorney, Ms. DiPietro, had never met with Ms. Davis. Ms. Collins then represented to the magistrate that she had never received the order appointing Ms. DiPietro but “made efforts to figure out who the child’s counsel was.” Ms. Collins admitted that she had received the second letter from Ms. DiPietro but was somehow unable to locate her even though Ms. DiPietro’s letter contained her telephone number, as did the court’s appointment order which was available to Ms. Collins through the Maryland Electronic Courts (MDEC) case management system.

To mitigate Ms. Collins’s failure to provide timely discovery and to set up a previous meeting between Ms. Davis and Ms. DiPietro, the magistrate delayed the start of the hearing to permit Ms. DiPietro to meet with Ms. Davis, and for Mr. Gaudreau to review Ms. Davis’s discovery responses. When the hearing reconvened, the magistrate addressed the discovery issues. Ms. Collins represented that she had no knowledge that there was a discovery issue until “sometime in April.” She further testified that she did not get the second motion for sanctions until April 25 because she had been out of the country. She told the magistrate that “by the time I was able to understand what was going on, I was unable to get ahold of 9 Ms. Davis to correct the situation.” Ms. Collins also represented to the court that she had been advised by previous counsel that discovery had been filed.

Ms. Collins then raised for the first time the fact that Dr. Davis had not responded to interrogatories or request for production of documents that were propounded in early March 2017. Although raising the discovery violations, Ms. Collins admitted that she did not follow up with Mr. Gaudreau and did not file a motion to compel or a motion for sanctions because she “didn’t think she needed it.” The magistrate granted Dr. Davis’s motion for sanctions, finding that the discovery violations were just “too blatant.” The magistrate precluded the introduction of any documents by Ms. Davis. On May 17—the intervening day between the hearing dates—Ms. DiPietro met again with Ms. Davis for an hour in Ms. DiPietro’s office. During the day, Ms. Collins handled another matter for another client.

Ms. Collins met with Ms. Davis and Ms. Davis’s son briefly in their hotel that night. The parties returned for the second day of the merits hearing on May 18. After a full day of testimony, the magistrate continued the hearing until July 27, 2017, for the parties to provide closing arguments. Following the hearing, the parties reached an agreement regarding the provisions of a pendente lite order, which the court entered on June 7.

On the evening of May 18, Ms. Davis advised Ms. Collins that she no longer wanted Ms. Collins to represent her. On May 19, Ms. Collins texted Ms. Davis and said, “I am so detached from your case I don’t care what happens.” Ms. Davis replied, “I can tell. And 10 that’s ashamed [sic] because