Attorney Grievance v. Dailey

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mitzi Elaine Dailey, AG No. 6, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Getty, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTION – DISBARMENT Respondent, Mitzi Elaine Dailey, violated several provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and the Maryland Rules when she failed to maintain an attorney trust account, failed to act on her client’s case, failed to communicate with her client, abandoned representation of her client, misappropriated client funds, and made intentional misrepresentations to Bar Counsel. Ms. Dailey’s conduct violated the following rules of professional conduct: 1.1 (Competence); 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Attorney); 1.3 (Diligence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.5 (Fees); 1.15 (Safekeeping Property); 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation); 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and 8.4 (Misconduct). Ms. Dailey’s conduct also violated the following Maryland Rules: 19-403 (Duty to Maintain Account); 19-404 (Trust Account— Required Deposits); and 19-407 (Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping).

Disbarment is the appropriate sanction in case. Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-20-001801 Argued: January 8, 2021 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 6 September Term, 2020 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND V. MITZI ELAINE DAILEY Barbera, C.J., McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran JJ. Opinion by Getty, J. Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act Filed: July 23, 2021 (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-07-23 11:14-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the [person] of every other calling, is diligence.

Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. Never let your correspondence fall behind. Abraham Lincoln, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln.1 Then a humble prairie lawyer, Abraham Lincoln shared this bit of wisdom to illustrate the habits every attorney and professional ought to practice. In his journal, President Lincoln stressed the importance of timeliness, of not taking client money until it has been earned, and of promoting honesty in the legal profession.

Id. Today, Lincoln’s adages continue to bear a unique importance, as they are practices which are not only recommended, but are required of all attorneys under the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Although we commend her considerable pro bono work, the Respondent in this case, Mitzi Elaine Dailey, neglected her client’s case for nearly a year and failed to maintain communication with him. The fee Ms. Dailey received from her client related to this matter was never placed into an attorney trust account, nor was it ever returned to her client despite her failure to earn it.

Throughout Bar Counsel’s investigation, Ms. Dailey made several serious mistakes. Ms. Dailey failed to comply with Bar Counsel’s investigation. Ms. Dailey failed to provide requested documents or attend her scheduled deposition and circuit court hearing. Finally, to compound all of this, Ms. Dailey made 1 Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, The Abraham Lincoln Association, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:134.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext [https://perma.cc/4P2P-8TX4]. false and misleading statements to Bar Counsel, including the fabrication of evidence to conceal her rule violations.

Had Ms. Dailey been responsive, she may have avoided the most significant rule violations described below, and we may have reached a different conclusion. However, because of the serious misconduct outlined in the findings of the hearing judge, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Ms. Dailey. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Context. On March 24, 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the “Commission”) filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) with this Court alleging that Ms. Dailey had violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and the Maryland Rules.

See Md. Rule 19-721. The Petition concerned Ms. Dailey’s representation of and failure to communicate with her client, Geoffrey Wolst, for nearly a year, as well as her misrepresentations to Bar Counsel and failure to comply with discovery requests and the hearing process. Based on this misconduct, the Petition alleged that Ms. Dailey violated Rules: 1.1 (Competence); 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Attorney); 1.3 (Diligence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.5 (Fees); 1.15 (Safekeeping Property); 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation); 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and 8.4 (Misconduct).2 The Petition also alleged violations of the following Maryland 2 “The Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct are codified as Maryland Rule 19-300.1 et seq. In an effort to enhance readability, we use abbreviated references to the prior codifications of these rules, which are consistent with the ABA Model Rules on which they are based (e.g., Maryland Rule 19-301.1 will be referred to as Rule 1.1).” Attorney 2 Rules: 19-403 (Duty to Maintain Account); 19-404 (Trust Account—Required Deposits); and 19-407 (Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping).

We designated Judge Jeffrey M. Geller (the “hearing judge”) of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City by Order dated March 27, 2020, to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning the alleged violations and to provide findings of fact and recommend conclusions of law. See Md. Rule 19-722(a). Ms. Dailey was personally served with process on April 24, 2020, and filed her Answer on May 11, 2020. Ms. Dailey filed a Writ of Mandamus to this Court requesting a stay of proceedings on July 13, 2020.3 We denied Ms. Dailey’s petition for relief in an Order dated July 27, 2020.

On August 4, 2020, the circuit court held a pretrial hearing remotely via Skype. Ms. Dailey failed to appear. The evidentiary hearing was also held remotely via Skype on August 11, 2020. Although Ms. Dailey was sent an email and hard copy of the Scheduling Order, she did not attend the virtual hearing.4 The hearing judge’s findings of fact were filed in this Court on September 22, 2020.

Because of Ms. Dailey’s failure to respond to Bar Counsel’s request for admissions of facts within 30 days as described infra, the hearing Grievance Comm’n v. Portillo, 2021 WL 2154205 , at ¹ n.1 (2021) (citing ABA Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards (Am. Bar Ass’n 2017)). 3 An initial writ filed on July 9, 2020, was rejected by the Clerk of this Court for failure to file the Writ of Mandamus as a separate action and for insufficient service. 4 The hearing judge noted that there was a person present at the Skype hearing who was identified on the screen only as “Unidentified Caller.” The court asked several times if the person was, in fact, Ms. Dailey, and invited her to present mitigation if it was, but the court received no response. The only individuals the court shared the Skype link with were Bar Counsel, the hearing judge’s staff, and Ms. Dailey. 3 judge deemed the requests admitted pursuant to Md. Rule 2-424. Bar Counsel filed a recommendation for sanction with this Court on October 6, 2020.

Ms. Dailey filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 7, 2020. This Court heard oral argument in this matter on January 8, 2021. B. Factual Findings. We begin by summarizing the hearing judge’s factual findings.

Ms. Dailey was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 13, 1994. Since then, Ms. Dailey has maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of Baltimore, primarily providing low-cost services to indigent clients. Ms. Dailey’s clients were often referred to her by the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service or the Civil Justice Network. 1. Representation of Geoffrey Wolst.

On July 1, 2017, Norma J. Wolst—a resident of Baltimore City—died intestate. Ms. Wolst was survived by her children, Geoffrey Wolst and Norva Countess. Mr. Wolst was referred to Ms. Dailey in early July 2017 by the Civil Justice Network to seek legal advice concerning the administration of his mother’s estate (the “estate”). After initially speaking via telephone, Mr. Wolst and Ms. Dailey met in person, on July 18, 2017.

At that meeting, Mr. Wolst retained Ms. Dailey to represent him in his capacity as the personal representative of the estate, and Mr. Wolst signed a legal representation agreement which required a retainer payment of $1,500 to be billed against at an hourly rate of $150. On August 22, 2017, Mr. Wolst paid Ms. Dailey the $1,500 retainer. On the receipt given to Mr. Wolst, Ms. Dailey noted that it was for the “[e]state filing fee and legal fees.” Ms. Dailey deposited the funds into her operating account instead of into an attorney trust 4 account. The hearing judge found that Ms. Dailey failed to maintain an attorney trust account for her solo practice, and that Ms. Dailey did not obtain Mr. Wolst’s informed consent to deposit this payment into an operating account that was not an attorney trust account.

Ms. Dailey prepared the appropriate estate documents, including a Regular Estate Petition for Administration, Schedule A (“Estimated Value of Estate and Unsecured Debts”), and List of Interested Persons. Mr. Wolst signed these documents on August 22, 2017. However, Ms. Dailey never filed the documents with the Office of the Register of Wills of Baltimore City. Ms. Dailey informed Mr. Wolst that he was required to post a bond, the amount of which would be based on the value of the estate.

Ms. Dailey also informed Mr. Wolst that this requirement could be waived if Ms. Countess consented to Mr. Wolst’s appointment as personal representative of their mother’s estate. Mr. Wolst unsuccessfully tried to obtain Ms. Countess’ consent in September 2017. On September 19, 2017, Ms. Dailey informed her client that a $200,000 bond would be necessary, which could be purchased for $1,275. On November 9, 2017, Mr. Wolst paid Ms. Dailey $1,275 in cash for the bond purchase.

The receipt given to Mr. Wolst stated that the payment was the “fee for bond.” Ms. Dailey did not place the $1,275 into an attorney trust account, but instead deposited the funds into her operating account. Ms. Dailey never received Mr. Wolst’s informed consent to place these funds into an operating account that was not an attorney trust account. Further, Ms. Dailey never purchased a bond with the funds she received and instead misappropriated the funds for her own use. 5 Ms. Dailey had Mr. Wolst sign an updated Schedule A on November 9, 2017. Ms. Dailey never filed the updated document with the Register of Wills for Baltimore City.

From December 2017 to January 2018, Mr. Wolst reached out to Ms. Dailey requesting updates on the status of his case. Ms. Dailey did not return his calls until January 2, 2018. After the January 2018 call, Ms. Dailey did not communicate with Mr. Wolst again for nearly twelve months. During this time, Mr. Wolst was unaware of the fact that Ms. Dailey had failed to file any of the estate documents, failed to procure a bond, and failed to properly maintain the funds he had given her.

Despite her lack of communication and failure to diligently advance Mr. Wolst’s case, Ms. Dailey did not return any portion of the $1,500 retainer for legal fees, or the expense for the $1,275 bond. 2. Bar Counsel’s Investigation. Mr. Wolst filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission on November 18, 2018. Mr. Wolst explained to Bar Counsel that he was unaware of the status of his case, as he had not heard from Ms. Dailey in nearly a year.

Bar Counsel sent Ms. Dailey a copy of the complaint on December 4, 2018. After receiving this complaint, Ms. Dailey contacted Mr. Wolst by telephone on December 10, 2018. Bar Counsel requested that Ms. Dailey provide a written response to the allegations in the complaint. In her January 4, 2019, response, Ms. Dailey misrepresented to Bar Counsel that she had been attempting to “move the case along” but Mr. Wolst had failed to return her calls.

According to phone records submitted by Ms. Dailey, she had placed only one call to her client on January 2, 2018. Moreover, the hearing judge found that Ms. Dailey’s claim that Mr. Wolst had failed to return her alleged calls was knowingly and 6 intentionally false and was made to conceal the fact that she had abandoned her representation of Mr. Wolst. Ms. Dailey failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel throughout the discovery process. On August 12, 2019, Bar Counsel requested that Ms. Dailey send phone records documenting all calls with Mr. Wolst from July 1, 2017, to that date.

To prevent any contradiction with her earlier statements to Bar Counsel concerning Mr. Wolst’s lack of communication with her, Ms. Dailey only provided telephone records from December 19, 2017 to January 18, 2018. Despite repeated requests for the full phone records, Ms. Dailey failed to provide records for the requested dates. In addition to phone records, Ms. Dailey also did not provide requested trust account statements and information to Bar Counsel. On February 13, 2019, Bar Counsel requested records from Ms. Dailey’s trust account evidencing the receipt and maintenance of Mr. Wolst’s $1,500 and $1,275 payments.

Ms. Dailey failed to provide the requested bank account records or information in her March 6, 2019, response, or in her later response to a second request by Bar Counsel. Nor did Ms. Dailey alternatively inform Bar Counsel that such records did not exist. Bar Counsel also requested a response to Mr. Wolst’s allegations that Ms. Dailey had failed to respond to his calls and text messages. In her March 6 response, Ms. Dailey falsely claimed that Mr. Wolst had failed to communicate with her and that he had changed his contact information without notifying her.

Ms. Dailey further asserted that she had taken “all actions in [her] power” to advance Mr. Wolst’s case, even though she had failed to file any documents or contact him for eleven months from early January to late December 2018. 7 On April 9, 2019, Bar Counsel again requested Ms. Dailey’s trust account records including deposit slips, canceled checks, and other disbursement records, as well as Mr. Wolst’s client file. Ms. Dailey failed to provide the requested documents in her April 23 response. Bar Counsel sent a third request to Ms. Dailey for her trust account records documenting receipt and expenditure of Mr. Wolst’s funds on April 29, 2019. On May 24, 2019, Ms. Dailey responded without sending the requested documents, instead asserting that the fees received “were both billed for legal services as requested and provided to Geoffrey Wolst, in accordance with the Legal Representation Agreement that he reviewed and signed on July 18, 2017 (with no legal or any fees paid on that date).” The hearing judge found that this statement was knowingly and intentionally false, as the receipts for the $1,500 and $1,275 payments stated that they were for Ms. Dailey’s retainer and the bond, respectively.

The necessary estate documents were never filed, and the bond was never purchased. Thus, the fees were never earned. In her May 24, 2019, response to Bar Counsel, Ms. Dailey included an invoice dated April 23, 2019, which purported that Mr. Wolst had accumulated $1,650 in legal fees as of August 22, 2017. This invoice included false time entries intended to conceal the fact that Ms. Dailey had not deposited the payments into—and indeed failed to maintain—an attorney trust account.

Although the invoice indicated that Mr. Wolst owed $1,650 in legal fees by August 22, 2017, that information was not shared with him when he made his $1,500 retainer payment. Ms. Dailey even indicated on that day that a portion of the payment would be used for the estate filing fee. Moreover, Ms. Dailey fabricated four two- hour meetings on July 18, August 22, September 7, and November 9, 2017, on her invoice. 8 The duration of these meeting times had been edited and intentionally inflated by Ms. Dailey to support her claim that Mr. Wolst owed $1,500 in legal fees on August 22, and $1,275 by November 9, 2017. Ms. Dailey’s invoice also memorialized a 1.6-hour meeting regarding the procurement of a bond on January 2, 2018, although the phone records indicate that this meeting lasted only 66 minutes (1.1 hours).

The invoice entry summarizing this meeting was also fabricated, as Mr. Wolst had already requested the procurement of a bond before this phone call. Additionally, this invoice entry is inconsistent with Ms. Dailey’s exceptions, described infra, where she claims that her January 2, 2018, conversation was regarding a separate matter where she was advising Mr. Wolst on criminal charges filed against him. On August 12, 2019, Bar Counsel requested that Ms. Dailey schedule a statement under oath with their office. In her reply, Ms. Dailey requested a date after October 10, 2019.

Bar Counsel responded with three proposed dates after October 10, 2019. However, Ms. Dailey failed to respond to any overtures by Bar Counsel to communicate. On September 11, 2019, Bar Counsel issued a subpoena directing Ms. Dailey to appear in person on October 16, 2019, to respond to questions under oath and to produce bank records. On September 28, 2019, a process server went to Ms. Dailey’s office at One East Chase Street, Suite 1139, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

A woman named “Mitzi” answered the intercom but declined to accept the package when the server asked her to come to the door. Ms. Dailey evaded service of the subpoena, insisting that the process server had “the wrong place and wrong person.” Bar Counsel continued reaching out to Ms. Dailey, 9 leaving voicemails, and sending emails and letters. However, she failed to respond to any correspondence. Additionally, Ms. Dailey failed to attend her statement under oath on October 16, 2019, or contact Bar Counsel to explain her failure to appear. 3.

Circuit Court Proceedings. Ms. Dailey continued her obstructive conduct in the preliminary proceedings before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Ms. Dailey did not respond to scheduling requests and did not accept Skype calendar invitations from the court. Bar Counsel filed a Motion for Sanctions accompanied by a Motion to Shorten Time on June 23, 2020, because of Ms. Dailey’s failure to comply with discovery requests.

The Motion to Shorten Time was granted on June 30, 2020, limiting Ms. Dailey’s deadline to respond to the discovery motion or to file opposition to July 7. Ms. Dailey failed to respond by that date, and the hearing judge indicated in a further email that the court would rule on the discovery motion on July 9 if no response were received from her. Ms. Dailey failed to respond to the sanctions motion, instead filing a Writ of Mandamus to this Court to stay proceedings. The hearing judge gave Ms. Dailey a final opportunity to comply with discovery, ordering that she provide responses to interrogatories and produce documents by July 15, 2020, and that she attend her deposition on July 21.

Ms. Dailey failed to produce discovery or attend her deposition. On August 4, 2020, because of Ms. Dailey’s continued failure to comply with discovery, the hearing judge granted Bar Counsel’s Motion for Sanctions. The court ordered that Ms. Dailey’s Answer to the Petition be stricken and that the averments in the Petition be deemed admitted. Ms. Dailey was precluded from calling witnesses at trial, presenting documents, or presenting any evidence or testimony which 10 contradicted the averments in the Petition.

Ms. Dailey’s testimony would be limited only to proposed mitigation. STANDARD OF REVIEW In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews a hearing judge’s findings of fact for clear error and reviews a hearing judge’s conclusions of law without deference. See Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B) (“The Court [of Appeals] shall give due regard to the opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of witnesses.”); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith-Scott, 469 Md. 281, 332 (2020) (citation omitted) (“[T]his Court reviews for clear error a hearing judge’s findings of fact . . . .”); Md. Rule 19- 741(b)(1) (“The Court of Appeals shall review de novo the [hearing] judge’s conclusions of law.”). This Court determines whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that a lawyer violated a rule of professional conduct.

See Md. Rule 19-727(c) (“Bar Counsel has the burden of proving the averments of the petition [for disciplinary or remedial action] by clear and convincing evidence.”). Where a party fails to respond to discovery, a hearing judge may grant a motion for sanctions under Md. Rule 2-432(a) and enter “[a]n order that the matters sought to be discovered, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purpose of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order[.]” Md. Rule 2-433(a)(1). Either party may file “exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the hearing judge[.]” Md. Rule 19-728(b). If a party excepts to the hearing judge’s findings, this Court “shall determine whether the findings of fact have been proved by the requisite standard of proof set out in Rule 19-727(c).” Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B). “We may confine our review 11 to the findings of fact challenged by the exceptions, mindful though, that the hearing judge is afforded due regard to assess the credibility of witnesses.” Smith-Scott, 469 Md. at 332 (citation omitted).

This Court will not disturb the hearing judge’s findings “where ‘there is any competent evidence to support the’ finding of fact.” Id. (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Donnelly, 458 Md. 237, 276 (2018)). Therefore, “[i]f the hearing judge’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous and the conclusions drawn from them are supported by the facts found, exceptions to conclusions of law will be overruled.” Id. at 333 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 408 Md. 404, 419 (2009)). DISCUSSION Bar Counsel does not except to any of the hearing judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law.

Ms. Dailey notes forty exceptions to both the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We address these below. A. Exceptions to the Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact. Ms. Dailey takes exception to several of the hearing judge’s findings of fact, including: (1) that the representation of Mr. Wolst was primarily for providing legal advice, specifically regarding his rights as compared to those of his niece who was “the only surviving relative that the decedent designated to receive” funds from a Maryland Employees Credit Union account; (2) that no evidence was presented showing that Ms. Dailey had failed to communicate with Mr. Wolst for a year; (3) that Ms. Dailey had completed substantial work on Mr. Wolst’s case and that she was still working on procuring the bond at the time Mr. Wolst filed the complaint; (4) that Mr. Wolst had changed his 12 phone number and never informed her of the new number; and (5) that the process server had been misdirected to a nail salon, not her law office. “A hearing judge is given ‘a great deal of discretion in determining which evidence to rely upon.’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Johnson, 472 Md. 491, 527 (2021) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Miller, 467 Md. 176, 195 (2020)). “As far as what evidence a hearing judge must rely upon to reach his or her conclusions, we have said that the hearing judge ‘may “pick and choose” what evidence to believe.’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Woolery, 462 Md. 209, 230 (2018) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602, 627 (2013)).

Here, Ms. Dailey failed to present testimony at her circuit court hearing. In fact, Ms. Dailey was precluded from providing testimony or from contradicting the averments in the petition because of her repeated failure to comply with Bar Counsel’s discovery requests. Under Md. Rule 2-433(a), a hearing judge may grant such an order for a failure to comply with discovery: For Certain Failures of Discovery. Upon a motion filed under Rule 2-432(a), the court, if it finds a failure of discovery, may enter such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including one or more of the following: (1) An order that the matters sought to be discovered, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purpose of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order; (2) An order refusing to allow the failing party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence; or (3) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceeding until the discovery is provided, or dismissing the action or any part thereof, or entering a judgment by default that includes a determination as to liability and all relief sought by the moving party 13 against the failing party if the court is satisfied that it has personal jurisdiction over that party.

Md. Rule 2-433(a). As before mentioned, this Court will not disturb the hearing judge’s findings “where ‘there is any competent evidence to support the’ finding of fact.” Johnson, 472 Md. at 526 (quoting Donnelly, 458 Md. at 276 ). “Accordingly, because we decline to overrule a hearing judge’s findings of fact absent clear error,” we overrule Ms. Dailey’s “generalized exceptions as to what findings of fact the hearing [judge] failed to make.” Smith-Scott, 469 Md. at 334 (quoting Woolery, 462 Md. at 230 ). Because there is competent evidence in the record to support the hearing judge’s findings of fact, we decline to uphold Ms. Dailey’s exceptions. B. Conclusions of Law.

The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Dailey violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 8.1, and 8.4. The hearing judge also concluded that Ms. Dailey violated Maryland Rules 19-403, 19-404, and 19-407. Bar Counsel does not except to the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. Ms. Dailey excepts to each of the hearing judge’s conclusions of law in this case.

Based upon our independent review of the record, we uphold the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.5 5 Ms. Dailey asserts in her first exception that Bar Counsel’s filing of this disciplinary action on March 24, 2020, violated this Court’s Order regarding the closure of courts due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We disagree. In our Order dated March 12, 2020, this Court made clear that the Judiciary’s objective was to continue providing access to justice to the extent possible and practicable. In the Court of Appeals of Maryland Administrative Order on the Statewide Suspension of Non-essential Judicial Activities Due to Emergency, Maryland Judiciary, https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/admin- 14 1.

Rule 1.1 (Competence). Rule 1.1 requires that an attorney “provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” “[T]he failure to pursue a claim after [initiating representation] demonstrates not only incompetence, but also insufficient diligence.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sanderson, 465 Md. 1, 38 (2019) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lang, 461 Md. 1, 44 (2018)); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 , 222–23 (2012) (concluding that the failure to take fundamental steps to further a client’s case is a violation of Rule 1.1). “[A]n attorney ‘demonstrates incompetence, and therefore violates Rule [1.1], when he [or she] fails to properly maintain his [or her] client trust account.’” Johnson, 472 Md. at 532 (some alteration in original) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Frank, 470 Md. 699, 735 (2020)). Finally, an attorney’s “failure to maintain [client] funds in a proper trust account demonstrates incompetence.” Smith-Scott, 469 Md. at 337 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Maignan, 390 Md. 287 , 296–97 (2005)).

Ms. Dailey demonstrated incompetence by failing to file the necessary estate forms even after the documents were signed by Mr. Wolst. Moreover, Ms. Dailey failed to communicate with her client for eleven months, despite her unsupported assertion that she orders/20200312suspensionnonessential.pdf [https://perma.cc/2FVE-8VRH]. This included the use of remote hearings and electronic filings, and the continued operation of certain judicial facilities in a limited capacity. The filing of this action by the Attorney Grievance Commission was in accordance with this Order and furthered the objective to promote the efficient process of the courts during the period of emergency. 15 attempted to contact Mr. Wolst but was unable to do so because he had changed his contact information.

Further, Ms. Dailey violated Rule 1.1 by failing to properly maintain the funds Mr. Wolst gave to her in an attorney trust account, instead placing the $1,500 and $1,275 payments into her operating account. In fact, the hearing judge found that Ms. Dailey never had an attorney trust account at all. Based on our independent review of the record, we hold that Ms. Dailey violated Rule 1.1 by failing to act on Mr. Wolst’s case, abandoning her client, and by improperly handling client funds. 2. Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation).

Rule 1.2(a) states: Subject to sections (c) and (d) of this Rule, an attorney 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. An attorney may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. An attorney shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the attorney shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the attorney, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify. “An attorney’s failure to prosecute her client’s case, combined with a failure to communicate with the client about the status of the