Attorney Grievance v. Davenport

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Wortham David Davenport, Miscellaneous Docket AG No. 67, September Term, 2019, Opinion by Booth, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – DISBARMENT This attorney grievance matter involves an attorney who represented a client in a divorce and custody proceeding. In connection with that representation, after taking a $2,500 fee, the attorney failed to deposit the fee in his trust account. Although at the outset of the representation, the attorney drafted an untimely and defective counter-complaint, and a motion, he subsequently abandoned all representation. Specifically, the attorney failed to attend the scheduled hearings, did not advise his client of the hearings, and failed to respond to discovery requests and motions, including motions to compel and motions for counsel fees.

After the client terminated the representation and requested that the attorney return the unearned fee, the attorney failed to withdraw from the case, thereby adversely affecting the client’s ability to settle the matter, and he failed to return the unearned fee. Thereafter, the attorney failed to respond to Bar Counsel during its investigation and failed to participate in any manner in this attorney grievance proceeding. The Court concluded that the attorney violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (1) Rule 1.1 (Competence); (2) Rule 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation); (3) Rule 1.3 (Diligence); (4) Rule 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication); (5) Rule 1.5(a) (Fees); (6) Rule 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property); (7) Rule 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation); (8) Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and (9) Rule 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). Disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case.

Circuit Court for Howard County Case No.: C-13-CV-20-000204 Argued: Argument waived/submitted on papers IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 67 September Term, 2019 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WORTHAM DAVID DAVENPORT Barbera, C.J. McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran, JJ. Opinion by Booth, J. Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-10-28 11:32-04:00 Filed: January 29, 2021 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Commission” or “Petitioner”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Respondent, Wortham David Davenport, in connection with a complaint filed by a former client whom he represented in a divorce and custody matter. In the Petition, Bar Counsel alleged that Mr. Davenport violated Maryland Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct (MARPC):1 (1) Rule 19-301.1 (Competence); (2) Rule 19— 301.2(a) (Scope of Representation); (3) Rule 19-301.3 (Diligence); (4) Rule 19-301.4(a) and (b) (Communication); (5) Rule 19-301.5(a) (Fees); (6) Rule 19-301.15(a) (Safekeeping Property); (7) Rule 19-301.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation); (8) Rule 19- 308.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and (9) Rule 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct).

Pursuant to Maryland Rules 19-722(a) and 19-727, this Court transmitted the case to the Circuit Court for Howard County and designated the Honorable John J. Kuchno to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereafter, Mr. Davenport was served with a writ of summons, the Petition, Petitioner’s interrogatories and request for production of documents, and request for admissions of fact and genuineness of documents. Mr. Davenport failed to respond to the charges filed against him, and therefore, the hearing judge entered an order of default on April 30, 2020. 1 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 (i.e., Maryland Rule 19-301.1 will be referred to as Rule 1.1).

See ABA Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and Standards (Am. Bar Ass’n 2017). A remote hearing was held on July 14, 2020. Mr. Davenport did not appear at the hearing and did not present any evidence or arguments on his behalf at any point throughout these proceedings.

During the hearing, the requests in Petitioner’s requests for admission of facts and genuineness of documents were deemed admitted and received as evidence, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-424(b). On August 27, 2020, the hearing judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the averments in the Petition, and the Petitioner’s request for admission and genuineness of documents, with attached exhibits. Mr. Davenport did not file any exceptions, nor did he make any recommendation regarding sanction. Petitioner recommended disbarment.

This Court considered the matter on the papers submitted without oral argument.2 On November 30, 2020, we issued a per curiam order disbarring Mr. Davenport. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Davenport, 471 Md. 358 (2020). We explain in this opinion the reasons for that action. I The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact We summarize the hearing judge’s findings of fact and the exhibits submitted at the hearing as follows.

As no exceptions have been filed, we treat the findings of fact as established. Maryland Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A). 2 The Attorney Grievance Commission (“Commission”) filed a request to waive oral argument in this matter. After Mr. Davenport did not respond to the Commission’s request, the Court entered a show cause order directing him to show cause why oral argument should be held. Mr. Davenport filed no response to the show cause order.

On October 30, 2020, we granted the Commission’s request to waive oral argument. 2 Background Mr. Davenport was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 17, 1991. At all times relevant to the current action, he maintained an office for his legal practice in Howard County, Maryland. Representation of Lisa Stanley On March 29, 2018, Joseph Stanley filed a complaint for limited divorce, custody, and other related relief against Lisa Stanley in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. At issue was custody of two minor children.

Ms. Stanley, who was living in Arizona, was served and filed a pro se answer. Thereafter, in June 2018, Ms. Stanley retained Mr. Davenport to represent her in the divorce and custody proceeding. Ms. Stanley paid Mr. Davenport a flat fee of $2,500. Mr. Davenport failed to deposit and maintain Ms. Stanley’s funds in an attorney trust account until earned.

Mr. Davenport entered his appearance on June 28, 2018. On July 24, 2018, the court ordered a scheduling conference to be held on September 5, 2018. Mr. Davenport received a copy of the court’s order but failed to advise Ms. Stanley of the scheduling conference. Mr. Davenport filed a motion five days before the scheduling conference, requesting that Ms. Stanley be permitted to attend via “court call[,]” as well as a motion to shorten Mr. Stanley’s time period for responding to the motion.

That same day, the court denied the motions and required that the parties and their counsel be present for the scheduling conference. On September 3, 2018, Mr. Davenport filed a counter-complaint for child custody, child support, and alimony, as well as a motion for pendente lite custody, child support, 3 and alimony. However, the pleading was untimely and deficient because it did not include Ms. Stanley’s signed affidavit. Mr. Stanley’s attorney moved to strike the counter- complaint.

In addition to filing the motion to strike the counter-complaint, on September 5, Mr. Stanley’s counsel propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents, which he served on Mr. Davenport as Ms. Stanley’s counsel. Mr. Davenport and Ms. Stanley failed to appear at the scheduling conference. The court scheduled a pre-trial settlement conference for December 17, 2018 and issued a show cause order requiring Ms. Stanley and Mr. Davenport to appear for a show cause hearing in November to explain their failure to appear at the scheduling conference. The court mailed the notice to Mr. Davenport.

Mr. Davenport did not notify his client that he had failed to attend the September scheduling conference, nor did he advise her of the November show cause hearing or the December settlement conference. Additionally, Mr. Davenport failed to advise Ms. Stanley of the discovery requests and failed to respond to them in any manner. On October 29, 2018, the court ordered that no action be taken on Mr. Stanley’s motion to strike Ms. Stanley’s counter-complaint and ordered Mr. Davenport to file an amended counter-complaint containing the required oath from Ms. Stanley within 20 days. Mr. Davenport did not advise Ms. Stanley of the court’s order, nor did he file an amended counter-complaint on her behalf.

In November, counsel for Mr. Stanley filed a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions based upon Ms. Stanley’s failure to respond to discovery. Mr. Davenport did not respond to the motion. Additionally, given Mr. Davenport’s failure to file an amended 4 counter-complaint in accordance with the court’s order, counsel for Mr. Stanley filed a second motion to strike the pleading. The court held a pre-trial settlement hearing on December 17, 2018.

Mr. Davenport failed to appear. The court called Ms. Stanley, who participated telephonically and told the court that she had been trying unsuccessfully to contact Mr. Davenport. The court dismissed Ms. Stanley’s counter-complaint and issued a show cause order, directing Mr. Davenport to appear at a hearing on March 15, 2019 to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his failure to appear at the settlement hearing. The court mailed a copy of the show cause order to Mr. Davenport.

After the settlement conference, in December 2018, Mr. Stanley’s counsel filed a motion for counsel fees and costs, seeking recovery of $2,275 for the time she spent preparing for and attending the scheduling conference and the settlement conference at which Mr. Davenport and his client had failed to appear. Mr. Davenport did not advise Ms. Stanley of the motion, nor did he respond in any manner. In January 2019, the court granted Mr. Stanley’s motion to compel discovery and ordered Ms. Stanley to produce documents within ten days. Mr. Davenport did not advise his client of the order, nor did he produce discovery responses.

Throughout the representation, Mr. Davenport failed to respond to Ms. Stanley’s numerous requests for information regarding the case. The last communication she received from Mr. Davenport was in October 2018. Ms. Stanley terminated Mr. Davenport’s representation on January 17, 2019 via email, and she requested a refund of the fee paid. Mr. Davenport did not respond to Ms. Stanley and did not provide her with 5 the requested refund.

He also failed to withdraw his appearance from the case, which caused a substantial delay in his client’s efforts to settle the matter. On March 15, 2019, the court held the show cause hearing. Once again, Mr. Davenport did not appear. The court entered an order of absolute divorce, awarded Mr. Stanley $17,807.50 in attorney’s fees, and found Mr. Davenport in contempt of court because of his failure to attend the court hearings.

Bar Counsel’s Investigation In March 2019, Bar Counsel sent a letter to Mr. Davenport at his post office box, enclosing a copy of the docket entries from Maryland Judiciary Case Search indicating that he failed to appear on two separate occasions and had been found to be in contempt of court. Bar Counsel requested a response by April 11, 2019. Mr. Davenport did not respond. On May 3, 2019, Bar Counsel sent letters via certified mail to Mr. Davenport at his post office box, as well as an address in Laurel.

Bar Counsel enclosed a copy of the March 21 letter and requested a response by May 17, 2019. No response from Mr. Davenport was received. On June 20, 2019, Bar Counsel sent letters to three additional addresses Bar Counsel identified as being associated with Mr. Davenport. In the June 20 letter, Bar Counsel told Mr. Davenport that the complaint against him had been docketed for further investigation, enclosed copies of the docket entries, and requested a written response by July 1, 2019.

On July 16, 2019, no response having been received,