Attorney Grievance v. Ekekwe

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Olekanma Arnnette Ekekwe, Misc. Docket AG No. 53, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Gould, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – DISBARMENT Court of Appeals disbarred lawyer who failed to adequately communicate with a client, represented a client while she was suspended from practicing law, and also made misrepresentations to the court about her status. Such conduct violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-305.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 19-308.4 (Misconduct), and 19-742 (Order of Disbarment or Suspension).

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No.: C-03-CV-20-004352 Argument waived/submitted on papers IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 53 September Term, 2020 ______________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. OLEKANMA ARNNETTE EKEKWE ______________________________________ *Getty, C.J. *McDonald Watts Hotten Booth Biran Gould, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Gould, J. ______________________________________ Filed: June 1, 2022 *Getty, C.J. and McDonald, J., now Senior Judges, participated in the hearing and Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. conference of this case while active members of 2022-06-01 15:20-04:00 this Court. After being recalled pursuant to Md. Const., Art. IV, § 3A, they also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion. Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk On December 1, 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission (“AGC”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Olekanma Arnnette Ekekwe, alleging violations of various provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”).1 Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19- 722(a), this Court designated the Honorable C. Carey Deeley, Jr. (“hearing judge”) to conduct an evidentiary hearing and provide findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The hearing was held on June 21, 2021. Bar Counsel appeared and presented its case with 14 exhibits and a videotaped deposition of Ms. Ekekwe’s former client, Vini Sloan. Ms. Ekekwe failed to appear. The hearing judge issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“findings”) on July 28, 2021.

The hearing judge found that Bar Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ekekwe violated Rules 19- 301.4 (Communication),2 19-303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-305.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 19- As described by Judge McDonald in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ficker, 477 1 Md. 537 , 545 n.3 (2022). In 1987, this Court adopted the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”). Maryland Rule 1230, Appendix (1987). . . . Effective July 1, 2016, the MLRPC were renamed the MARPC and recodified without substantive change in Title 19, Chapter 300 of the Maryland Rules.

The rules have retained their previous numbering in a modified format, e.g., former MLRPC Rule 1.1 is now MARPC Rule 19-301.1. 2 In its Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, Bar Counsel additionally charged Ms. Ekekwe with violating Rules 19.301.1 and 19.301.3; prior to the hearing, those charges were withdrawn. 308.4 (Misconduct), and 19-742 (Order of Disbarment or Suspension).3 Neither Bar Counsel nor Ms. Ekekwe excepted to the hearing judge’s findings. Bar Counsel recommends that we disbar Ms. Ekekwe. On October 5, 2021, pursuant to Rule 19-740(a), Bar Counsel filed a request to waive oral argument. On October 22, 2021, this Court entered an order requiring Ms. Ekekwe to show cause on or before November 12, 2021 “why oral argument should be held.” Ms. Ekekwe failed to respond.

On November 18, 2021, this Court granted Bar Counsel’s request to waive oral argument. As explained below, with one minor exception, we adopt the hearing judge’s findings and determine that disbarment is the appropriate sanction under the facts and circumstances of this case. I HEARING JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACTS Bar Counsel has the burden of proving its allegations of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Md. Rule 19-727(c).

Because neither Ms. Ekekwe nor Bar Counsel filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings, Rule 19-740(b)(2)(A) permits us to “treat the findings of facts as established.” See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Colton-Bell, 434 Md. 553, 572 (2013). Our inclination is to do so here, but we nevertheless have reviewed the record and are satisfied that the hearing judge’s factual findings are, indeed, supported 3 As of October 1, 2021, MARPC Rule 19-742 was renumbered as MARPC Rule 19-741. Because Ms. Ekekwe’s misconduct occurred before the renumbering, we shall cite to the prior version, Rule 19-742. 2 by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the facts that follow derive from the hearing judge’s uncontested findings and the undisputed evidence that supports such findings.

Professional Background On December 2, 2002, Ms. Ekekwe was admitted to the bar of the District of Columbia (the “D.C. bar”), where she later opened a solo law practice. On December 17, 2010, Ms. Ekekwe was admitted to the Maryland bar. On June 27, 2019, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended Ms. Ekekwe from the practice of law for three years for violating Rules 1.1(a) and (b) (Competence), 1.3(a) and (b) (Diligence and Zeal), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.15(e) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(c) (Misconduct) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. As a condition of her reinstatement, Ms. Ekekwe was required to prove her fitness to practice law pursuant to Rule XI § 16 of the District of Columbia Bar Rules.

Representation of Vini Sloan and Suspension from the Maryland Bar In July 2019, the Women’s Law Center of Maryland appointed Ms. Ekekwe to represent Vini Sloan on a pro bono basis, in connection with Ms. Sloan’s complaint for custody in Sloan v. Armstrong, pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Ms. Sloan had already been represented by counsel in that matter, but discharged that counsel when she was notified of Ms. Ekekwe’s pro bono appointment. Ms. Sloan then made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Ms. Ekekwe. It was only after Ms. Sloan asked 3 the Women’s Law Center to intervene on her behalf that Ms. Ekekwe finally responded and met with her.

On August 2, 2019, the AGC filed a petition in this Court for disciplinary or remedial action against Ms. Ekekwe, seeking an interim suspension and reciprocal discipline for the misconduct found in the District of Columbia matter. Several days later, this Court issued a Show Cause Order directing the AGC and Ms. Ekekwe to show cause why corresponding discipline should or should not be imposed in Maryland. On September 24, 2019, Ms. Ekekwe filed a motion to stay the AGC’s petition pending the outcome of a request for a rehearing in the District of Columbia matter. In response, the AGC pointed out that the request for rehearing had been made by disciplinary counsel to, among other things, seek a more severe sanction, and that Ms. Ekekwe had opposed the rehearing request.

On October 4, 2019, this Court denied Ms. Ekekwe’s motion and entered an order temporarily suspending Ms. Ekekwe’s license to practice law in Maryland. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ekekwe, 466 Md. 213 (2019). On October 18, 2019, the AGC responded to the Show Cause Order, requesting that Ms. Ekekwe be indefinitely suspended due to the findings in the District of Columbia matter. Meanwhile, on October 2, 2019—just two days before her temporary suspension in Maryland—Ms. Ekekwe appeared with Ms. Sloan for a settlement conference in the circuit court.

Although Ms. Ekekwe had not entered her appearance in the case, she participated in the conference. The child’s father, Romeo Armstrong, and his attorney, Walter Ty, 4 appeared as well. The case was not resolved at the conference, so the court scheduled a merits trial for January 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Within a few days after the settlement conference, Ms. Sloan took the child to Georgia, where she resided, without the knowledge or permission of the father.

In response, the father moved for emergency relief on October 10, 2019. Because Ms. Ekekwe had still not entered her appearance, his counsel served the motion on Ms. Sloan, with a courtesy copy to Ms. Ekekwe. In the transmittal email, the father’s counsel asked Ms. Ekekwe to confirm her representation of Ms. Sloan and asked her to formally enter her appearance in the case. The court scheduled an emergency hearing for November 4, 2019.

The emergency hearing was held before the Honorable H. Patrick Stringer. Before the hearing, Ms. Ekekwe and Ms. Sloan discussed the matter and agreed that Ms. Ekekwe would attend the hearing without Ms. Sloan. Ms. Ekekwe did not inform Ms. Sloan that she had been suspended from practicing law, and as planned, Ms. Ekekwe appeared at the hearing on Ms. Sloan’s behalf. Ms. Ekekwe introduced herself by saying “Good morning, Your Honor.

Olekanma Ekekwe on behalf of Vini Sloan.” Ms. Ekekwe made an opening statement, cross-examined the father, and made a closing argument. After denying the father’s emergency motion, Judge Stringer noted that Ms. Ekekwe had not yet entered her appearance in writing. But Judge Stringer made sure there was no ambiguity about Ms. Ekekwe’s role: THE COURT: You understand that you are in the case now? MS.

EKEKWE: Yes, sir. 5 Ms. Ekekwe failed to inform Ms. Sloan, Judge Stringer, or the father’s counsel that she had been suspended from practicing law in Maryland. After the hearing, Ms. Ekekwe informed Ms. Sloan that the court denied the emergency motion and confirmed that the merits trial would be on January 30, 2020. On November 20, 2019, this Court entered an order suspending indefinitely Ms. Ekekwe from the practice of law in Maryland, effective immediately. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ekekwe, 466 Md. 379 (2019).

Thus, Ms. Ekekwe has been suspended from practicing law in Maryland since October 4, 2019, when she was temporarily suspended from practicing law. Meanwhile, after the November emergency hearing, Ms. Sloan and Mr. Armstrong began direct settlement discussions. Ms. Sloan kept Ms. Ekekwe in the loop and consulted with her during that time. Ms. Sloan and Mr. Armstrong reached an agreement, which they put in writing.

Ms. Ekekwe reviewed and edited the written agreement. On January 29, 2020, Ms. Ekekwe sent the final draft of the agreement to Ms. Sloan, asking her to sign the document and to have Mr. Armstrong sign it. On the morning of January 30, 2020, Ms. Sloan confirmed with Ms. Ekekwe that Ms. Ekekwe would attend the hearing on her behalf to submit the settlement agreement, and that Ms. Sloan would not attend. At 9:55 a.m., the Honorable Paul J. Hanley called the case.

Neither Ms. Ekekwe nor Ms. Sloan was present. At 10:16 a.m., Judge Hanley took a recess and called Ms. Sloan. Ms. Sloan told Judge Hanley that Ms. Ekekwe had confirmed that she would be appearing on her behalf. Judge Hanley then informed Ms. Sloan that Ms. Ekekwe had been suspended from practicing law, which was news to Ms. 6 Sloan.

After her call with Judge Hanley, Ms. Sloan unsuccessfully attempted to contact Ms. Ekekwe. At 10:42 a.m., Judge Hanley resumed the hearing. Ms. Ekekwe arrived shortly thereafter. Judge Hanley pointedly asked Ms. Ekekwe about her involvement in the case, and in response Ms. Ekekwe said she was only “supposed to bring the settlement agreement[.]” When Judge Hanley asked Ms. Ekekwe if she was an attorney, Ms. Ekekwe dodged the question by responding that she was “assisting” and that she was “from the Women’s Law Center.” Judge Hanley pressed the issue by asking Ms. Ekekwe if she was “representing anybody in this case[,]” and Ms. Ekekwe responded that “[i]t’s just a temporary appearance.” Judge Hanley probed further, asking Ms. Ekekwe if she was “a member of the bar.” Ms. Ekekwe responded “[y]es.” Judge Hanley asked her if she was “licensed to practice law in Maryland[.]” Again, Ms. Ekekwe responded “yes.” Judge Hanley got even more specific, asking whether she was “suspended from the practice of law in Maryland[.]” Ms. Ekekwe again dodged the question, responding “[i]n D.C., yes.” Judge Hanley again tried to pin Ms. Ekekwe down, asking “ma’am, you are suspended from the practice of law in Maryland, are you not?” Ms. Ekekwe responded, “I haven’t gotten the Order yet.” Judge Hanley then asked: “Ma’am, are you suspended from the practice of law in Maryland?

You have to answer out loud. We are on the record.” Cornered, Ms. Ekekwe finally came clean, answering “[y]es.” But she didn’t come clean entirely. Judge Hanley asked Ms. Ekekwe if she was “furnishing services to Ms. Sloan in this case.” In response, Ms. Ekekwe obscured her role 7 by claiming that she had represented Ms. Sloan before the suspension, but not after. She explained that she was “just told to bring the settlement that they signed.” Ms. Ekekwe denied that she represented or conferred with Ms. Sloan after her suspension and maintained that she only agreed to bring the settlement agreement to court.

Judge Hanley then postponed the hearing. Ms. Ekekwe never informed Ms. Sloan of the outcome of the hearing or her suspension from the Maryland bar. To Ms. Sloan’s knowledge, the settlement agreement has never been filed. Ms. Ekekwe knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to the court: (1) the nature of her involvement in the Sloan case; (2) that her appearance for Ms. Sloan was temporary; (3) that she was licensed to practice law in Maryland; and (4) that she did not represent Ms. Sloan following her temporary suspension on October 4, 2019 and her indefinite suspension on November 20, 2019.

Bar Counsel’s Investigation After the January 30 custody hearing, Judge Hanley referred this matter to Bar Counsel for an investigation. Bar Counsel sent letters to Ms. Ekekwe on February 27, 2020, June 23, 2020, and August 4, 2020, each time asking her to explain her representation of Ms. Sloan following her temporary suspension on October 4, 2019. Ms. Ekekwe repeatedly failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s letters. Ms. Ekekwe eventually sent Bar Counsel an affidavit that was not only untimely, but also knowingly and intentionally false.

Ms. Ekekwe claimed that she was permitted to appear on Ms. Sloan’s behalf at the November 4 custody hearing because the order of suspension was not entered until December 31, 2019. In fact, the temporary order of 8 suspension was dated October 4, 2019, and, pursuant to Rule 19-737(d)(2), was effective immediately. The hearing judge found that Ms. Ekekwe knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to Bar Counsel that she reasonably believed the suspension was not effective until December 31, 2019. Ms. Ekekwe also stated in her affidavit that when she appeared at the custody hearing on January 30, she did so as a paralegal, not a lawyer.

This too was knowingly and intentionally false—at the hearing she told the court that she was representing Ms. Sloan, albeit temporarily.4 II THE HEARING JUDGE’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW From the foregoing factual findings, the hearing judge reached certain conclusions of law. We review the hearing judge’s conclusions of law without deference. Md. Rule 19-740(b)(1). Here, the hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ekekwe violated MARPC Rules 19-301.4, 19-303.3, 19-305.5, 19-308.1, 19-308.4, and 19-742.

We will address each conclusion in turn. MARPC Rule 19-301.4 (Communication) Rule 19-301.4 provides: (a) An attorney shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 19-301.0 (f) (1.0), is required by these Rules; 4 Ms. Ekekwe’s paralegal theory strains credulity. The Women’s Law Center appointed an attorney, not a paralegal, to represent Ms. Sloan. Upon their suspension from practicing law, lawyers do not magically transform into paralegals imbued with the authority to represent clients. 9 (2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (4) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the attorney’s conduct when the attorney knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

(b) An attorney shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. This Rule requires an attorney “‘to inform a client of the status of his or her case’ so the client has the ‘ability to make informed decisions[.]’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642, 697 (2019) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163, 182 (2015)). The hearing judge found that Ms. Ekekwe violated Rule 19-301.4 by failing to: (1) respond to Ms. Sloan’s attempts to contact her and responding only after the Women’s Law Center intervened; (2) inform Ms. Sloan that she had been suspended from practicing law; and (3) inform Ms. Sloan what happened on January 30. This conclusion is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

MARPC Rule 19-303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) Rule 19-303.3(a)(1) provides that “[a]n attorney shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the attorney[.]” The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Ekekwe violated Rule 19-303.3 at both the November 4 and January 30 hearings by knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting to the court her Maryland licensure status and her role in representing Ms. Sloan. The hearing judge found that Ms. Ekekwe knew she was suspended when she appeared at both the 10 November 4 and January 30 hearings on Ms. Sloan’s behalf, and that her failure to disclose this fact constituted violations of not only Rule 19-303.3, but also Rules 19-305.5 and 19- 308.4. The hearing judge also found that Ms. Ekekwe knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to Judge Hanley at the January 30 hearing that her appearance for Ms. Sloan was temporary. The hearing judge credited Ms. Sloan’s testimony that: (1) Ms. Ekekwe never said that her representation was temporary or limited in any way; (2) she never terminated Ms. Ekekwe’s representation; and (3) she continued to