Attorney Grievance v. Ibebuchi

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ferdinand Uchechukwu Ibebuchi, Miscellaneous Docket AG No. 19, September Term, 2019, Opinion by Booth, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – INDEFINITE SUSPENSION This attorney grievance matter involves an attorney who represented a client in a District Court action in which the client was alleged to be an at-fault driver in a multi-vehicle collision. In connection with this representation, the attorney failed to timely respond to discovery requests, failed to appear for trial, and failed to advise his client that a default judgment had been entered against him. After the client learned about the default judgment from a notice issued by the Motor Vehicle Administration, the attorney advised his client that he would file a motion to try to have the case reopened. Despite these assurances, the attorney failed to take any action to assist his client with vacating the judgment, failed to follow up with the client, and failed to refund any portion of the fee charged for his services.

After the client filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission, the attorney failed to respond to several letters requesting information in connection with the investigation. The Court concluded that the attorney violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (1) Rule 1.1 (Competence); (2) Rule 1.3 (Diligence); (3) Rule 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication); (4) Rule 1.5(a) (Fees); (5) Rule 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation); (6) Rule 3.2 (Expediting Litigation); (7) Rule 3.4(d) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney); (8) Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and (9) Rule 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). Indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Case No.: CAE19-28195 Argued: October 1, 2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc.

Docket AG No. 19 September Term, 2019 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. FERDINAND UCHECHUKWU IBEBUCHI 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. Filed: November 20, 2020 Suzanne Johnson 2020-11-20 11:07-05:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk This attorney disciplinary matter concerns Ferdinand Uchechukwu Ibebuchi, Respondent, an attorney who was retained in October 2017 to represent a client in a District Court case where the client was alleged to be an at-fault driver in a multi-vehicle collision in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Mr. Ibebuchi failed to timely respond to discovery requests, failed to appear for trial, and failed to advise his client that a default judgment had been entered against him.

After the client learned about the default judgment from a notice issued by the Motor Vehicle Administration (“MVA”), Mr. Ibebuchi advised him that he would file a motion to try to have the case reopened. Despite these assurances, Mr. Ibebuchi failed to take any action to assist his client with vacating the judgment, failed to follow up with the client, and failed to refund any portion of the fee charged for his services. After Mr. Ibebuchi’s client filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“AGC”), Mr. Ibebuchi failed to respond to several letters requesting information in connection with the investigation. The AGC, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Mr. Ibebuchi.

Bar Counsel charged Mr. Ibebuchi with violating the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”). After an evidentiary hearing, the hearing judge issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law to this Court, concluding that Mr. Ibebuchi violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.4(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a) and (d). As set forth more fully herein, we agree that Mr. Ibebuchi violated the Rules as charged by the AGC. We suspend Mr. Ibebuchi from the practice of law indefinitely.

I Background A. Procedural Context On August 16, 2019, the AGC, through Bar Counsel, filed the Petition against Mr. Ibebuchi, alleging that he had violated numerous provisions of the MARPC1 in connection with his representation of a particular client. Specifically, Bar Counsel alleged that Mr. Ibebuchi violated Rule 1.1 (Competence); Rule 1.3 (Diligence); Rule 1.4 (Communication); Rule 1.5 (Fees); Rule 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation); Rule 3.2 (Expediting Litigation); Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney); Rule 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and Rule 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). The violations arose in connection with Mr. Ibebuchi’s representation of Carlos Morales Jacome (“Mr. Morales”) and Bar Counsel’s investigation into Mr. Morales’ complaint. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722(a), we designated Judge Michael R. Pearson of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to conduct a hearing concerning the alleged violations and to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law.

On February 20, 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). 2 Judge Pearson conducted an evidentiary hearing. 2 Mr. Ibebuchi represented himself at the hearing.

Mr. Ibebuchi did not introduce any exhibits, nor did he call any witnesses on his behalf. On April 3, 2020, Judge Pearson issued an opinion containing his findings of fact and concluding that Mr. Ibebuchi had committed all the alleged violations. Mr. Ibebuchi filed exceptions to a number of the hearing judge’s findings of fact and contested all of the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. Bar Counsel took one exception to the hearing judge’s findings of fact.

On October 1, 2020, we heard oral arguments concerning those exceptions and the parties’ recommendations as to an appropriate sanction. B. Facts When no exception is made to a hearing judge’s finding of fact, we accept it as established. Maryland Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A). When a party excepts to a finding, we must determine whether the finding is established by the requisite standard of proof—in 2 Immediately prior to the commencement of the evidentiary hearing, the court heard arguments of counsel in connection with Bar Counsel’s motion to strike Mr. Ibebuchi’s untimely response to the Petition.

Mr. Ibebuchi did not file a response to the Petition until after Bar Counsel filed a motion for order of default. Bar Counsel requested that the court strike his untimely response, contending that it was prejudiced by Mr. Ibebuchi’s lack of response throughout the investigation and leading up to the evidentiary hearing. We mention the motions hearing to provide context for some of Mr. Ibebuchi’s exceptions. In his exceptions, Mr. Ibebuchi refers to some of the arguments that he made in the motions hearing, as well as his opening statement, as his “testimony.” Despite finding Mr. Ibebuchi’s excuses for his failing to provide Bar Counsel with any information or explanation during the two and one-half year investigation “wholly inadequate and insufficient[,]” and determining that “from a legal standpoint[, Bar Counsel] is well grounded in their position that the motion to strike should be granted[,]” the hearing judge denied Bar Counsel’s motion to strike from “an equitable standpoint” to “hear the full breadth and depth” of Mr. Ibebuchi’s defense. 3 the case of an allegation of misconduct, clear and convincing evidence.

Maryland Rules 19-741(b)(2)(B), 19-727(c). The standard of review for a hearing judge’s factual findings where a party excepts to the findings is the clearly erroneous standard. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Chanthunya, 446 Md. 576, 588 (2016). We review for clear error a hearing judge’s findings of fact, giving due regard to the hearing judge’s opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses.

Maryland Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B). A factual finding is not clearly erroneous “if there is any competent material evidence to support it.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McDonald, 437 Md. 1, 16 (2014) (cleaned up). We summarize below the hearing judge’s findings of fact and other undisputed matters in the record, as they pertain to the alleged violations. We address Mr. Ibebuchi’s exceptions, as well as Bar Counsel’s exception, in relation to the findings to which they pertain.

Mr. Ibebuchi’s Law Practice Mr. Ibebuchi was admitted to the Bar of the State of Maryland on December 14, 2005.3 During the time period that spans the client matter involved in this proceeding, Mr. Ibebuchi maintained an office for the practice of law in Greenbelt, Maryland. 3 The hearing judge found that Mr. Ibebuchi did not begin to actively practice law in this State until 2016. Bar Counsel takes exception to this finding, pointing out that there is no evidence in the record concerning when Mr. Ibebuchi began to actively practice. Based upon our independent review of the record, we agree. Mr. Ibebuchi failed to put forth any testimony or evidence specifying when he began to practice law in Maryland.

The only reference to Mr. Ibebuchi’s length of practice was during the hearing on Bar Counsel’s motion to strike. As part of his argument attempting to justify his inaction in connection with Mr. Morales’ case, Mr. Ibebuchi stated that “I had been in practice for a very short period of time up to that point[.]” We determine that this statement is insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Ibebuchi did not “begin to actively practice law in this State until 2016.” Accordingly, we sustain Bar Counsel’s exception on this finding. 4 Representation of Mr. Morales Mr. Morales is a native of Guatemala. Spanish is Mr. Morales’ first language. He cannot speak or read English4 and testified through an interpreter at the evidentiary hearing.

On June 7, 2015, Mr. Morales was the at-fault driver in a multi-vehicle collision in Prince George’s County, Maryland. At the time of the accident, Mr. Morales did not have insurance. Carlos Garmendez, the driver of one of the other vehicles, sought uninsured motorist coverage from his insurance provider, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (“State Farm”). State Farm denied Mr. Garmendez’s claim.

On June 16, 2016, Mr. Garmendez filed suit against State Farm in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Prince George’s County. State Farm filed a third-party complaint against Mr. Morales. On July 6, 2017, Mr. Morales appeared without counsel for trial. The court postponed the matter until October 13, 2017 and instructed Mr. Morales to obtain counsel.

Mr. Morales contacted the Office of the Public Defender, seeking representation. The Office of the Public Defender provided Mr. Morales with Mr. Ibebuchi’s contact information. On July 14, 2017, State Farm served interrogatories on Mr. Morales. On October 5, 2017, Mr. Morales met with Mr. Ibebuchi and executed a retainer agreement for a flat fee of $2,250.

During the meeting, Mr. Morales’ friend, “Felipe,” 4 Mr. Ibebuchi excepts to the hearing judge’s finding that Mr. Morales cannot speak or read English and points out that Mr. Morales testified that he understood approximately 10% of English. Mr. Ibebuchi’s exception is overruled. Mr. Morales also testified that he cannot read or write in English. We determine that the hearing judge’s characterization of Mr. Morales’ lack of fluency and understanding of the English language is accurate and supported by clear and convincing evidence. 5 served as an interpreter and explained the provisions of the retainer agreement to Mr. Morales.

The agreement required an initial payment of $1,000 and subsequent payments of $650, to be paid by November 1, 2017, and $600, to be paid by December 1, 2017. Mr. Morales made the initial $1,000 payment to Mr. Ibebuchi on October 6, 2017. The retainer agreement was written in English. Mr. Ibebuchi did not provide Mr. Morales with a Spanish translation.5 During the pendency of Mr. Ibebuchi’s representation of Mr. Morales, Mr. Ibebuchi communicated with Mr. Morales in English and required Mr. Morales to rely on his friend, Felipe, for translation services.

Felipe attended all the meetings between Mr. Ibebuchi and Mr. Morales. Mr. Morales also utilized Google Translate to communicate with Mr. Ibebuchi by text message. On October 13, 2017, Mr. Ibebuchi entered his appearance in Mr. Morales’ case, and appeared at a hearing in the District Court. Mr. Ibebuchi and State Farm’s counsel requested a continuance, as they had both recently entered their appearances, and there was outstanding discovery.

The court granted the continuance. On October 17, 2017, the court rescheduled the matter for November 29, 2017 at 1:15 p.m. 5 Mr. Ibebuchi excepts to the hearing judge’s factual finding that Mr. Ibebuchi failed to provide Mr. Morales with a Spanish translation of the retainer agreement. We overrule Mr. Ibebuchi’s exception. The judge’s finding is consistent with the undisputed evidence that Mr. Ibebuchi did not provide Mr. Morales with a written copy of the agreement in Spanish, nor did he supply a translator.

However, as discussed infra, we do not find that Mr. Ibebuchi violated any professional rule based upon this finding. 6 On November 14, 2017, State Farm filed a motion for sanctions against Mr. Morales for failure to answer interrogatories. A copy of the motion for sanctions was mailed to Mr. Ibebuchi. Mr. Ibebuchi failed to draft or complete answers to interrogatories on behalf of Mr. Morales.6 Mr. Ibebuchi also failed to respond to the motion for sanctions on Mr. Morales’ behalf.7 6 Mr. Ibebuchi excepts to the hearing judge’s finding that he failed to draft or complete answers to interrogatories on his client’s behalf. Mr. Ibebuchi argues that the factual finding is “incomplete and misleading.” He contends that discovery was not completed because Mr. Morales failed to meet with him.

Mr. Ibebuchi directs us to his cross-examination of Mr. Morales, during which Mr. Morales admitted that a meeting had been set up to complete the interrogatories and that Mr. Morales and Felipe had arrived late, causing the meeting to be postponed. On cross-examination, Mr. Morales also agreed that Mr. Ibebuchi had contacted him “numerous times” (a phrase used by Mr. Ibebuchi) and admitted that the meeting never occurred and that he did not recall why. Despite Mr. Morales’ acknowledgement that he arrived late to one meeting and that Mr. Ibebuchi had contacted him, we determine that the hearing judge’s factual finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence and overrule this exception. The hearing judge is entitled to significant deference in assessing the credibility of the witnesses and picking and choosing from the evidence presented and the inferences to be drawn from that evidence.

See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602, 627 (2013). The hearing judge was unpersuaded by Mr. Ibebuchi’s attempt to shift blame for the failure to provide discovery responses to Mr. Morales—a client who cannot read or write English and who retained Mr. Ibebuchi to provide legal services in connection with this matter. Bar Counsel admitted into evidence a copy of Mr. Ibebuchi’s client file for Mr. Morales. The file included a letter dated October 23, 2017 from counsel for State Farm addressed to Mr. Ibebuchi which stated “[e]nclosed is a copy of the interrogatories served upon your client prior to your, or my, entry into the case.

Responses are well overdue. Please have your client respond to them as soon as possible.” Mr. Ibebuchi’s file also included a copy of the motion for sanctions that had been filed with the court and mailed to Mr. Ibebuchi on November 9. As the attorney of record in Mr. Morales’ case, Mr. Ibebuchi knew or should have known that it was important to deliver answers to interrogatories as soon as possible, particularly given the pending motion for sanctions. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Ibebuchi explained to Mr. Morales the urgency of responding to the overdue discovery requests.

It is counsel’s role to explain the importance of responding to discovery and the effect of a motion for sanctions to his or her client, and even more so where the client speaks no English and is unfamiliar with the legal 7 system. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s conclusion that Mr. Ibebuchi failed to respond to the outstanding discovery and that the failure was not excused by any delay or conduct by Mr. Morales. Mr. Ibebuchi’s exception is overruled. 7 The hearing judge found that Mr. Ibebuchi failed to advise Mr. Morales about the motion for sanctions. Mr. Ibebuchi excepted to this finding.

Mr. Ibebuchi points out that, in response to Bar Counsel’s questions, Mr. Morales testified that he provided a copy of the motion for sanctions to Mr. Ibebuchi when he met with Mr. Ibebuchi on October 5— the day that Mr. Morales signed the retainer agreement. Based upon our review of the record, it appears that Mr. Morales was mistaking the motion for sanctions—which was filed over a month after Mr. Morales’ October 5 meeting with Mr. Ibebuchi—for the interrogatories, which were served on Mr. Morales prior to the entry of Mr. Ibebuchi’s appearance. Mr. Morales’ testimony on this point arose during a confusing line of questioning by Bar Counsel in which Bar Counsel asked Mr. Morales about “working on” responses to the “motion for sanctions.” In context, it appears that Bar Counsel intended to ask about Mr. Morales working on responses to the interrogatories. In response to this line of questioning, Mr. Morales initially testified that he provided a copy of the motion for sanctions to Mr. Ibebuchi, and admitted that he “work[ed] on the motion for sanctions with Mr. Ibebuchi[.]” Later in his testimony, when asked again about the motion for sanctions, Mr. Morales testified that “I don’t remember if I received it really.” (Emphasis added).

When Mr. Ibebuchi cross-examined Mr. Morales about his testimony that he provided Mr. Ibebuchi with a copy of the motion for sanctions, Mr. Morales replied that “I got confused . . . . There was a confusion with this paper, with this paper right here” (referring to his previous testimony concerning the motion for sanctions). Mr. Morales’ confusion is understandable given the muddled line of questioning and Mr. Morales’ language barrier. That being said, considering that there is no evidence in the record that Mr. Ibebuchi failed to provide his client with the copy of the motion for sanctions, we shall sustain Mr. Ibebuchi’s exception to this finding.

Mr. Ibebuchi also excepts to the hearing judge’s factual finding that he failed to file a response to the motion for sanctions. Mr. Ibebuchi asserts that the hearing judge’s finding is “incomplete, misleading[, and] irrelevant.” Mr. Ibebuchi attempts to shift the blame for his dereliction of services onto Mr. Morales, pointing us to Mr. Morales’ testimony in which he admitted that he arrived late to one meeting, which had to be rescheduled as a result. We overrule Mr. Ibebuchi’s exception. It is undisputed that Mr. Ibebuchi never filed a response to the motion for sanctions.

The motion was served on Mr. Ibebuchi and was filed over one month after Mr. Ibebuchi’s appearance was entered. Mr. Ibebuchi’s client file contained a copy of the motion for sanctions. We determine that Mr. Ibebuchi’s attempt to blame his client for his failure to respond to a motion for sanctions is without merit. It is the attorney’s duty to file appropriate responses to motions.

Mr. Ibebuchi also makes a “no harm, no foul” argument that, asserting that in light of the default judgment 8 On November 28, 2017 at 6:14 p.m., Mr. Morales sent Mr. Ibebuchi a text message stating “Tomorrow. I have court,” along with a picture of a notice of a court hearing. The notice stated that the proceeding originally scheduled for October 13, 2017 was rescheduled for November 29, 2017 at 1:15 p.m. Mr. Ibebuchi texted Mr. Morales, stating that he “never received this from the Court.” Mr. Morales replied, “What to do then?” Mr. Morales sent another text message to Mr. Ibebuchi at 7:23 p.m. stating, “I need an answer.” Mr. Ibebuchi replied, “I don’t think we have court tomorrow.

But I will call them tomorrow morning to confirm. And I’ll call or text you to let you know.” On November 29, 2017 at 10:57 a.m., Mr. Morales sent Mr. Ibebuchi a text message stating, “I need to know what’s going to happen with today’s court.” At 11:39 a.m., Mr. Ibebuchi informed Mr. Morales that “[w]e don’t have court today. It was postponed from last time, but we don’t have a new court date yet. But it isn’t today.” On November 29, Mr. Morales also paid the additional $650.00 toward the retainer.

On November 29 at 1:15 p.m., the District Court called the case for trial. State Farm’s counsel was present, but neither Mr. Ibebuchi nor Mr. Morales appeared. 8 The entered against Mr. Morales, his failure to file a response to the motion for sanctions is “irrelevant.” We find this argument equally unavailing. Where an attorney fails to perform basic services—by failing to file a response to a motion for sanctions and subsequently failing to show up for court resulting in a default judgment—the latter nonperformance does not excuse the former. The hearing judge’s finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Mr. Ibebuchi’s exception is overruled. 8 Mr. Ibebuchi excepts to the hearing judge’s finding that he failed to appear at the November 29 hearing, and argues that the finding is “misleading.” Mr. Ibebuchi directs us to his opening statement during which he told the hearing judge that he called the court on the morning of the hearing and was given incorrect information. Mr. Ibebuchi asserts that the hearing judge erred because the court did not specifically “make a finding of the 9 court entered a default judgment against Mr. Morales in the amount of $15,000. On November 30, the court mailed notice of default judgment to Mr. Ibebuchi. Mr. Ibebuchi failed to advise Mr. Morales of the judgment.

On December 7, Mr. Morales sent a text message to Mr. Ibebuchi, stating, “I need to know when the new court is going to be.” Mr. Ibebuchi failed to respond to the text message. On January 8, 2018, Mr. Morales sent Mr. Ibebuchi two text messages. The first message stated: “Hi, I’m Carlos Morales. I want to know how my case is going.” The second stated: “I do not know anything about the case.” Mr. Ibebuchi failed to respond to these texts in any manner.

On February 22, 2018, Mr. Morales received notice from the MVA that his driving and registration privileges would be suspended if he did not satisfy the judgment by March 15, 2018. Upon receiving the MVA notice, Mr. Morales learned about the default judgment for the first time. After receiving the notice, Mr. Morales contacted Mr. Ibebuchi, who advised Mr. Morales that he would try to reopen the case. However, Mr. Ibebuchi failed to file a motion for reconsideration or a motion to vacate the default judgment or take any other action in connection with the default judgment that had been entered against his client. credibility of [his] explanation.” We overrule Mr. Ibebuchi’s exception.

It is undisputed that neither Mr. Ibebuchi nor his client appeared on November 29. The hearing judge was not required to credit Mr. Ibebuchi’s explanation that he telephoned the clerk’s office and was given incorrect information. Ordinarily, when assessing the hearing judge’s findings of fact, we “give due regard to the opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of witnesses.” Maryland. Rule