Attorney Grievance v. Johnson

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson AG No. 63, September Term 2018 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTION – INDEFINITE SUSPENSION Respondent, Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson, violated several provisions of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”), the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”), and the Maryland Rules when he failed to maintain an attorney trust account, failed to timely remit funds due to clients, failed to safeguard client funds, failed to maintain his trust obligations to clients, made misrepresentations to clients, and commingled funds. Mr. Johnson’s conduct violated the following rules of professional conduct: 1.1 (Competence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.15 (Safekeeping Property); and 8.4 (Misconduct). Mr. Johnson’s conduct also violated the following Maryland Rules: 16-603 (Duty to Maintain Account); 16-604 (Trust Account—Required Deposits); 19-408 (Commingling of Funds); and 19-410 (Prohibited Transactions). This misconduct warrants an indefinite suspension with the right to reapply after one year, providing that Mr. Johnson completes a course emphasizing the responsible maintenance of an attorney trust account.

Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Case No. CAE19-09143 Argued: October 29, 2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG. No. 63 September Term, 2018 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND V. CHAUNCEY BAYARCULUS JOHNSON Barbera, C.J., McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran JJ. Opinion by Getty, J. Watts, J., dissents.

Filed: March 16, 2021 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-06-10 08:22-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk “Do the dull things right so the extraordinary things will not be required too often.” George F. Will, Columnist – Describing the baseball philosophy of Baltimore Orioles manager Earl Weaver.1 Earl Weaver, famous for managing the Baltimore Orioles during their glory days, is often quoted about stressing the fundamentals of playing baseball. Much like in baseball, to properly maintain a law practice, a lawyer must execute basic fundamentals, some of which can, on a daily basis, be dull and monotonous. Establishing and maintaining an attorney trust account requires devoting time and attention to minute details but is fundamental to complying with the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Maintaining strong communications with clients can be monotonous; supervising non- attorney staff can be difficult; and executing other client matters can be dull, but failure to do so can result in violations and misconduct under the rules.

Weaver also said, “The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers.”2 However, for the Maryland attorney, it is all about the fundamentals. 1 George F. Will, Dry Your Eyes, Child, Balt. Sun, Oct. 7, 1982, at A15. Earl Weaver served as manager of the Baltimore Orioles for seventeen years (1968–82; 1985–86). In describing Earl Weaver’s management style, George F. Will also stated that “the secret of Oriole magic is attention to detail.” Id. 2 Baseball Almanac, Quotes from Earl Weaver, https://www.baseball- almanac.com/quotes/quoweav.shtml [https://perma.cc/DX6A-DVFL].

Throughout the course of numerous personal injury representations, Respondent, Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson, repeatedly failed to recognize the fundamentals of operating a Maryland law practice. Mr. Johnson operates a solo law practice in Prince George’s County, Maryland, known as the Law Offices of Chauncey B. Johnson. Mr. Johnson transitioned from working as a schoolteacher to practicing law part-time in 2013, prior to becoming a full-time attorney shortly thereafter. During this transition, Mr. Johnson first transgressed by failing to maintain his client’s settlement funds in an attorney trust account.

Shortly after Mr. Johnson opened an attorney trust account, he alleges that his nephew and non-attorney employee—Romeo Clarke—began misappropriating client funds from that account with the intent to commit theft. The misappropriation of funds from Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account set off a wide-ranging pattern of misconduct spanning twenty-one personal injury clients. For the reasons discussed below, we shall indefinitely suspend Mr. Johnson from the practice of law, with the right to reapply after one year, providing that he completes a course emphasizing the responsible maintenance of an attorney trust account. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Context.

On February 19, 2019, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) with the Court of Appeals alleging that Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson (“Mr. Johnson”) had violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC” or “Rules”), 2 the Maryland Rules, and Maryland Code (1989, 2018 Repl. Vol.) Bus. Occ. & Prof. (“BOP”) § 10-306.3 See Md. Rule 19-721.

The Petition concerned Mr. Johnson’s failure to deposit client funds into an attorney trust account, several instances of financial mismanagement after Mr. Johnson opened an attorney trust account, commingling of funds, failure to supervise a non-attorney employee’s handling of funds, failure to promptly remit funds due to clients, and misrepresentations to clients about their settlements. Based on this conduct, the Petition alleged that Mr. Johnson violated the following Rules: 1.1 (Competence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.15 (Safekeeping Property); 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Non- Attorney Assistants); 5.54 (Unauthorized Practice of Law); and 8.4 (Misconduct). The Petition also alleged violations of the following Maryland Rules: 16-603 (Duty to Maintain Account); 16-604 (Trust Account—Required Deposits); 16-607 and 19-408 (Commingling of Funds); and 16-609 and 19-410 (Prohibited Transactions).5 Finally, the Petition alleged 3 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and recodified without substantive changes in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules. Since Mr. Johnson’s misconduct occurred both before and after the recodification of the MLRPC, he committed violations of the same rules of professional conduct under both the MLRPC and the MARPC.

For simplicity, and because there is no substantive difference in the two codifications of the rules, we shall use the shorter designations of the MLRPC, e.g., “Rule 1.1.” 4 Bar Counsel later withdrew its allegation that Mr. Johnson violated Rule 5.5. 5 Bar Counsel charged Mr. Johnson with violating Maryland Rules 16-603 and 16-604 based on conduct that occurred before July 1, 2016. Effective July 1, 2016, Title 16, Chapter 600 of the Maryland Rules were recodified, without subsequent change, in Title 19, Chapter 400. Rule 16-607 was recodified as Rule 19-408, and Rule 16-609 was 3 that Mr. Johnson violated § 10-306 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Code. See BOP § 10-306 (“A lawyer may not use trust money for any purpose other than the purpose for which the trust money is entrusted to the lawyer.”).

We designated the Honorable Leo E. Green, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County by Order dated March 6, 2019, 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). Mr. Johnson was personally served with process on May 16, 2019, and, on May 22, 2019, this Court entered an Order reassigning the case to be heard by the Honorable Wytonja L. Curry (the “hearing judge”). The evidentiary hearing spanned six days: December 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10, 2019.

Three months after the hearing, on March 18, 2020, Mr. Johnson moved this Court to remand the case for the hearing judge to consider newly discovered evidence or alternatively to include newly discovered evidence in Mr. Johnson’s exceptions to the hearing judge’s finding of facts and conclusions of law. We denied Mr. Johnson’s motion in an Order dated March 27, 2020. The hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in this Court on March 23, 2020, and shortly thereafter, on March 31, 2020, Mr. Johnson moved this Court to reconsider its March 27 Order denying his Motion for Leave to Remand. We denied Mr. Johnson’s Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated April 9, 2020.

Mr. Johnson filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact recodified as Rule 19-410. Because Mr. Johnson’s misconduct under Rules 16-607 and 16-609 occurred both before and after July 1, 2016, Bar Counsel charged Mr. Johnson with violating both versions of the Rules. 4 and recommended conclusions of law on April 23, 2020, and this Court heard oral argument in this matter on October 29, 2020. B. Factual Findings. We begin by summarizing the hearing judge’s factual findings.

Mr. Johnson is originally from Liberia and immigrated to the United States in 1991. He received degrees in engineering and biochemistry from the University of Maryland at College Park. He also completed a teaching certificate in science and math, after which he spent several years working as a teacher. Mr. Johnson then attended the University of Maryland School of Law and, after graduating, was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 20, 2001.

Mr. Johnson did not immediately begin practicing law upon admission to the bar and continued working as a teacher for several years before practicing law part-time in 2013. Sometime between December 2014 and October 2015, Mr. Johnson began practicing law full-time.6 At all relevant times, Mr. Johnson maintained a law office—the Law Offices of Chauncey B. Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s law practice first operated from his home address in Fort Washington, Maryland, and he later opened an office in National Harbor, Maryland. In this matter, the hearing judge first made factual findings involving Mr. Johnson’s failure to maintain an attorney trust account or IOLTA account between 2013 and October 6 The hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are unclear as to when exactly Mr. Johnson began working as a full-time attorney.

The hearing judge first noted that, “by December 2014, [Mr. Johnson] was no longer working as a part[-]time attorney[.]” However, two sentences later, the hearing judge determined that “[Mr. Johnson] began the full-time practice of law in 2015.” Mr. Johnson’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing indicates that he transitioned to the full-time practice of law sometime in the middle of 2015. 5 2015. Then, the hearing judge made factual findings regarding multiple instances of misconduct spanning twenty-one clients. Lastly, the hearing judge made factual findings regarding witness testimony that Mr. Johnson misappropriated client funds. Regarding mitigation, the hearing judge made findings about evidence and testimony that Mr. Johnson suffered from a Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (“GIST tumor”) when his misconduct occurred.7 1.

Mr. Johnson’s failure to maintain an attorney trust account or IOLTA account until October 2015. When Mr. Johnson began practicing law part-time in 2013, he did not maintain an attorney trust account or IOLTA account. Mr. Johnson recognized this in a retainer agreement dated April 28, 2013, that provided: I am currently a part-time lawyer transitioning from the Montgomery County School System and averages very small monthly balances. Therefore the undersigned does not intend to hold monies for you or any client.

Therefore all settlement check(s) will be jointly endorsed before a teller and the money deposited jointly and a check immediately issued to you (the client) “on the spot” representing your portion of the settlement as agreed by the parties. The date to be placed on your check will be determined by the client but the check must be deposited immediately, within a week but preferably sooner. All medical liens signed for by the undersigned less the person injury protection paid directly to the provider will be paid by the undersigned from any source of income available to the undersigned. If you do not agree to this arrangement you are free at this point to hire another attorney or seek legal advice at this junction prior to signing! 7 Dr. Ashraf Meelu testified that Mr. Johnson, while operating his law practice, was suffering from a GIST tumor that affected his ability to practice law.

Although the hearing judge did not opine on the effects of Mr. Johnson’s medical condition in her factual findings, she did weigh the parties’ testimony and evidence regarding Mr. Johnson’s medical condition in her consideration of mitigating factors. 6 (Emphasis and exclamation point in original.) However, on February 26, 2014, and November 10, 2014, Mr. Johnson opened two Bank of America operating accounts (“Account #1945” and “Account #6070”) for his law practice that were not attorney trust accounts or IOLTA accounts. Between April 25, 2014, and September 28, 2015, Mr. Johnson deposited $223,251 in personal injury settlement funds into Account #1945 for eighteen clients. Additionally, on April 10, 2015, Mr. Johnson deposited $11,500 in settlement funds into Account #6070 for one client. Mr. Johnson did not maintain an attorney trust account until October 5, 2015, when he opened an IOLTA attorney trust account at Bank of America.

At all relevant times between 2013 and October 5, 2015, Mr. Johnson was required to receive informed consent from his clients before depositing client funds into an account other than an attorney trust account.8 The hearing judge found that Mr. Johnson’s April 28, 2013, retainer agreement provided notice that he did not intend to hold client funds. But, in highlighting that Mr. Johnson’s December 2014 retainer agreement no longer contained similar language, the hearing judge found that Mr. Johnson had ceased providing such notice.9 Based on the language of Mr. Johnson’s December 2014 retainer agreement, the hearing judge found that Mr. Johnson failed to obtain his clients’ informed consent to deposit settlement funds into an operating account instead of an attorney trust account from 8 See Rule 1.15. 9 The hearing judge declined to make a finding that Mr. Johnson failed to obtain informed consent from clients before December 2014 because “[t]he retainer agreements for dates prior to December 2014 were not admitted into evidence.” 7 December 2014 through October 2015.10 We now turn to twenty-one client representations that primarily involve personal injury settlements arising from automobile accidents. 2. Representation of Chrisha Robinson. Ms. Chrisha Robinson testified at the evidentiary hearing that she retained Mr. Johnson to represent her in a personal injury case arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

During the representation, on November 23, 2015, United States Automobile Association (“USAA”) issued an $8,900 settlement check made payable to Ms. Robinson and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson endorsed and deposited Ms. Robinson’s settlement check on December 1, 2015, without notifying her of its arrival or obtaining her endorsement. Mr. Johnson failed to advise Ms. Robinson that he was in possession of her settlement funds until three months later on March 1, 2016. Ms. Robinson testified that she had contacted Mr. Johnson five or six times between December 1, 2015, and March 1, 2016, about the status of her settlement check.

Mr. Johnson did not advise Ms. Robinson that he had received her settlement check in December 2015—instead telling her that he had not received any funds and that he was working to secure the check from USAA. After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. Robinson was $5,663. Yet, when Mr. Johnson remitted Ms. Robinson’s settlement funds in March 2016, he issued her a partial payment drawn on his attorney trust account for $4,508 and a settlement disbursement sheet. 10 Mr. Johnson concedes that this conduct violated Rule 1.15(a). 8 Mr. Johnson failed to pay out his remaining $1,155 trust obligation for over a year. On or about November 21, 2017, he issued Ms. Robinson a $1,155.38 check drawn on his attorney trust account and a second settlement disbursement sheet.

While Mr. Johnson met his remaining trust obligation to Ms. Robinson when he paid out the second $1,155.38 check, he misled Ms. Robinson about the origin of the funds.11 Ms. Robinson testified that, upon arriving at Mr. Johnson’s office, he explained that the check was a “refund” from a payment discrepancy between himself and Ms. Robinson’s physical therapist. The hearing judge found that Mr. Johnson’s bank records indicate that he did not pay, or receive a refund from, any medical provider on behalf of Ms. Robinson. The hearing judge accordingly determined that Mr. Johnson intentionally misled Ms. Robinson about the origin of the second settlement check, which was provided by Mr. Johnson in fulfillment of his outstanding trust obligation. Throughout Mr. Johnson’s representation of Ms. Robinson, his attorney trust account balance frequently dropped below his $5,663 trust obligation.

On December 31, 2015, Mr. Johnson’s month-end account balance for his attorney trust account was $1,900. On January 31, 2016, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account month-end balance was $100. As a result of a $30,000 settlement in a different case, unrelated to Ms. Robinson, Mr. Johnson’s February 29, 2016, month-end account balance was $20,082. However, after Mr. Johnson’s first partial payment of $4,508 in March 2016, the month-end balance of his attorney trust account again dropped below his remaining $1,155 trust obligation in the 11 Mr. Johnson disputes this fact.

See infra Discussion section (A). 9 following months: April 2016, June 2016, December 2016, April 2017, May 2017, June 2017, July 2017, August 2017, and September 2017.12 Even so, Mr. Johnson withdrew his earned fee for Ms. Robinson’s client matter in March 2016. The hearing judge therefore determined that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation and made misrepresentations to Ms. Robinson about her settlement. 3. Representation of Kevin Ross. Mr. Johnson represented Mr. Kevin Ross on a contingency fee basis beginning on January 22, 2015.

During the representation, the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund issued a $3,400 settlement check on November 30, 2015, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ross. However, on December 7, 2015, Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Ross’ settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying Mr. Ross or obtaining his endorsement. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Mr. Ross’ settlement funds until August 15, 2016, over eight months after Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Ross’ settlement check. On August 15, Mr. Johnson issued Mr. Ross a $3,500 check drawn on his attorney trust account.13 12 The hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law does not indicate how many times Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance dropped below his trust obligation to Ms. Robinson between March 1, 2017, and November 21, 2017.

The hearing judge only provided findings as to Mr. Johnson’s month-end balances. 13 Despite the parties’ agreed upon contingency fee, Mr. Johnson’s client file for Mr. Ross sheds light on why Mr. Johnson did not deduct his earned fee or costs from Mr. Ross’ settlement. Mr. Johnson’s client file indicates that the “[c]lient needs money[,] entire check will be given to the client plus $100 extra dollars. Client $311.65 cost will be forgiven as well.” 10 Because Mr. Johnson was not holding additional funds for Mr. Ross beyond his $3,400 settlement, Mr. Johnson’s $100 overpayment created a client ledger balance of negative $100. Moreover, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account month-end balance dropped below his $3,400 obligation in the following months: December 2015, January 2016, March 2016, April 2016, and June 2016.14 4.

Representation of Gina Byrd. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Ms. Gina Byrd, the Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”) issued a $7,500 settlement check on December 9, 2015, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Byrd. Without notifying Ms. Byrd or obtaining her endorsement, Mr. Johnson deposited Ms. Byrd’s settlement check into his attorney trust account on December 15, 2015. After deducting attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. Byrd was $4,300.

Mr. Johnson failed to remit Ms. Byrd’s settlement funds until April 1, 2016, over three months after he deposited Ms. Byrd’s settlement check. Yet, when Mr. Johnson paid out Ms. Byrd’s settlement funds, he only issued her a partial payment of $2,500. From December 15, 2015, to April 1, 2016, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account month-end balance dropped below his $4,300 trust obligation in three months: December 2015, January 2016, and March 2016. During the same time period, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance dropped below his trust obligation fourteen times.

Mr. Johnson failed 14 The hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law also did not provide how many times that Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance dropped below his trust obligation to Mr. Ross. The hearing judge only provided findings as to Mr. Johnson’s month-end balances. 11 to pay out his remaining $1,800 trust obligation until October 5, 2017, over one year after making his first settlement payment to Ms. Byrd. The hearing judge accordingly determined that, between April 1, 2016, and October 5, 2017, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account month-end balance dropped below his remaining $1,800 obligation.15 In April or May 2016, Mr. Johnson earned his fee, but he failed to withdraw those funds from his attorney trust account for over four months. The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation and, by not timely removing his earned fee, commingled funds. 5.

Representation of Clarence Weefur. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Mr. Clarence Weefur, the Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) issued a $30,000 settlement check on February 22, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Weefur. However, before Mr. Johnson deposited the $30,000 check into his attorney trust account, $19,800 was withdrawn from his attorney trust account in connection with Mr. Weefur’s client matter. This transaction created a client ledger balance of negative $19,800.

Yet, on February 26, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Weefur’s settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying Mr. Weefur or obtaining his endorsement. After Mr. Johnson deposited the settlement check, several additional withdrawals were made in connection with Mr. 15 The hearing judge did not state in which months, or how many times, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance dropped below his remaining $1,800 trust obligation to Ms. Byrd. 12 Weefur’s client matter, which caused a consistently negative client ledger balance between February 2016 and March 2018. On August 17, 2016, six months after Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Weefur’s GEICO settlement check, the Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (“Allstate”) issued a $10,957.03 settlement check made payable to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Weefur. On September 2, 2016, Mr. Johnson again deposited Mr. Weefur’s settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying Mr. Weefur or obtaining his endorsement.

The hearing judge determined that Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation, after attorney’s fees and costs, was $20,000 to Mr. Weefur and $526.74 to the Revenue Administration Division of the Maryland Comptroller on Mr. Weefur’s behalf, for a total obligation of $20,526.74. Mr. Johnson remitted $20,000 to Mr. Weefur from his attorney trust account, but he did so by making five partial payments of: $5,000 on June 10, 2016; $2,500 on July 16, 2016; $2,500 on July 31, 2016; $5,000 on September 6, 2016; and $5,000 on September 20, 2016. Over two years after depositing Mr. Weefur’s first settlement check, on March 1, 2018, Mr. Johnson paid out $526.74 to the Revenue Administration Division. Between February 2016 and March 2018, the balance of Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account dropped below his trust obligation eighty-one times.

The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 6. Representation of Jennifer Heaven. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Ms. Jennifer Heaven, USAA issued a $7,500 settlement check on March 20, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Heaven. However, on April 6, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited Ms. Heaven’s settlement 13 check into his attorney trust account without notifying her or obtaining her endorsement.

After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. Heaven was $4,000. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Ms. Heaven’s settlement funds until June 1, 2016, almost two months after he deposited her settlement check. Between April 6, 2016, and June 1, 2016, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance dropped below his $4,000 trust obligation six times. The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 7.

Representation of Itati Hernandez. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Ms. Itati Hernandez, Erie Insurance Group (“Erie Insurance”) issued a $9,000 settlement check on March 22, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Hernandez. However, on March 24, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited Ms. Hernandez’s settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying her or obtaining her endorsement. After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. Hernandez was $5,000.

Mr. Johnson failed to remit Ms. Hernandez’s settlement funds until August 23, 2016, almost five months after depositing Ms. Hernandez’s settlement check. Between March 24, 2016, and August 23, 2016, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance dropped below his $5,000 trust obligation sixteen times. Additionally, Mr. Johnson failed to remove his earned fee from his attorney trust account until August 2016. The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation and, by not timely removing his earned fee, commingled funds. 8.

Representation of Santos Hernandez. 14 During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Mr. Santos Hernandez, Erie Insurance issued a $8,500 settlement check on March 22, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hernandez. However, on March 28, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Hernandez’s settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying Mr. Hernandez or obtaining his endorsement. After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Mr. Hernandez was $4,500. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Mr. Hernandez’s settlement funds until November 16, 2016, over seven months after Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Hernandez’s settlement check.

Between March 28, 2016, and November 16, 2016, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance fell below his $4,500 trust obligation twenty-nine times. The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 9. Representation of Louise Price. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Ms. Louise Price, GEICO issued a $7,250 settlement check on April 13, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Price.

However, on April 18, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited Ms. Price’s settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying her or obtaining her endorsement. After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. Price was $5,250. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Ms. Price’s settlement funds until August 16, 2016, over three months after depositing Ms. Price’s settlement check. Between April 18, 2016, and August 16, 2016, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance fell below his $5,250 trust obligation thirteen times.

The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 10. Representation of Byme Taylor. 15 During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Mr. Byme Taylor, GEICO issued an $8,300 settlement check on April 27, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Taylor. However, on May 3, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Taylor’s settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying Mr. Taylor or obtaining his endorsement. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Mr. Taylor’s settlement funds until January 10, 2017, over eight months after depositing Mr. Taylor’s settlement check.

Mr. Johnson issued a $2,500 payment drawn on his attorney trust account to “Whosoever Will Christian Church” on Mr. Taylor’s behalf. However, Mr. Johnson deducted as attorney’s fees a majority of Mr. Taylor’s settlement funds, earned by providing legal work on unrelated matters. When Mr. Johnson made the payment, he was only holding $100 of Mr. Taylor’s funds in trust and the payment caused a client ledger balance of negative $2,400. Between April 27, 2016, and January 10, 2017, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance fell below his trust obligation nineteen times.

The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation to Mr. Taylor. 11. Representation of Ajamu and Shelly Patterson. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Mr. Ajamu Patterson and Ms. Shelly Patterson, Progressive issued two separate $7,100 settlement checks on May 23, 2016. Mr. Patterson’s check was made payable to himself and Mr. Johnson, while Ms. Patterson’s check was made payable to herself and Mr. Johnson.

Two days later, on May 25, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited both checks into his attorney trust account without notifying the Pattersons or obtaining either clients’ endorsement. Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation was 16 $7,900 to the Pattersons collectively, and $1,280 to Wilkins Chiropractic Center, which was one of the Pattersons’ medical providers. Mr. Johnson did not remit Ms. Patterson’s settlement funds until July 20, 2016, and Mr. Patterson’s funds until July 28, 2016. Mr. Johnson waited over one year before remitting the funds due to Wilkins Chiropractic Center on August 25, 2017.

Between May 25, 2016, and July 28, 2016, when Mr. Johnson paid out the Pattersons’ settlement funds, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account dropped below his $7,900 trust obligation nine times. From May 25, 2016, until August 25, 2017, when Mr. Johnson paid out Wilkins Chiropractic Center, his attorney trust account balance fell below his remaining $1,280 trust obligation twenty-five times. The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation to the Pattersons and Wilkins Chiropractic Center. 12. Representation of Teressa Fultz.

During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Ms. Teressa Fultz, GEICO issued a $7,736 settlement check on June 3, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Fultz. However, on June 10, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited Ms. Fultz’s settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying her or obtaining her endorsement. After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. Fultz was $5,736. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Ms. Fultz’s settlement funds until August 16, 2016, and allowed his attorney trust account balance to fall below his $5,736 trust obligation nine times.

The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 13. Representation of Chardae Bell. 17 During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Ms. Chardae Bell, the State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (“State Farm”) issued an $8,500 settlement check on August 4, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Bell. However, on August 9, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited Ms. Bell’s settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying her or obtaining her endorsement. After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. Bell was $5,243.12.

Mr. Johnson failed to remit Ms. Bell’s settlement funds until August 15, 2017, over one year after he deposited Ms. Bell’s settlement check. Between August 9, 2016, and August 15, 2017, Mr. Johnson’s trust account fell below his $5,243.12 trust obligation fifty-eight times. The hearing judge therefore determined that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 14. Representation of Victoria McCollum.

During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Ms. Victoria McCollum, State Farm issued a $6,000 settlement check on August 4, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Ms. McCollum. On August 9, 2016, Mr. Johnson deposited Ms. McCollum’s settlement check into his attorney trust account without notifying her or obtaining her endorsement. After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. McCollum was $4,000. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Ms. McCollum’s settlement funds until November 4, 2016, over two months after depositing her settlement check.

Between August 9, 2016, and November 4, 2016, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance fell below his $4,000 trust obligation nine times. The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 15. Representation of India Gooden. 18 Ms. India Gooden testified at the evidentiary hearing that she retained Mr. Johnson in 2016 to represent her in a personal injury case resulting from an automobile accident.16 During the representation, State Farm issued a $6,200 settlement check on August 4, 2016, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Gooden. However, Mr. Johnson deposited Ms. Gooden’s settlement check into his attorney trust account on August 9, 2016, without notifying her or obtaining her endorsement.

After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. Gooden was $3,727.62. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Ms. Gooden’s settlement proceeds until January 13, 2017, over five months after depositing Ms. Gooden’s settlement check. However, when Mr. Johnson paid Ms. Gooden, he issued her a $2,000 partial payment drawn from Account #1945—an operating account that is not an attorney trust account. Ms. Gooden testified that, between August 9, 2016, and January 13, 2017, when Mr. Johnson issued the $2,000 check, Mr. Johnson did not inform her that he had received her settlement funds.

Instead, Ms. Gooden testified that she had asked about the status of her settlement funds five or six times and that Mr. Johnson maintained he was waiting for State Farm to issue the check. The hearing judge accordingly found that Mr. Johnson misrepresented the amount of settlement proceeds that Ms. Gooden was entitled to receive on January 13, 2017. The hearing judge also found that Mr. Johnson misrepresented the origin of a second payment made to Ms. Gooden in August 2017, after he advised her that State Farm had 16 Ms. McCollum and Ms. Bell—also clients of Mr. Johnson—were passengers in Ms. Gooden’s vehicle when the accident occurred. See supra Background sections B(13), (14). 19 paid out additional funds.

On or around August 15, 2017, Ms. Gooden visited Mr. Johnson’s office to receive her additional funds, but Mr. Johnson refused to issue the funds unless she signed and notarized an affidavit stating: “I, India Gooden, hereby affirmed [sic] under penalty of perjury that Mr. Johnson kept me updated and obtained approval about the entire case throughout 2016 and 2017.” Mr. Johnson accompanied Ms. Gooden to a notary public to have her sign the affidavit, and upon returning to Mr. Johnson’s office, he issued her a $3,727.62 check drawn on his attorney trust account. However, after receiving Ms. Gooden’s affidavit and issuing her the $3,727.62 check, Mr. Johnson requested that she deposit the check and return $2,000 in cash to him. Mr. Johnson presented Ms. Gooden with a settlement disbursement sheet to sign that did not mention the $2,000 payment made on January 13, 2017, or Mr. Johnson’s request that she return $2,000 in cash to him. Ms. Gooden ultimately signed the settlement disbursement sheet but, after Mr. Johnson refused to provide additional documentation about his previous $2,000 payment to her, the parties got into a verbal altercation and a third-party called the police.

Ms. Gooden left Mr. Johnson’s office with the $3,727.62 check and deposited it on August 16, 2017, without returning $2,000 in cash to Mr. Johnson. Based on Mr. Johnson’s August 2017 encounter with Ms. Gooden, the hearing judge again found that he had made intentional misrepresentations to Ms. Gooden when he misled her about the origin of the $3,727.62 check. At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Johnson testified that his nephew and non-attorney employee—Romeo Clarke—misappropriated Ms. Gooden’s settlement funds in the process of stealing client funds from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson first explained that Mr. 20 Clarke stole funds by depositing client settlement checks into Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account without Mr. Johnson’s or the client’s knowledge.

According to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Clarke then transferred client funds from Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account to Account #6070 and used a debit card associated with that account to steal funds. Mr. Johnson also testified about the circumstances surrounding Ms. Gooden’s $2,000 settlement payment on January 13, 2017. Mr. Johnson maintained that Mr. Clarke was in a relationship with Ms. Gooden and used one of two blank checks left in the office by Mr. Johnson for emergency purposes to pay her without Mr. Johnson’s knowledge. Even so, the hearing judge declined to make a finding that the $2,000 check issued to Ms. Gooden from Account #1945 was a blank check that was left in Mr. Johnson’s office for emergency purposes and issued by Mr. Clarke.

The hearing judge therefore declined to make a finding that Mr. Clarke misappropriated Ms. Gooden’s settlement funds and that Mr. Clarke made the $2,000 payment to Ms. Gooden using a blank check left in Mr. Johnson’s office for emergency purposes. 16. Representation of Emmett and Nyan Acquoi. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Mr. Emmett Acquoi and Ms. Nyan Acquoi, Allstate issued two separate $4,300 settlement checks on September 15, 2016. Mr. Acquoi’s check was made payable to himself and Mr. Johnson, while Ms. Acquoi’s check was made payable to herself and Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson deposited both settlement checks into his attorney trust account on September 29, 2016, without notifying the Acquois or obtaining either clients’ endorsement. After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s total trust obligation to the Acquois was $4,200. Mr. Johnson did not remit the 21 Acquois’ settlement funds until October 14, 2016, and the hearing judge determined that he did so using settlement proceeds received in connection with other client matters. Between September 29, 2016, and October 14, 2016, the balance of Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account was $900.03.

Therefore, the hearing judge also determined that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 17. Representation of Gustavo Sandoval. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Mr. Gustavo Sandoval, Erie Insurance issued a $3,000 settlement check on September 29, 2016, made payable to Mr. Sandoval and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson endorsed and deposited Mr. Sandoval’s settlement check on October 4, 2016, without notifying Mr. Sandoval or obtaining his endorsement.

After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Mr. Sandoval was $1,857.41. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Mr. Sandoval’s settlement funds until August 25, 2017, more than ten months after Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Sandoval’s settlement check. Between October 4, 2016, and August 25, 2017, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance dropped below his trust obligation twenty-five times. The hearing judge therefore determined that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 18.

Representation of Aloysius Glover. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Mr. Aloysius Glover, USAA issued a $12,000 settlement check on October 19, 2016, made payable to Mr. Glover and Mr. Johnson. Without notifying Mr. Glover or receiving his endorsement, Mr. Johnson 22 deposited Mr. Glover’s settlement check into his attorney trust account.17 After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Mr. Glover was $6,887. Mr. Johnson did not remit Mr. Glover’s settlement funds until August 15, 2017, over nine months after Mr. Glover’s settlement check was issued by USAA.

Between October 28, 2016, and August 15, 2017, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance fell below his trust obligation fifty times. The hearing judge therefore found that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation. 19. Representation of Kelly Frosolone. During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Ms. Kelly Frosolone, Progressive issued three separate settlement checks on April 5, 2017, totaling $10,000, for Ms. Frosolone and her two minor children.18 Mr. Johnson deposited all three settlement checks into his attorney trust account on April 13, 2017, without notifying Ms. Frosolone or obtaining her endorsement.

Ms. Frosolone’s $8,500 check was returned by Bank of America because of an ineffective endorsement on April 18, 2017. Progressive re-issued the $8,500 check on April 25, 2017, and, on May 1, 2017, Mr. Johnson again deposited the check into his attorney trust account without obtaining Ms. Frosolone’s endorsement. After attorney’s fees and costs, Mr. Johnson’s trust obligation to Ms. Frosolone and her children was $5,200. Mr. Johnson failed to remit Ms. Frosolone’s settlement funds 17 The record indicates that Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Glover’s settlement check into his attorney trust account on October 28, 2016. 18 Ms. Frosolone’s settlement check was for $8,500 and her children’s checks were for $1,000 and $500 respectively. 23 until July 7, 2017, around three months after he received the three settlement checks.

The hearing judge found that, between April 13, 2017, and July 7, 2017, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account balance dropped below his $5,200 obligation eight times. Moreover, the hearing judge found that Mr. Johnson withdrew $800 in “miscellaneous cost[s]” pertaining to Ms. Frosolone’s client matter and failed to remove those funds until July 7, 2017. The hearing judge therefore determined that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his trust obligation and, by failing to remove costs associated with Ms. Frosolone’s client matter for three months, commingled funds. 20. Representation of Edward Feustel.

During Mr. Johnson’s representation of Mr. Edward Feustel, Progressive issued a $6,000 settlement check on June 28, 2017, made payable to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Feustel. Mr. Johnson endorsed and deposited Mr. Feustel’s settlement check into his attorney trust account on July 3, 2017, without notifying Mr. Feustel or obtaining his endorsement. Mr. Johnson testified at the evidentiary hearing that $4,000 of Mr. Feustel’s settlement funds belonged to him in repayment of a loan that he previously made to Mr. Feustel. Although $4,000 of Mr. Feustel’s settlement funds belonged to Mr. Johnson, he deposited all of Mr. Feustel’s settlement funds into his attorney trust account.

Mr. Johnson testified that he deposited Mr. Feustel’s settlement check because he wanted to bring his attorney trust account into balance, however Mr. Johnson subsequently used these funds to pay out other clients. The hearing judge therefore found that, by depositing Mr. Feustel’s funds into his attorney trust account and using those funds to pay out other clients, Mr. Johnson commingled funds. 24 In November 2017, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Feustel renegotiated the terms of their outstanding loan and Mr. Johnson issued Mr. Feustel a $2,590 settlement check. Later, Mr. Feustel made four $1,000 payments to repay Mr. Johnson for the outstanding loan. The hearing judge also found that, as of July 3, 2017, Mr. Johnson had a $910 trust obligation to Adolph & Kalkstein Chiropractic.

Mr. Johnson failed to remit those funds until November 18, 2017, over four months after depositing Mr. Feustel’s settlement check. Throughout Mr. Johnson’s representation of Mr. Feustel, the hearing judge found that Mr. Johnson failed to manage his trust account, failed to provide competent representation, and failed to promptly remit funds to Mr. Feustel and Adolph & Kalkstein Chiropractic. 21. Testimony Regarding Mr. Johnson’s Alleged Misappropriation of Funds. Finally, the hearing judge made factual findings about the parties’ testimony concerning the misappropriation of client funds from Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account.

Bar Counsel presented testimony from Ms. Robinson, Ms. Gooden, and Charles Miller, a Forensic Investigator and Certified Public Accountant for the Attorney Grievance Commission.19 Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, presented testimony from Jeffery Barsky and Robert Waller, both of whom are Certified Public Accountants who were accepted by the hearing judge as experts in accounting, forensic accounting, and fraud examination. Mr. Johnson also presented testimony from Dr. Ashraf Meelu, a medical doctor who was 19 Mr. Miller was not presented as an expert witness, and his testimony generally concerned client transaction summaries based on Mr. Johnson’s Bank of America account documents, client ledgers, and client files. 25 accepted by the hearing judge as an expert witness in oncology. Additionally, Mr. Johnson, and his wife, Ms. Andrea Johnson, testified at the evidentiary hearing. Based on Mr. Waller’s and Mr. Barsky’s testimony, the hearing judge first declined to make a finding that Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account would have been in balance but for Mr. Clarke’s alleged transfer of funds associated with Mr. Weefur’s client matter.

Mr. Johnson conceded that funds were misappropriated from his attorney trust account in connection with Mr. Weefur’s client matter. However, Mr. Johnson’s expert witness testimony shifted the blame entirely to Mr. Clarke and sought to discredit Mr. Miller’s testimony and client transaction summaries. Mr. Johnson’s expert witnesses testified that Mr. Johnson failed to maintain his client trust obligations because Mr. Clarke—acting alone and with the intent to steal client funds from Mr. Johnson—transferred $73,945.17 in fees and expenses from Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account. According to Mr. Johnson’s expert witnesses, Mr. Clarke’s alleged transfers were only associated with Mr. Weefur’s client matter.

Furthermore, Mr. Johnson’s expert witnesses testified that Mr. Clarke stole $57,456.56 by transferring client funds from Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account to Account #6070 and using a debit card associated with that account to make purchases and withdrawals. Mr. Johnson’s expert witnesses therefore concluded that, but for Mr. Clarke’s alleged actions, Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account would not have been out of balance at any point in time.20 20 Mr. Johnson’s expert witnesses also highlighted the remedial actions taken by Mr. Johnson after discovering the transfers, concluding that all of Mr. Johnson’s clients were paid in full and that Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account remained in balance from October 2017 through March 2018. 26 Because Mr. Johnson maintained that his attorney trust account imbalances stemmed from transfers made in connection with Mr. Weefur’s client matter, Mr. Barsky also testified about Mr. Johnson’s specific trust obligations during Mr. Weefur’s representation. Mr. Johnson represented Mr. Weefur on a contingency fee basis regarding his insurance settlements. At the same time, Mr. Barsky testified that Mr. Johnson also agreed to negotiate Mr. Weefur’s medical debts on his behalf after those costs exceeded his insurance settlement proceeds.

Mr. Johnson charged $350 per hour for this work and Mr. Barsky testified that, by the time Mr. Johnson deposited Mr. Weefur’s $30,000 GEICO settlement check into his attorney trust account, Mr. Johnson’s contingency fee and earned hourly fee had exceeded $30,000. However, Mr. Johnson’s testimony did not confirm whom Mr. Weefur’s $30,000 settlement check belonged to at the time Mr. Johnson deposited it into his attorney trust account or whether his ledger for Mr. Weefur’s client matter was accurate. Contrary to Mr. Barsky’s testimony that Mr. Johnson had earned Mr. Weefur’s settlement funds, Mr. Johnson remitted $20,000 from his attorney trust account, and $4,000 from his operating account, to Mr. Weefur. The hearing judge therefore found that, because Mr. Johnson did not sufficiently explain his accounting in Mr. Weefur’s client matter, or verify the information that Mr. Barsky’s expert testimony relied on, she could not make a finding that 27 Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account would have been in balance but for the transfers associated with Mr. Weefur’s client matter.21 The hearing judge also declined to credit Mr. Waller’s testimony about Mr. Clarke’s alleged theft or make a finding that Mr. Miller’s testimony and summaries were unreliable.

Mr. Waller testified about Mr. Clarke’s alleged theft of funds associated with Mr. Weefur’s client matter, and Mr. Johnson requested that the hearing judge credit Mr. Waller’s testimony based on his qualifications, use of corroborating documentary evidence, adherence to industry-standard methodology, and thorough analysis of Mr. Johnson’s client documents. Mr. Johnson also requested that the hearing judge discredit Mr. Miller’s summaries and testimony as unreliable because Mr. Miller did not conduct a theft or shortfall analysis, did not review pertinent documents, and failed to interview witnesses.22 The hearing judge declined to make these findings regarding Mr. Waller’s and Mr. Miller’s testimony. Next, the hearing judge determined that, although she declined to make a finding that Mr. Johnson participated in the misappropriation of funds, she did not find credible 21 The hearing judge also highlighted that an addendum contract modifying Mr. Johnson’s original retainer agreement with Mr. Weefur was not signed until February 2016, two months after withdrawals started being made from Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account that matched with his hourly rate. 22 Mr. Johnson’s expert witnesses also testified that Mr. Miller’s calculations concerning Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account were incorrect and that Bar Counsel’s accounting evidence did not conform with AICPA methodology, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), or AICPA’s Statement of Financial Concepts Number 2, paragraph 160. 28 Mr. Johnson’s testimony that he was unaware of the misappropriation. Mr. Johnson testified that he personally settled his clients’ personal injury cases and knew when to expect each settlement check.

Moreover, Mr. Johnson endorsed several client settlement checks, and in Ms. Robinson’s and Ms. Gooden’s client matters, Mr. Johnson made affirmative misrepresentations about the arrival of their settlement checks. Based on Mr. Johnson’s actions and his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the hearing judge declined to make a finding that Mr. Johnson was unaware of the misappropriation of funds from his attorney trust account. Lastly, despite Mr. Waller’s and Mr. Barsky’s testimony that Mr. Clarke’s theft caused Mr. Johnson’s attorney trust account to remain out of balance, the hearing judge discredited Mr. Johnson’s testimony that both he and his wife were unaware of Mr. Clarke’s unauthorized withdrawals from Account #6070. Mr. and Ms. Johnson both had access to the debit card associated with Account #6070, which Mr. Clarke allegedly used to steal funds, and Ms. Johnson testified that she had created journals to determine who made purchases and cash withdrawals from the account.

Moreover, by Mr. Johnson’s own admission and Mr. Barsky’s schedule of expenditures for Account #6070, Mr. Johnson spent $127,978.22 from Account #6070 between December 2015 and October 2016. Because Mr. and Ms. Johnson had control over Account #6070, used the debit card associated with the account, and maintained journals to track withdrawals from the account, the hearing judge declined to make a finding that Mr. Johnson was unaware of Mr. Clarke’s unauthorized transactions. However, because Mr. Johnson, Ms. Johnson, and Mr. Clarke all had access to the debit card associated with Account #6070, the hearing 29 judge also declined to make a finding as to which person made the unauthorized transactions. STANDARD OF REVIEW In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error a hearing judge’s findings of fact, and reviews without deference a hearing judge’s conclusions of law.

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.”). 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 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 30 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. Mr. Johnson notes several exceptions to both the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We shall address each in turn. A. Exceptions to the Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact.

Mr. Johnson takes exception to five of the hearing judge’s factual findings: (1) that Mr. Johnson was not suffering from the effects of his GIST tumor when client funds were misappropriated from his attorney trust account; (2) that Mr. Miller’s testimony and summaries were admissible; (3) that Mr. Johnson made misrepresentations to Ms. Robinson; (4) that Mr. Johnson did not pay out $2,500 in settlement proceeds to Mr. Taylor; and (5) that Mr. Johnson made misrepresentations to Ms. Gooden. A hearing judge is given “a great deal of discretion in determining which evidence to rely upon.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Miller, 467 Md. 176, 195 (2020) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Woolery, 462 Md. 209, 230 (2018)). Therefore, this Court “generally ‘defer[s] to the credibility findings of the hearing judge.’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136, 181 (2014) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 695, 722 (2014)). We do so because “[t]he hearing judge is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and to decide which one to believe and, 31 as we have said, to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662 , 683–84 (2002)); see also Woolery, 462 Md. at 230 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“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.”). Mr. Johnson first excepts to the hearing judge’s determination that he was not suffering from symptoms of his GIST tumor when client funds were misappropriated from his attorney trust account. However, the hearing judge was in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses presented at the evidentiary hearing when she found that Mr. Johnson “did not introduce any credible evidence establishing that he was experiencing any symptoms [of his GIST tumor]” between 2015 and 2017—when the misappropriation occurred. Although Dr. Meelu testified about the effects of Mr. Johnson’s GIST tumor dating back to 2015, the hearing judge determined that Mr. Johnson was not entitled to mitigation as a result of his diagnosis because he “never saw a specialist, was never hospitalized, and did not receive any blood transfusions” during this timeframe.

Mr. Johnson’s arguments that the hearing judge incorrectly focused on acute anemia, rather than chronic anemia, and ignored Dr. Meelu’s testimony regarding Mr. Johnson’s anemia both fail. The hearing judge made no mention of “acute” anemia in her findings of fact or conclusions of law and credited Dr. Meelu’s testimony on cross-examination that Mr. Johnson “was not suffering from anemia as late as June 2016.” 32 Therefore, the credibility determination made by the hearing judge—after considering the evidence and testimony from Dr. Meelu and Mr. Johnson—is one that this Court defers to absent clear error. Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B) (“Th[is] Court shall give due regard to the opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of witnesses.”). We find no clear error. “[T]he hearing judge was in the best position to evaluate the veracity of [Mr. Johnson’s] explanation regarding [his] alleged violation[s] of the [Rules]” when she found that Mr. Johnson “failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was suffering from a physical disability at the time of the misconduct.” Miller, 467 Md. at 195 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kepple, 432 Md. 214 , 226–27 (2013)).

We therefore overrule Mr. Johnson’s exception. Next, Mr. Johnson excepts to the hearing judge’s decision to credit Mr. Miller’s summaries as reliable and contends that Mr. Miller should have been prohibited from introducing them at the evidentiary hearing. Mr. Johnson primarily contends that Mr. Miller should not have been permitted to testify about his summaries at the evidentiary hearing because he was not designated as an expert witness, his summaries included expert analysis, and his summaries were not timely disclosed. However, this Court addressed similar summaries presented by Mr. Miller in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sanderson, 465 Md. 1 , 37–38 (2019).

In Sanderson, this Court overruled Garland Sanderson’s exception to Mr. Miller’s testimony because: The activities which Mr. Miller engaged in do not require any particular expertise in a subject-matter. Mr. Miller, in his role as investigator, reviewed the bank records obtained from Wells Fargo and placed some of this information, concerning Mr. Sanderson’s trust account, in tables detailing the transactions. In this regard, Mr. Miller acted as a fact witness and merely 33 noted data from the financial records and recorded this information in tables for greater ease of access. In his review, Mr. Miller offered no expertise, merely reiterated numbers from the records, and the subject-matter did not require a particular level of expertise.

Accordingly, Mr. Miller testified as a fact witness instead of an expert witness[.] Sanderson, 465 Md. at 38 . We also find that Mr. Miller’s testimony here, which relied on summaries created from Mr. Johnson’s Bank of America records, client ledgers, and subpoenaed documents, was within the ken of a layperson witness. See id. at 37–38 (citing Dorsey v. Nold, 362 Md. 241, 257 (2001)) (“[W]e have held that individuals testify as expert witnesses where they opine in a particular matter on subjects which laypersons would typically be unable to grasp.”). Mr. Miller’s summaries here do not require any particular expertise in a subject matter and, contrary to