Attorney Grievance v. Leatherman

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jennifer Lynn Leatherman, Misc. Docket AG No. 40, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Hotten, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – DISBARMENT The Court of Appeals disbarred Respondent, Jennifer Lynn Leatherman, from the practice of law in Maryland. Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19- 301.5 (Fees), 19-301.15 (Safekeeping Property), 19-301.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4 (Misconduct).

These violations stemmed from Respondent’s representation of two clients in separate immigration and family law matters. Respondent accepted $2,500 and $2,000 in retainers for each matter, but provided little to no legal services of value. Respondent failed to deposit and maintain client funds in an attorney trust account until earned. Respondent knowingly and intentionally re-deposited a check that caused $2,500 to be fraudulently debited from a personal bank account of a client.

Respondent failed to propound discovery, failed to respond to opposing counsel’s discovery requests, failed to adequately communicate with clients about the status of their cases, failed to timely deliver a client file to successor counsel, and failed to timely execute a Substitution of Counsel. Respondent made knowingly and intentionally false statements to Bar Counsel, failed to timely and completely answer Bar Counsel inquiries, and failed to participate in disciplinary proceedings. In aggregate, Respondent’s conduct warranted disbarment. Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 483878-V Argument waived/submitted on papers IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc.

Docket AG No. 40 September Term, 2020 __________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. JENNIFER LYNN LEATHERMAN __________________________________ Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran, JJ. __________________________________ Opinion by Hotten, J. __________________________________ Filed: August 4, 2021 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-08-04 14:00-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) on October 19, 2020 against Jennifer Lynn Leatherman (“Respondent”), in connection with two complaints filed by two former clients that she represented in an immigration and a family law matter. In the Petition, Bar Counsel alleged that Respondent violated the following Maryland Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”): 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-301.5 (Fees), 19-301.15 (Safekeeping Property), 19-301.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4 (Misconduct). On October 20, 2020, pursuant to Md. Rules 19-722(a)1 and 19-727,2 this Court designated the Honorable Jeannie E. Cho of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County 1 Maryland Rule 19-722(a) provides in pertinent part, “Upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the Court of Appeals may enter an order designating (1) a judge of any circuit court to hear the action, and (2) the clerk responsible for maintaining the record.” 2 Maryland Rule 19-727 provides in pertinent part: (a) Evidence and Procedure Generally. Except as otherwise provided by the Rules in this Chapter, the hearing of a disciplinary or remedial action is governed by the rules of evidence and procedure applicable to a non-jury trial in a civil action in a circuit court. *** (d) Findings and Conclusions.

The judge shall prepare and file a written statement which shall contain: (1) findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each charge; (2) findings as to any remedial action taken by the attorney; and (3) findings as to any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that exist. . . . (continued . . .) (“hearing judge”) to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. Respondent was served with the Writ of Summons, Order of the Court of Appeals, the Petition, Petitioner’s Interrogatories, Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents, and Petitioner’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents. Respondent did not file a response.

On December 23, 2020, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order of Default, which the hearing judge granted on January 4, 2021. The hearing judge scheduled a remote hearing for February 18, 2021. Respondent did not respond to the Order of Default and did not appear for the remote hearing. The hearing judge, pursuant to Md. Rule 2-424(b),3 deemed Petitioner’s Request for Admissions as admitted and received them as evidence.

On March 23, 2021, the hearing judge entered findings of facts and conclusions of law based upon the averments in the Petition, and the Petitioner’s request for admission and genuineness of documents with attached exhibits. Respondent neither filed exceptions, nor provided a recommendation regarding a sanction. Petitioner recommended disbarment. (. . . continued) (e) Time for Completion.

Unless extended by the Court of Appeals, the hearing shall be completed within 120 days after service on the attorney of the order entered under [Md.] Rule 19-722. 3 Maryland Rule 2-424(b) provides in pertinent part: Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request or within 15 days after the date on which that party’s initial pleading or motion is required, whichever is later, the party to whom the request is directed serves a response signed by the party or the party’s attorney. 2 This Court considered the matter on the papers submitted, without oral argument.4 On May 27, 2021, we issued a per curiam order disbarring Respondent. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Leatherman, 473 Md. 628 , 251 A.3d 1156 (2021). We explain in this opinion the reasons why. THE HEARING JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT We summarize the hearing judge’s findings of fact and the exhibits submitted at the hearing. “As no exceptions have been filed, we treat the findings of fact as established.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Davenport, 472 Md. 20, 26 , 244 A.3d 1032, 1035 (2021) (citing Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A)).

Background Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 13, 2000. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Montgomery County.5 4 Petitioner filed a request to waive oral argument on May 4, 2021. Respondent neither responded to Petitioner’s request nor otherwise participated in the proceedings, including our show cause order directing Respondent to show cause why oral argument should be held. With no response, we granted Petitioner’s request to waive oral argument on May 27, 2021. 5 Respondent informed Bar Counsel that she moved out of her law practice on January 5, 2020.

The move occurred following the events that gave rise to this disciplinary matter. We also note that the hearing judge’s findings of fact indicated that the law practice was in Howard County. The record confirms that the law practice was located in Montgomery County. 3 Representation of Kaixin He Kaixin He retained Respondent to assist in establishing legal residency for her grandniece, a Chinese national residing in the United States. On September 14, 2018, Ms. He delivered a personal check of $2,500 to Respondent for the retainer.

Respondent failed to deposit the check into an attorney trust account, and deposited the check into a personal account at Capital One Bank. Respondent advised Ms. He to establish legal guardianship of her grandniece. Based on the advice of others, Ms. He declined. On January 15, 2019, Ms. He notified Respondent that she no longer required her services and terminated the representation.

On February 13, 2019, Ms. He requested a refund of the retainer, but Respondent failed to respond. On February 26, 2019, Respondent fraudulently re-deposited the September 14, 2018 check into her personal account at Capital One Bank. The re-deposit of the check debited an additional $2,500 from Ms. He’s personal bank account. The hearing judge found that Respondent knowingly and intentionally misappropriated $2,500 of Ms. He’s funds for her own personal benefit and use.

Ms. He made several additional attempts, via telephone and email, to contact Respondent about the refund. Respondent failed to respond. On April 5, 2019, Respondent emailed Ms. He, “I am nearly finished with your invoice and will send it to you shortly. As I stated to you, I will refund whatever remains of your retainer once my fee has been deducted.” Respondent failed to provide an invoice or timely refund. 4 On September 19, 2019, Respondent provided Ms. He with a refund of $2,500.

Respondent failed to acknowledge or repay the additional $2,500 that she misappropriated by re-depositing the check without authorization. Representation of Angelina N. Von-Jackson On March 19, 2019, Angelina N. Von-Jackson retained Respondent in a divorce proceeding against her husband, Patrick Von-Jackson. The retainer agreement required an initial retainer of $2,000 and a fee of $150 per hour. Ms. Von-Jackson paid Respondent $2,000 on or about March 19, 2019.

Respondent failed to deposit and maintain the funds in an attorney trust account until earned.6 On April 1, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson submitted a draft of her financial statement to Respondent for review. Respondent failed to respond to Ms. Von-Jackson’s request to review the financial statement. On April 18, 2019, Respondent filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce or, in the Alternative, Limited Divorce and other Equitable Relief in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Respondent failed to propound discovery on behalf of Ms. Von-Jackson and failed to inform Ms. Von-Jackson that discovery had not been propounded.

Ms. Von-Jackson attempted to meet with Respondent in person to discuss the proceeding, but Respondent cancelled every scheduled meeting. Opposing counsel propounded interrogatories and requests for document production on August 9, 2019. Respondent advised Ms. Von-Jackson that she would request a time extension from opposing counsel to respond to discovery. Respondent failed to request 6 The hearing judge did not make a finding as to where Respondent deposited the $2,000. 5 such an extension.

On September 6, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson texted Respondent about the time extension to which Respondent replied, “Yes-Please don’t worry-it’s fine-just get them to me when you can. It’s ok.” As of September 6, 2019, Respondent had neither requested nor received an extension from opposing counsel. The hearing judge found that Respondent knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to Ms. Von-Jackson that she had received an extension to respond to the discovery requests. Ms. Von-Jackson provided Respondent with the information needed to respond to the discovery requests on September 23, 2019.

Respondent acknowledged receipt of the information, but failed to respond to opposing counsel’s discovery requests. Respondent also failed to inform Ms. Von-Jackson that she failed to respond to opposing counsel’s discovery requests. Respondent and Ms. Von-Jackson agreed to meet on November 14, 2019, at Respondent’s office, to discuss the case. Ms. Von-Jackson arrived at the designated time, but Respondent failed to appear.

Ms. Von-Jackson called Respondent’s cellular phone, sent an email and a text message, but Respondent failed to appear or respond in any manner. On November 18, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson still had not received a response from Respondent, and as a result, and sent her the following text message, “Good afternoon, please can you let me know what is going on? Every attempt to reach you regarding my case is no avail [sic] why?” Respondent replied the next day, “I had complications overnight and have to go back to the hospital this morning. Are you available Thursday or Friday?” Ms. Von- 6 Jackson and Respondent scheduled another meeting that week.

Respondent later canceled the meeting. On November 22, 2019, opposing counsel sent Respondent a letter noting that discovery responses were past due and requested responses no later than December 2, 2019. Respondent failed to respond to opposing counsel and failed to advise Ms. Von-Jackson that discovery was outstanding. The hearing judge found that Respondent failed to keep Ms. Von-Jackson reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to explain matters to an extent reasonably necessary to permit Ms. Von-Jackson to make informed decisions regarding representation.

On November 26, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson terminated Respondent’s representation and retained Kathleen DeNobile, Esquire, as successor counsel. Ms. Von-Jackson signed a release authorizing Respondent to release her client file, invoices, and unused retainer funds to Ms. DeNobile. Later that day, Ms. DeNobile attempted to call Respondent’s office, but the office phone number was temporarily disconnected. Ms. DeNobile also called Respondent’s cellular phone and left a voice message, but Respondent failed to respond.

On November 27, 2019, Ms. DeNobile emailed Respondent notifying her that Ms. Von-Jackson retained her as successor counsel. The email included the executed release and a proposed Substitution of Counsel.7 The email also requested that Respondent return 7 Maryland Rule 2-132(a) states that “[a]n attorney may withdraw an appearance by filing a notice of withdrawal.” 7 an executed copy of the Substitution of Counsel and provide a copy of Ms. Von-Jackson’s client file. On December 2, 2019 at 9:29 a.m., Respondent replied to Ms. DeNobile’s email stating that the Substitution of Counsel did not include a signature line. Respondent requested a revised version to sign “ASAP” because she was scheduled to return to the hospital that afternoon.

At 10:01 a.m., Ms. DeNobile emailed Respondent the revised version. Respondent failed to respond. On December 4, 2019, Ms. DeNobile emailed Respondent asking whether she planned to appear at the pendente lite hearing scheduled for December 6, 2019, since Respondent had not returned the executed Substitution of Counsel. The email reiterated the request for a copy of Ms. Von-Jackson’s client file and expressed concern about the status of discovery.

Respondent replied to Ms. DeNobile’s email on December 4, 2019 and attached an executed copy of the Substitution of Counsel. Respondent stated: Attached is the Sub of Counsel that I signed and a copy of the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents from the Defendant. I did not receive documents from Ms. Von[-]Jackson. Due to the circumstances of my illness and hospitalizations, I am sure the court will move the discovery deadline for you.

The only issue for the [pendente lite] hearing to my knowledge is child support and guidelines just need to be run with the parties’ incomes. Have already discussed this with opposing counsel. Custody and visitation are not at issue. Ms. Von-Jackson had a copy of all of the pleadings in the file.

(Emphasis in original). The hearing judge found that Respondent’s statement that she did not receive documents from Ms. Von-Jackson was a knowing and intentional misrepresentation. Ms. 8 Von-Jackson provided Respondent with the information needed to respond to opposing counsel’s discovery requests on September 23, 2019. Ms. DeNobile replied to Respondent’s email the same day stating: If I can be candid here.

I went to the courthouse a little but a go [sic] and pulled the file for review, the [pendente lite] hearing is on access and child support so it[’]s a bit more than running the guidelines. Frankly, the court might extend the discovery deadline and it might not. The client is now facing substantial repercussions because you failed to take action in this case, namely serving discovery and responding to discovery in a timely manner. You’ve also failed to provide me with anything substantive in this case.

I am going to do the best I can to mitigate the financial ramification for the client that have [sic] been caused by your inaction but honestly cannot do that without your assistance. I need documentation of your medical condition and hospitalizations to take to court to prove that we need an extension of the discovery deadline. I also need a copy of the client’s file, a copy of her trust statement and invoices, and all pertinent information by the end of the week. If you cannot handle this, I am going to have to seriously question whether you should be representing clients at all and whether I have a duty to report this.

Respondent failed to respond to Ms. DeNobile’s email, failed to provide Ms. DeNobile with documentation of her hospitalizations, failed to provide a copy of Ms. Von- Jackson’s client file, invoice, and unused retainer funds. The hearing judge found that Respondent knowingly and intentionally misappropriated Ms. Von-Jackson’s funds when she collected a $2,000 retainer, failed to provide her with any services of value, and failed to refund the unearned retainer funds. Bar Counsel Investigation On July 29, 2019, Ms. He filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On August 6, 2019, Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent, enclosed a copy of Ms. He’s complaint and requested a written response no later than August 27, 2019.

On September 19, 2019, Respondent 9 provided an untimely response to Bar Counsel. The response failed to address any of the specific concerns raised in Ms. He’s complaint. Respondent stated that she had struggled with recent illness and the death of her mother. The response included a copy of a letter addressed to Ms. He and a copy of the check made payable to Ms. He that refunded the $2,500 retainer.

Respondent failed to acknowledge the additional $2,500 owed to Ms. He for re-depositing the retainer check. On October 28, 2019, Bar Counsel informed Respondent that Ms. He’s matter had been docketed for further investigation. Bar Counsel requested that Respondent describe what legal services were provided and whether she deposited client funds in an attorney trust account and any associated financial records of client funds. Respondent failed to respond in any manner.

Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent again on November 21, 2019, with a copy of the October 28 request. The letter was sent by certified mail and email. Respondent failed to respond. On December 12, 2019, Ms. Von-Jackson filed a complaint with Bar Counsel.

Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent on January 17, 2020 and enclosed a copy of Ms. Von- Jackson’s complaint. Bar Counsel requested a response no later than January 27, 2020. Respondent failed to respond. Bar Counsel Investigator, Cheryl A. Trivelli, visited Respondent’s residence on February 1, 2020.

Ms. Trivelli was unable to establish contact with Respondent. Ms. Trivelli left her business card at the residence. On February 3, 2020, Respondent emailed Ms. Trivelli stating: 10 My husband found your business card stuck in our front door on Saturday. Did you come to my house?

I’m sorry, I have not received any letters or phone calls from you. I shut down my practice at the end of the year and moved out of my office in Rockville . . . , MD [] on January 5, 2020. I had my mail forwarded to my house but have not received anything from you. John Garza, my landlord knew and knows all of my contact information.

It is also on the AIS system. *** I was hospitalized for a week in November and have been having health issues. Please contact me by either of my emails or my cell.8 On February 5, 2020, Bar Counsel wrote to Respondent requesting Ms. He’s client file, copies of all associated financial documents, and an explanation for why she deposited Ms. He’s check on two different occasions. On the same day, Bar Counsel sent Respondent another letter that enclosed Ms. Von-Jackson’s complaint, requested Ms. Von-Jackson’s client file and associated financial documents, and asked whether Ms. Von-Jackson’s funds were deposited in an attorney trust account. Bar Counsel also emailed copies of the letters to the provided work email address.

Respondent failed to respond to either letter or email in any manner. Bar Counsel made several additional unsuccessful attempts to contact Respondent. On February 29, 2020, Ms. Trivelli visited Respondent’s residence and left copies of the February 5, 2020 letters. On March 30, 2020, another Bar Counsel Investigator, William M. Ramsey, tried calling Respondent’s cellular number, but the voice mailbox was full. 8 Respondent provided Bar Counsel with her cellular phone number, her work email address, her personal email address, her disconnected phone number, and her home address. 11 On April 10 and 13, 2020, Bar Counsel Investigator, Edwin P. Karr, called Respondent’s cellular phone number, leaving a message requesting that she contact him.

Mr. Karr also emailed Respondent with the same message. On April 14, Mr. Karr left another message. Respondent returned the phone call a short time later, and Mr. Karr advised Respondent that she needed to provide responses no later than April 17, 2020. Respondent replied that she was sick but, “would do the best I can.” Respondent did not provide information about her illness or any substantive responses to Bar Counsel.

THE HEARING JUDGE’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By clear and convincing evidence, the hearing judge found that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19- 301.5 (Fees), 19-301.15 (Safekeeping Property), 19-301.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4 (Misconduct). MARPC 19-301.1: Competence MARPC 19-301.1 provides: An attorney shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. The hearing judge found that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.1, in each client matter, by failing to deposit and maintain Ms. He’s and Ms. Von-Jackson’s funds in an attorney trust account until earned.

The hearing judge also found that Respondent failed to satisfy MARPC 19-301.1 in the Von-Jackson matter by failing to propound discovery, 12 failing to request an extension for discovery, and failing to respond to opposing counsel’s request for discovery. MARPC 19-301.3: Diligence MARPC 19-301.3 provides: “An attorney shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.3 for the same reasons discussed in relation to MARPC 19-301.1, supra, and MARPC 19-301.4, infra. MARPC 19-301.4: Communication MARPC 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 [MARPC] 19-301.0 (f) (1.0), is required by these Rules; (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 [MARPC] 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.

The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.4(a) and (b) by failing to adequately and reasonably keep her clients informed about their matters and by failing to respond to her clients’ requests for information, opposing counsel’s discovery 13 requests, successor counsel’s request for the client case file and related information, and Bar Counsel’s numerous requests for information related to the representation of Ms. He and Ms. Von-Jackson. MARPC 19-301.5: Fees MARPC 19-301.5 provides, in part: (a) An attorney shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: (l) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment of the attorney; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.5(a) by collecting fees without providing the clients with any services of value.

The retainers of $2,500 and $2,000 for Ms. He and Ms. Von-Jackson may have been reasonable at the outset of representation, but according to the hearing judge, these amounts became unreasonable when Respondent failed to provide any services of value. 14 MARPC 19-301.15: Safekeeping Property MARPC 19-301.15 provides, in part: (a) An attorney shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in an attorney’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the attorney’s own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained pursuant to Title 19, Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules, and records shall be created and maintained in accordance with the Rules in that Chapter. Other property shall be identified specifically as such and appropriately safeguarded, and records of its receipt and distribution shall be created and maintained. Complete records of the account funds and of other property shall be kept by the attorney and shall be preserved for a period of at least five years after the date the record was created.

The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.15 by failing to deposit client funds in an attorney trust account until earned. MARPC 19-301.16: Declining or Terminating Representation MARPC 19-301.16 provides, in part: (d) Upon termination of representation, an attorney shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of another attorney, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The attorney may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.16 by failing to provide Ms. He with a timely refund, failing to deliver Ms. Von-Jackson’s unused retainer funds, and failing to Ms.