Attorney Grievance v. Parris

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Keith Anthony Parris, Misc. Docket AG No. 22, September Term, 2021. Opinion by Eaves, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE — SANCTION — DISBARMENT Keith Anthony Parris, Respondent, violated several provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) when he failed to file opposition motions on behalf of his client; failed to respond to discovery requests; failed to comply with court orders compelling him to complete discovery; failed to communicate with his client; repeatedly failed to respond to his client’s requests for information; misrepresented the status of the case to his client; made knowing and intentional misrepresentations to the trial court; collected unreasonable fees from his client for services he did not perform; and failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s requests for information. Respondent’s conduct violated the following MARPC: 1.1 (Competence); 1.3 (Diligence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.5 (Fees); 3.2 (Expediting Litigation); 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal); 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney); 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and 8.4 (Misconduct).

These violations warrant Respondent’s disbarment. Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Case No. CAE21-10972 Submitted on Brief: November 4, 2022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND* Misc. Docket AG No. 22 September Term, 2021 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. KEITH ANTHONY PARRIS Fader, C.J., Watts, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Eaves, J. Filed: February 1, 2023 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this * At the November 8, 2022, general election, the document is authentic. voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional 2023-02-01 11:50-05:00 amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on Gregory Hilton, Clerk December 14, 2022. This attorney discipline case involves the misconduct of Keith Anthony Parris (“Parris”), a member of the Bar of this Court. During his representation of a client, Parris’s conduct evidenced a multitude of wrongdoing warranting his disbarment.

Parris failed to respond to motions, to respond to discovery requests, to comply with court orders compelling him to complete discovery, and to advise his client of the pending motions and discovery. Parris neglected to respond to his client’s requests for information, and, to conceal his deficiencies, he misrepresented the status of the case to his client and made knowing and intentional misrepresentations to the trial court. Parris’s inaction ultimately caused the court to impose sanctions and enter a default judgment against his client. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the “Commission”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed in this Court its Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (the “Petition”) against Parris.

The Commission alleged that Parris violated the following nine Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”): 1. 19-301.1 (Competence) (1.1); 2. 19-301.3 (Diligence) (1.3); 3. 19-301.4 (Communication) (1.4); 4. 19-301.5 (Fees) (1.5); 5. 19-303.2 (Expediting Litigation) (3.2); 6. 19-303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) (3.3); 7. 19-303.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney) (3.4); 8. 19-308.1 (Bar Admissions and disciplinary Matters) (8.1); and 9. 19-308.4 (Misconduct) (8.4). Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722(a), this Court entered an order referring the matter to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. In the Order, this Court designated the Honorable Wytonja L. Curry (the “hearing judge”) to conduct an evidentiary hearing and provide findings of fact and conclusions of law. During the proceedings before the hearing judge, Parris did not file any responsive pleadings or respond to Bar Counsel’s requests for information.

As a result, the Commission filed a Motion for Order of Default. The hearing judge entered an Order of Default against Parris “for failure to respond to [the Petition] within the time permitted by the Order of the [Supreme Court of Maryland] and the Writ of Summons issued by the Clerk of [the circuit court].” The circuit court held a hearing, at which Parris did not appear. The hearing judge considered the evidence that the Commission submitted at the hearing and then filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with this Court. Parris did not file any exceptions to the hearing judge’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Because (1) Parris did not file an answer to the Petition and the hearing judge entered an Order of Default against him; (2) the Order of Default was not vacated; (3) Parris did not appear at the hearing before the hearing judge; and (4) Parris did not file any exceptions or recommendation for sanction with this Court, he is deemed to have waived oral argument pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-740(a). Accordingly, this Court considered the matter without oral argument based on the record before the hearing judge. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the hearing judge’s conclusions of law for each of Parris’s violations of the professional conduct rules and disbar Parris. I. THE HEARING JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT Where, as here, neither party filed any exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact, this Court “may treat the [hearing judge’s] findings of fact as established.” Md. Rule 19-740(b)(2)(A).

We summarize the hearing judge’s findings of fact below. 2 A. Background This Court admitted Parris to the Bar of this Court on June 18, 1987.1 At all times relevant to this proceeding, Parris maintained an office for the practice of law in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Parris’s misconduct in this case arises out of his representation of the Chaddsford Community Association, Inc. (“Chaddsford”). B. Chaddsford Community Association, Inc. Chaddsford is a homeowner’s association for a housing community in Brandywine, Maryland. In August 2010, Chaddsford retained the Law Offices of Gregory A. Alexandires (the “Firm”) as general counsel to Chaddsford’s board of directors (the “Board”).2 Among its duties, the Firm collected past due assessments from property owners subject to Chaddsford’s authority.

In June 2017, Chaddsford terminated the Firm and requested from the Firm an invoice for outstanding attorneys’ fees and collection costs. The Firm subsequently sent Chaddsford an itemized invoice in the amount of $77,727.43, accounting for the Firm’s services from August 2010 to June 2017. Chaddsford did not pay the invoice, which prompted the Firm to file a lawsuit against Chaddsford in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Prince George’s County. The Firm’s action against Chaddsford sought to collect a portion ($29,673.30) of the attorneys’ fees and collection costs detailed in the June 2017 invoice. 1 At the time of his admission, it was the Bar of the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

As noted earlier, the name is now the Bar of the Supreme Court of Maryland. 2 For simplicity, we will refer to Chaddsford’s actions through the Board as “Chaddsford” since the Board is authorized to make decisions on behalf of Chaddsford pursuant to Chaddsford’s articles of incorporation and bylaws. 3 C. Parris’s Representation of Chaddsford in the Firm’s Lawsuit On August 13, 2018, Chaddsford retained Parris to serve as its new general counsel. With respect to the Firm’s District Court action against Chaddsford, Parris advised Chaddsford that it “was not liable for approximately 40% of the attorneys’ fees and costs claimed . . . because the Firm failed to collect those amounts before the statute of limitations expired.” Parris further advised Chaddsford that “some of the legal services included on the [June 2017] invoice were inconsistent with prior accountings” the Firm provided to Chaddsford. Based on his advice, Chaddsford authorized Parris to represent it in the District Court action. Parris billed Chaddsford $2,415 for legal services he provided in the District Court case from August 7–31, 2018, which Chaddsford paid in full.

On November 29, 2018, the Firm filed a separate complaint against Chaddsford in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County and sought to recover $75,000—nearly the full amount of the June 2017 invoice. The Firm thereafter filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending the outcome of the circuit court action. Parris did not file a response to the motion, and the District Court granted the motion. Parris invoiced Chaddsford $2,460 for legal representation he provided in the District Court case from September 1, 2018, through December 14, 2018, which Chaddsford paid in full.

Parris filed an answer to the circuit court complaint on March 15, 2019, in which he argued that Chaddsford did not owe the claimed fees and asserted several affirmative defenses to the Firm’s claims. Parris then served Chaddsford’s first set of interrogatories on the Firm. Among its written discovery requests, the Firm served request for admissions on Parris, to which Chaddsford’s responses were due on April 29, 2019. Parris “failed to 4 timely forward the discovery requests to Chaddsford or advise [Chaddsford] of the deadline to respond” and “failed to timely respond to the requests.” As a result, the Firm filed a partial summary judgment motion contending that the circuit court should deem as admitted the alleged facts in the complaint due to Chaddsford’s failure to respond to the request for admissions.

Parris neither advised Chaddsford of the summary judgment motion nor filed a response to the motion. The circuit court denied the summary judgment motion for nonconformance with Maryland Rule 2-501(a).3 The Firm subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment motion in conformance with Rule 2-501(a), which the court again denied. On June 28, 2019, Parris filed an answer to the Firm’s summary judgment motion stating in part, [a]s indicated in the Answer to Complaint, a large part of the [Firm’s] complaint is barred by the [s]tatute of [l]imitations. [Chaddsford] is still in the process of gathering discovery to establish the violation of the [s]tatute of limitations, in that the information is in the custody of the [Firm]. [Chaddsford] has been hindered in this process in not receiving documents and pleadings supposedly filed by the [Firm]. This matter should be litigated on the merits. [Chaddsford’s] discovery will be fully complied with on or before July 12, 2019. 3 When a party files a motion for summary judgment with the court, “[t]he motion shall be supported by affidavit if it is (1) filed before the day on which the adverse party’s initial pleading or motion is filed or (2) based on facts not contained in the record.” Md. Rule 2-501(a).

The Firm’s motion lacked this supporting affidavit. 5 The Firm, however, served Parris its answers to Chaddsford’s interrogatories and copies of each of its motions throughout the proceedings. The hearing judge found that “[Parris’s] statements to the [trial] court that he was in the process of gathering information from the Firm and that he had been hindered by not receiving documents and pleadings filed by the Firm were knowingly and intentionally false.” Thereafter, the court held a pretrial conference, which Parris attended on behalf of Chaddsford. At the conference, the court ordered that Chaddsford provide all outstanding discovery responses to the Firm by August 5, 2019. On August 5, Parris sent his discovery responses to the Firm via email attachment, but the responses were incomplete and one of the attachments could not be opened.

The Firm sent Parris via email two requests to resend complete discovery responses that could be opened. Parris did not respond to either email. Consequently, the Firm filed a motion for sanctions against Chaddsford for failure to provide outstanding discovery by the court’s deadline. The Firm requested the court to award it $800 in attorney’s fees for the time it spent on additional efforts to obtain the outstanding discovery.

Parris did not file a response to the sanctions motion. Parris proceeded to bill Chaddsford $3,955 in legal services that he claimed for the period of March 14, 2019, through August 14, 2019. Chaddsford paid the invoice in full. The court denied the motion for sanctions and entered an order “compelling Chaddsford to provide electronic and hard copies of all discovery to the Firm within seven days” of August 30, 2019.

When Parris failed to comply with the court’s discovery order, the Firm filed a renewed motion for sanctions for failure to comply with second court order for discovery responses. The Firm requested that the court enter an order of default against 6 Chaddsford and award the Firm attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,225. Parris did not file a response to the Firm’s motion and did not provide the outstanding discovery to the Firm. On October 14, 2019, Parris met with Chaddsford to provide an update on the circuit court litigation.

According to the Board’s meeting minutes, Parris discussed the settlement value of the case and his anticipated attorneys’ fees. The hearing judge found that Parris omitted material facts in an effort to conceal his misconduct from Chaddsford. In particular, Parris did not inform Chaddsford of the outstanding discovery requests or of his failure to comply with court orders compelling Chaddsford to provide outstanding discovery. Parris also did not advise Chaddsford of the Firm’s recent pending motion, in which the Firm asked the court to impose discovery sanctions and enter a default judgment against Chaddsford.

On October 21, 2019, the court entered an order granting the Firm’s renewed motion for sanctions. The court awarded, with post-judgment interest, $1,225 in attorneys’ fees to the Firm and entered a default judgment against Chaddsford in the amount of $75,000. The court’s order stated that Chaddsford “shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to move to vacate this entry of default.” Parris neither advised Chaddsford of the default judgment nor moved to vacate the default judgment.4 After the court’s entry of default, Parris did not respond to Chaddsford’s communications to him about the status of the case. In January 2020, Chaddsford’s managing agent sent three emails to Parris requesting an update.

Parris did not respond to 4 Pursuant to Maryland Rule 3-507, the District Court dismissed the Firm’s District Court claim on January 17, 2020. 7 these emails. Between January 2020 and March 11, 2020, the Board president made several phone calls and sent 17 text messages to Parris requesting information about the case. Parris did not answer any phone calls but responded to some text messages, although his responses appeared to lack both substance and thought. Unbeknownst to Chaddsford, the Firm obtained and served a writ of garnishment on Chaddsford’s bank to collect the $75,000 default judgment.

On February 19, 2020, Chaddsford’s bank sent a letter to Chaddsford notifying it of the writ of garnishment with a copy of the writ attached—this was Chaddsford’s first notification of the default judgment. Parris did not notify Chaddsford of the default judgment until March 11, 2020, via email. Parris stated that the circuit court recently entered the October 21, 2019, default judgment against Chaddsford. The hearing judge found that Parris’s statement that the default judgment was recent was “knowingly false and intentionally misleading” because almost five months had passed.

Parris “omitted material facts concerning his failure to respond to discovery and failure to comply with the court’s orders to conceal his misconduct.” Parris also notified Chaddsford that he would attend a March 9, 2020, Board meeting to discuss the outcome of the circuit court case. Parris did not appear at the scheduled meeting. Parris billed Chaddsford periodically throughout the litigation, and Chaddsford promptly paid each invoice in full. Between August 31, 2018, and August 26, 2019, Parris collected $8,830 in fees from Chaddsford, at a rate of $300 per hour.

Parris created false time entries and billed Chaddsford for services he did not perform. The hearing judge cited examples including an entry dated August 13, 2019, which reflected that Parris 8 “purportedly spent 4.4 hours reviewing and analyzing discovery” and an entry dated August 14, 2019, the work for which Parris “billed 2.3 hours to review and input data.” The hearing judge found that “the billing entries were knowingly false and intended to conceal [Parris’s] failure to defend Chaddsford in the litigation.” D. Bar Counsel’s Investigation On May 20, 2020, Chaddsford filed a complaint against Parris with the Commission. Between July 2020 and November 2020, Bar Counsel wrote to Parris on four separate occasions requesting a response to the complaint against him. Parris did not respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries.

On December 3, 2020, a Bar Counsel investigator went to Parris’s home and spoke with him. Parris denied receiving any of Bar Counsel’s letters. The investigator gave Parris copies of all four letters, and Parris said he would reach out to Bar Counsel that day. Parris did not contact Bar Counsel and never responded to any of Bar Counsel’s requests for information.

II

STANDARD OF REVIEW As discussed, when neither the respondent nor the Commission files exceptions to any of the hearing judge’s findings of fact, this Court may accept those findings of fact as established. Md. Rule 19-740(b)(2)(A). This Court reviews de novo the hearing judge’s conclusions of law, Md. Rule 19-740(b)(1), and “determines whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that an attorney violated the MARPC[,]” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Silbiger, 478 Md. 607, 617 (2022). 9 III. DISCUSSION The hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Parris violated professional conduct Rules 1.1; 1.3; 1.4; 1.5(a), 3.2; 3.3(a); 3.4; 8.1(b); and 8.4(a), (c)–(d).

Neither Parris nor the Commission filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the hearing judge that clear and convincing evidence establishes each of the MARPC violations in this case and conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Parris. A. Clear and Convincing Evidence Supports the Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law. Because the same conduct of Parris supports his violation of several rules of professional conduct, we first address concurrently Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, and 3.4.

We then address in turn Rules 1.5, 3.3, 8.1, and 8.4. Rule 1.1 (Competence); Rule 1.3 (Diligence); Rule 1.4 (Communication); Rule 3.2 (Expediting Litigation); Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney). Under Rule 1.1, “[a]n attorney shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness[,] and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” Generally, this Court will find that an attorney violated Rule 1.1 when he or she “fails to act or acts in an untimely manner, resulting in harm to his or her client.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642, 694 (2019) (quoting Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298, 319 (2012)).

An attorney has violated Rule 1.1 when he or she failed to “file opposition motions,” failed to “answer discovery requests,” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Bellamy, 453 Md. 377 , 393 10