Attorney Grievance v. Young

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Celio Warren Young, Misc. Docket AG No. 23, September Term, 2019, Opinion by Barbera, C.J. ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT — DISCIPLINE — DISBARMENT — Respondent Celio Warren Young violated Maryland’s Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.15, 1.16, 5.5, 7.3, 8.1, and 8.4. These violations principally arose from Respondent’s unauthorized practice of law in Maryland without a license; intentional misrepresentations to his client about the status of his case; failure to properly maintain client funds in an attorney trust account; failure to advise his client to seek independent advice before settling a legal malpractice claim against him; failure to use funds to negotiate lower medical expenses for his client as agreed upon in a settlement agreement; and failure to respond to numerous requests for information from Bar Counsel. In conjunction with several aggravating factors, these violations result in disbarment as the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct.

Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Case No. CAE19-28200 Oral argument waived/submitted on papers IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 23 September Term, 2019 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. CELIO WARREN YOUNG Barbera, C.J., McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran JJ. Opinion by Barbera, C.J. Filed: March 31, 2021 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2021-03-31 08:12-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk We consider in this attorney grievance matter the conduct of Celio Warren Young, an attorney barred in the District of Columbia but not in Maryland. Notwithstanding that he was not then, nor is now, licensed to practice law in this state, Mr. Young (“Respondent”) solicited and undertook representation of Mr. Joseph E. O’Pharrow, III, in a personal injury action and related matters arising from an automobile accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland, in which Mr. O’Pharrow was seriously injured.

The representation spanned several years. Eventually, Mr. O’Pharrow filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission, prompting the Commission (“Petitioner”), acting through Bar Counsel, to file in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) charging Respondent with having committed numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was alleged to have violated numerous provisions of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”): 1.1 (Competence), 1.2(a) (Scope of Representation), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.8(a) and (h) (Conflict of Interest; Current Clients), 1.15(a) and (c) (Safekeeping Property),1 1.16(a) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 5.5(a) and (b) (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 7.3(a) (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients), and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). The Petition further alleged violations of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of 1 Petitioner later dropped the Rule 1.15(c) charge.

Professional Conduct (“MARPC”): 19-308.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct).2 This Court designated the Honorable Lawrence V. Hill, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to serve as the hearing judge. Respondent did not file an answer to the Petition or respond to Bar Counsel’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, prompting Petitioner to file a Motion for Order of Default. The circuit court granted the motion for order of default on January 16, 2020. There promptly followed a notice informing Respondent of the order of default and his right to file a motion to vacate that order within thirty days after its entry.

Respondent did not file such a motion. See Md. Rule 2-613 (b), (c), (d), and (f). The hearing on the Petition was originally scheduled for February 21, 2020. Soon thereafter, the hearing was continued to July 28, 2020.

On that date, a hearing was conducted virtually owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondent did not appear at the hearing or otherwise attempt to provide evidence or argument. At the hearing, the judge formally deemed admitted and received into evidence Petitioner’s requests for admission of facts and genuineness of documents, in accordance 2 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and incorporated within Title 19, Chapter 300 of the Maryland Rules. Petitioner, through Bar Counsel, has invoked both the former and current versions of the Rules.

There is no substantive difference in the two codifications of the Rules. We therefore shall employ throughout this opinion the simpler version of the charged rule violations, as set forth in the MLRPC. Consequently, we refer to all charged violations, including those that are alleged to have occurred after recodification, by the form used in the MLRPC, e.g., “Rule 8.1” rather than “Maryland Rule 19-308.1.” 2 with Maryland Rule 2-424(b). On September 8, 2020, the hearing judge filed a Memorandum containing his findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the averments laid out in the Petition and the deemed admission of facts and genuineness of documents.

On October 13, 2020, Petitioner, through Bar Counsel, filed “Petitioner’s Recommendation for Sanction.” Petitioner did not except to any of the hearing judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law and recommended disbarment as an appropriate sanction. Respondent filed no paper submission responsive to the hearing judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions and in no other fashion took exception to the hearing judge’s findings and conclusions. On November 5, 2020, Bar Counsel filed with this Court a request to waive oral argument. This Court issued a Show Cause Order on November 6, 2020, directing Respondent to show cause by Monday, December 1, 2020 why oral argument should be held.

Respondent did not respond to the Show Cause Order on or before the deadline but did file a late response, on December 4, 2020, that did not include a request that oral argument be held.3 In resolving this matter on the record before us, we treat as conclusively established the hearing judge’s findings of fact, see Maryland Rules 2-424(b), (d), and 19- 741(b)(2)(A), and, upon reviewing de novo the hearing judge’s conclusions of law, we conclude, as did the hearing judge, that Respondent committed multiple violations of the 3 We shall address later in this opinion information that Respondent supplied in his “Show Cause Order Response.” 3 Rules of Professional Conduct. Those violations, coupled with the aggravating factors we have identified, mandate that Respondent be disbarred. I. The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact Respondent was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar on December 6, 1989. He is not, and has never been, a member of the Maryland Bar.

At all times relevant to this attorney grievance matter, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Representation of Joseph E. O’Pharrow, III The violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct with which Respondent was charged originate from his representation of Joseph E. O’Pharrow, III, a Maryland resident. On April 29, 2014, Mr. O’Pharrow was seriously injured in an automobile accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Mr. O’Pharrow was determined not to be at fault in the accident.

Mr. O’Pharrow suffered extensive injuries resulting from the accident, requiring that he undergo several surgeries. His medical expenses exceeded $100,000. Mr. O’Pharrow spent some time recuperating in the hospital. During that time, his parents, Joseph and Earnestine O’Pharrow (“the O’Pharrows”), stayed with him at the hospital as needed.

Respondent lived next door to Mr. O’Pharrow. Upon learning of the accident, Respondent approached Mr. O’Pharrow’s parents in the hospital and solicited them to represent their son in a personal injury action. Sometime in May 2014, Mr. O’Pharrow’s 4 mother retained Respondent on behalf of her son to represent him on a contingency fee basis. Mr. O’Pharrow agreed to the representation and gave Respondent authorization to communicate with his parents about the case.

The hearing judge found that Respondent intentionally misled Mr. O’Pharrow to believe that Respondent was licensed to practice law in Maryland when he was not. In the summer of 2014, Respondent, evidently with the agreement of at least the O’Pharrows, if not also their son, filed a claim with Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), the insurance carrier of the driver who was determined to be at-fault in the automobile accident. In or about August 2014, the O’Pharrows accepted the GEICO policy limit of $30,000 as a settlement on behalf of Mr. O’Pharrow. Respondent received the $30,000 settlement check from GEICO in August 2014 but did not deposit and maintain the settlement funds in an attorney trust account.

Of the $30,000, Respondent retained $6,400 for his attorney fees and remitted $23,600 to Mr. O’Pharrow. Also in the summer of 2014, Respondent filed an underinsured motorist claim with Mr. O’Pharrow’s insurance carrier, Erie Insurance Company (“Erie”). In that filing, Respondent failed to provide to Erie the requisite written notice and a copy of GEICO’s prior settlement offer, as is required under Md. Code Insurance Article (“Ins. Art.”) § 19- 511(b).4 As a result, Erie sent Respondent a letter denying Mr. O’Pharrow’s underinsured motorist claim. 4 Ins.

Art. § 19-511 sets forth the settlement procedures for submitting an uninsured or underinsured motorist claim in Maryland. Ins. Art. § 19-511(b) provides that: 5 Respondent received the denial letter from Erie on or about December 12, 2014. It was not until approximately nine months later—sometime during the fall of 2015—that Respondent informed Mr. O’Pharrow of the denial of the underinsured motorist claim.

The hearing judge found that Respondent “knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to Mr. O’Pharrow that Erie’s denial of the claim was not a final determination.” The hearing judge further found that Erie’s denial of the claim was the “result of [Respondent’s] legal malpractice.” The hearing judge found, moreover, that throughout the course of his representation of Mr. O’Pharrow, Respondent did not advance his client’s cause: he failed to investigate the assets of the driver who was at fault in the automobile accident; he failed to ascertain Mr. O’Pharrow’s underinsured motorist policy coverage; and he failed to negotiate with Mr. O’Pharrow’s healthcare providers. The Malpractice Action If an injured person receives a written offer from a motor vehicle insurance liability insurer or that insurer’s authorized agent to settle a claim for bodily injury or death, and the amount of the settlement offer, in combination with any other settlements arising out of the same occurrence, would exhaust the bodily injury or death limits of the applicable liability insurance policies, bonds, and securities, the injured person shall send by certified mail, to any insurer that provides uninsured motorist coverage for the bodily injury or death, a copy of the liability insurer’s written settlement offer. Under Ins. Art. § 19-511(c), the uninsured motorist insurer shall send to the injured person within 60 days after receiving the notice under subsection (b) either written consent to acceptance of the settlement offer or written refusal to consent to the acceptance of the settlement offer. 6 In May 2016, Respondent offered to settle a malpractice claim that, at the time of the offer, Mr. O’Pharrow either was contemplating filing or had filed.

At that time, Respondent should have, but did not, advise Mr. O’Pharrow, in writing, that it would be desirable to seek independent legal advice before agreeing to settle the malpractice claim. On May 25, 2016, Respondent and Mr. O’Pharrow entered into an Installment Payment Plan Agreement (the “Payment Plan Agreement”) to settle the claim. In the Payment Plan Agreement, Respondent agreed to pay Mr. O’Pharrow $44,208.77 in monthly installments of $5,000 until Mr. O’Pharrow was paid in full. The Payment Plan Agreement did not contemplate or include payment for pain and suffering or for medical expenses Mr. O’Pharrow would likely incur in the future.

Respondent further agreed to maintain an additional $10,272.92 in an escrow account in order to negotiate with Mr. O’Pharrow’s healthcare providers a reduction of the amount of the various medical bills he received. Notwithstanding his agreement to do so, Respondent made no attempt to negotiate a reduction of monies Mr. O’Pharrow owed those healthcare providers. Between July 30, 2016 and October 21, 2016, Respondent made four installment payments to Mr. O’Pharrow for a total of $12,000.00 in the following increments: 7 Date Amount Method July 30, 2016 $2,000.00 Cash August 2, 2016 $1,500.00 Cash Unknown $2,500.00 Cash October 21, 2016 $6,000.00 Check After making the payment on October 21, 2016, Respondent ceased making any further payments pursuant to the Payment Plan Agreement. In June 2017, after learning that Mr. O’Pharrow might file a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission against him, Respondent wrote to Mr. O’Pharrow’s mother, stating that he had “figured a [sic] plan to move forward with this matter.” At the same time, he bemoaned the fact that, without his bar license, he would be unable to earn any money.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. O’Pharrow and Respondent retained attorneys. Mr. O’Pharrow retained counsel to pursue collection of Respondent’s unpaid debt. Respondent also retained counsel to represent him in the debt collection matter. Sometime in late June 2017, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Respondent agreed to pay Mr. O’Pharrow an additional $58,000.00 in full and final satisfaction of any and all claims. Respondent was to pay $20,000.00 by July 15, 2017 and then to make monthly payments of $5,000.00 until the remainder of the settlement was paid, with final payment expected to be on March 15, 2018. 8 As part of the Settlement Agreement, Respondent agreed to execute a confessed judgment promissory note for the entire settlement amount, to be reduced by any of his payments. However, after having signed the Settlement Agreement, Respondent failed to execute the confessed judgment note and failed to make any payments pursuant to the terms of that Agreement. On September 13, 2017, Mr. O’Pharrow, acting through his counsel, filed a breach of contract action against Respondent in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

On October 19, 2017, Respondent filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. In March 2018, as a result of Respondent’s filing for bankruptcy, the circuit court stayed the proceedings in Mr. O’Pharrow’s breach of contract claim against Respondent. The Complaint to the Attorney Grievance Commission and Bar Counsel’s Investigation On August 24, 2017, Mr. O’Pharrow filed with the Attorney Grievance Commission a complaint against Respondent. Between October 25, 2017 and September 6, 2018, Bar Counsel, on behalf of the Commission, wrote nine letters to Respondent at his business address, as well as his two home addresses, requesting a response to the complaint against him.5 Respondent failed to respond. 5 Although the record contains references to Respondent’s two home addresses, the relevant home address is in Upper Marlboro in Prince George’s County.

The record is unclear as to whether Respondent’s second home address is also located in Maryland. 9 In early September 2018, Bar Counsel investigator, Daniel J. Weishaar, called Respondent and left several voicemail messages asking Respondent to return his calls; Respondent responded to none of them. On September 19, 2018, Mr. Weishaar went to Respondent’s home address in Prince George’s County and delivered to Respondent’s wife a copy of Mr. O’Pharrow’s complaint and Bar Counsel’s previous letter. On September 28, 2018, Respondent called Mr. Weishaar and left a voicemail with the investigator acknowledging that he had received the complaint and letter from Bar Counsel. In that voicemail, Respondent told Mr. Weishaar that he would respond to Mr. O’Pharrow’s complaint by the middle of the following week.

Respondent did not submit a response. On October 4, 2018, Respondent spoke with Mr. Weishaar and informed him that he would respond to Mr. O’Pharrow’s complaint by close of business on October 8, 2018. As before, Respondent did not respond. Bar Counsel filed the Petition with this Court on August 27, 2019, and this Court transmitted the matter to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County on September 4, 2019.

The circuit court issued a Writ of Summons to Respondent on September 9, 2019. On November 2, 2019, an independent process server attempted to serve Respondent with several documents at his office address, located at 819 7th Street N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20001. The documents included the Transmittal Order, the Writ of Summons, the Petition, and Bar Counsel’s Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents. The process server was unable to serve Respondent because the main door to the building was locked, there was no call box, and no one entered or exited the building while the server was outside. 10 On November 4, 2019, Bar Counsel emailed Respondent notifying him of the failed attempt at service.

Bar Counsel attached the service documents to the email and asked whether Respondent would accept service by email. On November 5, 2019, Respondent replied to Bar Counsel’s email, stating that he would accept service by email and that his new office address was located at 1616 H Street N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002. On that same date, Bar Counsel gave notice to the circuit court that Respondent had been served with the service documents via email and first class mail, postage prepaid, to both the new office address that Respondent gave Bar Counsel and his home address in Prince George’s County. Other than agreeing to accept service by email, Respondent was non-responsive throughout the entirety of the disciplinary proceeding against him.

He did not reply to numerous requests from Bar Counsel for information, nor did he supply a response to the substance of Mr. O’Pharrow’s complaint.

II

Discussion This Court’s Jurisdiction Over Disciplinary Matters “This Court has original and complete jurisdiction in an attorney disciplinary proceeding . . . .” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bah, 468 Md. 179, 206 (2020) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642 , 682–83 (2019)). Pursuant to Rule 8.5(a)(2), our jurisdictional authority extends to disciplining an out-of-state attorney who “(1) provides or offers to provide any legal services in Maryland or (2) holds himself out as practicing law in Maryland.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ndi, 459 Md. 42 , 54 11 (2018). As we shall discuss, the hearing judge’s findings of fact, which we accept as established given that neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed exceptions to those findings, see Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A), reflect that Respondent engaged in conduct addressed in Rule 8.5(a)(2). Consequently, he is subject to discipline by this Court for any violations of Maryland’s attorney conduct rules.

The Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law On September 8, 2020, the hearing judge filed a “Memorandum of the Court” recounting the procedural history of the case, adopting the established facts summarized above, and setting forth the judge’s proposed conclusions of law. We turn now to those determinations. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.8(a) and (h), 1.15(a), 1.16(a), 5.5(a) and (b), 7.3(a), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d). For reasons explained below, we agree with the hearing judge that Respondent violated every one of those Rules.

Rule 1.1 Competence Rule 1.1 states that an attorney “shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” In general, an attorney who “fails to act or acts in an untimely manner, resulting in harm to [the] client” violates Rule 1.1. Bah, 468 Md. at 207 (quoting Edwards, 462 Md. at 694 ). We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Respondent violated Rule 1.1 in several ways. 12 Respondent failed to deposit and properly maintain Mr. O’Pharrow’s funds that were obtained in the settlement with GEICO, the at-fault driver’s insurer.

In his attempt to file Mr. O’Pharrow’s underinsured motorist claim with his insurer, Erie, Respondent failed to supply Erie with a written notice of a prior settlement offer, as required under Ins. Art. § 19-511.6 Moreover, he did little to nothing to advance Mr. O’Pharrow’s personal injury case arising from the automobile accident: Respondent failed to investigate the assets of the at-fault driver; failed to determine Mr. O’Pharrow’s underinsured motorist policy coverage; and failed to negotiate a reduction of Mr. O’Pharrow’s healthcare providers’ liens. Rule 1.2(a) Scope of Representation Rule 1.2(a) states in relevant part that attorneys are to “abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and, when appropriate, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.” A violation of Rule 1.2(a) occurs when an attorney “fails to inform a client of the status of his or her case, thereby denying the client the ability to make informed decisions.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163, 182 (2015); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ambe, 466 Md. 270, 290 (2019) (“In order for a client to make informed decisions . . . an attorney must give the client honest updates regarding the status of [the] case.”) (first alteration in original) (citation omitted). 6 See supra note 4. 13 The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rule 1.2(a) by engaging in acts and omissions that were dishonest. We agree.

Respondent led Mr. O’Pharrow to believe that he was licensed to practice law in Maryland when he was not, foreclosing an opportunity for Mr. O’Pharrow to retain a Maryland-licensed attorney. Once retained, Respondent failed for many months to inform Mr. O’Pharrow of Erie’s denial of the underinsured motorist claim and, when Respondent finally disclosed that information, he misrepresented to Mr. O’Pharrow the final status of the claim denial. Respondent further denied Mr. O’Pharrow the opportunity to make an informed decision concerning the scope of the representation by failing to inform him of the opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel before settling his malpractice claim against Respondent. Rule 1.3 Diligence Rule 1.3 provides that an attorney “shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” An attorney demonstrates a lack of diligence and promptness by “failing to investigate a client’s matter” and “failing to advance the client’s cause or endeavor.” Bah, 468 Md. at 208 (quoting Edwards, 462 Md. at 699 ). “The same rationale that supports a [Rule 1.1] violation can support a [Rule 1.3] violation.” Id. at 209 (citing Edwards, 462 Md. at 699 ).

The failure to keep a client informed about the status of the case is a Rule 1.3 violation. Ndi, 459 Md. at 55 . The hearing judge concluded, and we agree, that Respondent’s acts or omissions to act demonstrate a lack of diligence and promptness. Respondent failed to advance Mr. O’Pharrow’s cause by doing almost nothing in connection with the personal injury matter beyond obtaining a $30,000 settlement with 14 GEICO, the at-fault driver’s insurer.

Respondent did not investigate the assets of the at- fault driver, nor did he determine the scope of Mr. O’Pharrow’s underinsured motorist coverage. When Erie denied Mr. O’Pharrow’s claim—the result of Respondent’s failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Ins. Art. § 19-511—Respondent failed to notify Mr. O’Pharrow in a timely manner that the Erie claim had been denied. He further misled Mr. O’Pharrow to believe that Erie’s adverse determination was not final.

Respondent also kept Mr. O’Pharrow in the dark about the status of his legal malpractice claim against Respondent. He did so by neglecting to tell Mr. O’Pharrow about the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel before entering into a settlement agreement with him. Moreover, notwithstanding his agreement with Mr. O’Pharrow to use the $10,272.92 set aside in an escrow account to negotiate a reduction of the amount of money Mr. O’Pharrow owed to his healthcare providers, Respondent did nothing on behalf of Mr. O’Pharrow in that regard. Rule 1.4(a) and (b) Communication Rule 1.4 provides: (a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(f), 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; . . .

(b) A lawyer 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 many, if not all, of Respondent’s multiple acts and omissions in connection with Rules 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 also violated Rule 1.4(a) and (b). 15 As already noted, Respondent misled Mr. O’Pharrow to believe that he was licensed to practice law in Maryland, and he failed to provide timely and accurate information concerning the status of Mr. O’Pharrow’s case. Respondent delayed for about nine months before notifying Mr. O’Pharrow of Erie’s denial of the underinsured motorist claim, and when he finally disclosed Erie’s decision to Mr. O’Pharrow, Respondent intentionally misrepresented to him that Erie’s decision was not final. Respondent also led Mr. O’Pharrow to think that he was licensed to practice law in Maryland when he was not, thereby undermining Mr. O’Pharrow’s ability to make informed decisions about Respondent’s representation.

Rule 1.5(a) Fees Rule 1.5(a) provides in relevant part that attorneys “shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses.” Accepting a fee for the unauthorized practice of law in Maryland is a Rule 1.5(a) violation. Ndi, 459 Md. at 57 . The hearing judge concluded, correctly, that Respondent violated Rule 1.5(a) by taking a fee for the unauthorized practice of law. Rule 1.8(a) and (h) Conflict of Interest; Current Clients Rule 1.8(a) provides in relevant part that an attorney “shall not enter into a business transaction with a client unless . . . the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel on the transaction.” Rule 1.8(h) provides: A lawyer shall not: 16 (1) make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer’s liability to a client for malpractice unless the client is independently represented in making the agreement; or (2) settle a claim or potential claim for such liability with an unrepresented client or former client unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith.

These rules are designed to prevent “overreaching” when an attorney “engages in a financial transaction with a client, given a lawyer’s skill and training and the relationship of trust with a client.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shapiro, 441 Md. 367, 388 (2015) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lawson, 428 Md. 102, 115 (2012)). An attorney violates