Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Awuah
Decision Date | 01 September 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 54,54 |
Citation | 697 A.2d 446,346 Md. 420 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Frank A.K. AWUAH. Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV), |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, and James P. Botluk, Assistant Bar Counsel, for the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland.
Thomas A. Farrington, Bowie, for Respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, RAKER and WILNER, JJ.
The Attorney Grievance Commission (the "Commission"), by Bar Counsel, filed, in this Court, a petition seeking disciplinary action against Frank A.K. Awuah, the respondent. The petition alleged multiple violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the respondent was charged with violating Rules 1.5 1; 1.15 2; 4.1 3; and 8.4. 4 In addition, the Commission charged violations relating to the respondent's management of his attorney trust account, namely, of Maryland Code (1996) § 10-302 5 and § 10-306 6 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article and of the rules pertaining thereto, 7 i.e., BU3 8; BU6 9; BU7 10; and BU9. 11
Pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9b 12, we referred the matter to the Honorable Michael D. Mason, of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, for hearing and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Maryland Rule BV11a. Following the evidentiary hearing, Judge Mason concluded that the respondent did violate Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b), those pertaining to his attorney trust account, as well as § 10-302. On the other hand, Judge Mason concluded that Bar Counsel failed to prove the other violations by clear and convincing evidence, noting, in the process, that the respondent's use of funds from a trust account for operating expenses was "motivated by ignorance of his obligations and not by fraud, dishonesty or deceit." Bar Counsel has excepted only to the hearing court's failure to find violations of Rules 1.15 and 8.4(c) as well as § 10-306.
Judge Mason made findings of fact as follows:
In this instance, the Respondent acknowledged that he had failed to pay the claim directly from the settlement proceeds. He explained that prior to the time of settlement he had discussed the claim with the client's PIP carrier. He was told by that insurance representative that it was a covered expense. They were auditing the expense. To the extent that they determined it to be fair and reasonable, it would be paid. Therefore, the Respondent, proceeding upon the assumption that PIP would pay the claim, disbursed the funds directly to the client, without withholding funds for MHCE. This explanation was unrebutted.
"B. Cynthia Dinkins
Here the Respondent testified that he was aware of the bill from MHCE at the time of settlement. When he discussed that bill with the client, she represented to him that she would take care of it. Upon her promise to do so, he disbursed the sums directly to her, including the sums...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheinbein
...with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed.' Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435, 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997). Therefore, the appropriate sanction depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case, inc......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm. v. Zuckerman
... ... ZUCKERMAN ... Misc. Docket AG No. 21, September Term, 2004 ... Court of Appeals of Maryland ... April 13, 2005 ... 872 A.2d 696 Fletcher P. Thompson, Asst. Bar Council ... Id. at 496, 850 A.2d at 1167; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Awuah, 374 Md. 505, 526, 823 A.2d 651, 663 (2003) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. McClain, 373 Md. 196, ... ...
-
Attorney Grievance v. Smith, 27 September Term, 2007.
...A.2d 747, 754-55 (2002); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hess, 352 Md. 438, 453, 722 A.2d 905, 913 (1999); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435, 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Goldsborough, 330 Md. 342, 364, 624 A.2d 503, 513 (1993). See Attorney Grievan......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Thompson
...commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with which they were committed. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435, 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997)." It is equally well settled that the decision whether to impose a sanction in a particular case and, if s......