Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Harper, No. 28

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtArgued before MURPHY, C.J., SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON and COUCH, JJ., and JAMES C. MORTON, Jr.; PER CURIAM
Citation477 A.2d 756,300 Md. 193
Docket NumberNo. 28
Decision Date01 September 1983
PartiesATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Horace Sherrwood HARPER, Jr. Misc. (BV),

Page 193

300 Md. 193
477 A.2d 756
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
v.
Horace Sherrwood HARPER, Jr.
Misc. (BV) No. 28, Sept. Term, 1983.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
July 11, 1984.

Page 194

Melvin Hirshman and Kendall R. Calhoun, Bar Counsel and Asst. Bar Counsel for Atty. Grievance Com'n, Annapolis, for petitioner.

No appearance on behalf of respondent.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON and COUCH, JJ., and JAMES C. MORTON, Jr., Associate Judge of the Court of Special Appeals (retired), Specially Assigned.

PER CURIAM.

The Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Horace Sherrwood Harper, Jr., alleging violations of the disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We referred the matter, pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 b, to Judge Edward J. Angeletti of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, Judge Angeletti filed detailed findings and conclusions as follows: "The testimony offered at the hearing together with the exhibits received establish clear and convincing evidence of the following facts relevant to this controversy.

"BC Docket No. 82-296-16-1

Findings of Fact

"In late 1978 or early 1979, the Respondent undertook a trademark matter on behalf of Ruth Fader and Baltimore Rent-a-Tour, applying on January 22, 1979, for a 'service mark' on behalf of Baltimore Rent-a-Tour. Between January, 1979, and September, 1980, the Respondent was paid approximately $350 by Mrs. Fader, but failed to take any

Page 195

further steps regarding the application for the 'service mark', which necessitated the refiling of that application in September, 1982. Respondent failed to follow up on the refiled application or to communicate or correspond with Mrs. Fader.

[477 A.2d 757] "Conclusions of Law

"(1) The Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) (1) (5) and (6) in that his failure to follow through on a matter for which he was retained is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct reflecting adversely upon his fitness to practice law.

"(2) The Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101 (A) (1) (2) and (3) in that he undertook a trademark matter without adequate preparation, neglected that matter when he failed to take any action subsequent to the filing of the application, and failed to associate himself with an attorney competent to handle such matters when he knew, or should have known, he was not competent to handle it.

"(3) The Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 7-101 (A) (1) (2) and (3) in that he intentionally failed to carry out a contract of employment and to seek the lawful objectives of his client by his failure to take any steps in furtherance of the trademark application and his client was prejudiced by the failure to pursue her 'service mark.'

"BC Docket No. 83-1-16-1

Findings of Fact

"In January, 1979, the Respondent purchased the patent law practice of the firm of Samuels, Clark and Everett from the surviving partner, J. Wesley Everett, who was acting through the agency of his wife, Mrs. Nora Everett. At the time of the purchase the firm's bank accounts were transferred to the Respondent, including the escrow account which had a balance of $2,815.50 as of January 31, 1979.

Page 196

Thereafter, on two occasions in April, 1979, and July, 1979, the Respondent drew checks on that escrow account payable to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Practice and procedure: Patent and trademark cases rules of practice; representation of others before Patent and Trademark Office,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...cases concerning attorneys engaged to prepare and prosecute trademark matters. See Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Harper, 477 A.2d 756 (Md. 1984) (holding attorney neglected legal matter by failing to prosecute filed trademark application); State of Nebraska v. Gregory, 554 N.......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...cases concerning attorneys engaged to prepare and prosecute trademark matters. See Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Harper, 477 A.2d 756 (Md. 1984) (holding attorney neglected legal matter by failing to prosecute filed trademark application); State of Nebraska v. Gregory, 554 N.......
  • Attorney Grievance Commission v. Santos, Misc. AG No. 31 Sept. Term 2001.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 19, 2002
    ...by failing to refund unearned fees, Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Bloom, 306 Md. 609, 510 A.2d 589 (1986); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Harper, 300 Md. 193, 477 A.2d 756 (1984), and those in which that sanction was imposed on attorneys who repeatedly neglected client matters. Attorney Griev v. Com......
  • Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Milliken, Nos. 46
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1995
    ...of client funds in failing to refund a retainer after attorney took no action on client's case); Attorney Griev. Com'n v. Harper, 300 Md. 193, 198, 477 A.2d 756, 758 (1984) (disbarring attorney, in part, for misappropriation of funds in failing to return monies client paid attorney); CHARLE......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Attorney Grievance Commission v. Santos, Misc. AG No. 31 Sept. Term 2001.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 19, 2002
    ...by failing to refund unearned fees, Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Bloom, 306 Md. 609, 510 A.2d 589 (1986); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Harper, 300 Md. 193, 477 A.2d 756 (1984), and those in which that sanction was imposed on attorneys who repeatedly neglected client matters. Attorney Griev v. Com......
  • Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Milliken, Nos. 46
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1995
    ...of client funds in failing to refund a retainer after attorney took no action on client's case); Attorney Griev. Com'n v. Harper, 300 Md. 193, 198, 477 A.2d 756, 758 (1984) (disbarring attorney, in part, for misappropriation of funds in failing to return monies client paid attorney); CHARLE......
  • Siegel, Matter of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 23, 1993
    ...Ezrin, 312 Md. 603, 541 A.2d 966, 969 (1988) (citing Nothstein, supra, 480 A.2d at 807; Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Harper, 300 Md. 193, 477 A.2d 756 (1984); Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Pattison, 292 Md. 599, 441 A.2d 328 (1982); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Burka,......
  • Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Ezrin, No. 38
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1986
    ...in the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser sanction. Nothstein, supra; Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Harper, 300 Md. 193, 196-97, 477 A.2d 756 (1984); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Pattison, 292 Md. 599, 609, 441 A.2d 328 (1982); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Burka, 292 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT