Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 16 March 2021
• Docket Number: Misc. Docket AG No. 63, Sept. Term, 2018
• Citation: 472 Md. 491,247 A.3d 767
• Parties: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Chauncey Bayarculus JOHNSON
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

472 Md. 491

247 A.3d 767

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.Chauncey Bayarculus JOHNSON

Misc. Docket AG No. 63, Sept. Term, 2018

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 16, 2021

Argued by Erin A. Risch, Deputy Bar Counsel (Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel Atty. Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.

Argued by Craig S. Brodsky of Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP (Baltimore, MD), for Respondent.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran, JJ.

Getty, J.

"Do the dull things right so the extraordinary things will not be required too often."

George F. Will, Columnist – Describing the baseball philosophy of Baltimore Orioles manager Earl Weaver.¹

Earl Weaver, famous for managing the Baltimore Orioles during their glory days, is often quoted about stressing the fundamentals of playing baseball. Much like in baseball, to properly maintain a law practice, a lawyer must execute basic fundamentals, some of which can, on a daily basis, be dull and monotonous. Establishing and maintaining an attorney trust account requires devoting time and attention to minute details but is fundamental to complying with the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Maintaining strong communications with clients can be monotonous; supervising non-attorney staff can be difficult; and executing other client matters can be dull, but failure to do so can result in violations and misconduct under the rules. Weaver also said, "The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers."² However, for the Maryland attorney, it is all about the fundamentals.

Throughout the course of numerous personal injury representations, Respondent, Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson, repeatedly failed to recognize the fundamentals of operating a Maryland law practice. Mr. Johnson operates a solo law practice in Prince George's County, Maryland, known as the Law Offices of Chauncey B. Johnson. Mr. Johnson transitioned from working as a schoolteacher to practicing law part-time in 2013, prior to becoming a full-time attorney shortly thereafter. During this transition, Mr. Johnson first transgressed by failing to maintain his client's settlement funds in an attorney trust account. Shortly after Mr. Johnson opened an attorney trust account, he alleges that his nephew and non-attorney employee—Romeo Clarke—began misappropriating client funds from that account with the intent to commit theft. The misappropriation of funds from Mr. Johnson's attorney trust account set off a wide-ranging pattern of misconduct spanning twenty-one personal injury clients. For the reasons discussed below, we shall indefinitely suspend Mr. Johnson from the practice of law, with the right to reapply after one year, providing that he completes a course emphasizing the responsible maintenance of an attorney trust account.

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Context.

On February 19, 2019, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action ("Petition") with the Court of Appeals alleging that Chauncey Bayarculus Johnson ("Mr. Johnson") had violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC" or "Rules"), the Maryland Rules, and Maryland Code (1989, 2018 Repl. Vol.) Bus. Occ. & Prof. ("BOP") § 10-306.³ See Md. Rule 19-721.

The Petition concerned Mr. Johnson's failure to deposit client funds into an attorney trust account, several instances of financial mismanagement after Mr. Johnson opened an attorney trust account, commingling of funds, failure to supervise a non-attorney employee's handling of funds, failure to promptly remit funds due to clients, and misrepresentations to clients about their settlements. Based on this conduct, the Petition alleged that Mr. Johnson violated the following Rules: 1.1 (Competence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.15 (Safekeeping Property); 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Non-Attorney Assistants); 5.5⁴ (Unauthorized Practice of Law); and 8.4 (Misconduct). The Petition also alleged violations of the following Maryland Rules: 16-603 (Duty to Maintain Account); 16-604 (Trust Account—Required Deposits); 16-607 and 19-408 (Commingling of Funds); and 16-609 and 19-410 (Prohibited Transactions).⁵ Finally, the Petition alleged that Mr. Johnson violated § 10-306 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Code. See BOP § 10-306 ("A lawyer may not use trust money for any purpose other than the purpose for which the trust money is entrusted to the lawyer.").

We designated the Honorable Leo E. Green, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County by Order dated March 6, 2019, to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning the alleged violations and to provide findings of fact and recommend conclusions of law. See Md. Rule 19-722(a). Mr. Johnson was personally served with process on May 16, 2019, and, on May 22, 2019, this Court entered an Order reassigning the case to be heard by the Honorable Wytonja L. Curry (the "hearing judge").

The evidentiary hearing spanned six days: December 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10, 2019. Three months after the hearing, on March 18, 2020, Mr. Johnson moved this Court to remand the case for the hearing judge to consider newly discovered evidence or alternatively to include newly discovered evidence in Mr. Johnson's exceptions to the hearing judge's finding of facts and conclusions of law. We denied Mr. Johnson's motion in an Order dated March 27, 2020. The hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in this Court on March 23, 2020, and shortly thereafter, on March 31, 2020, Mr. Johnson moved this Court to reconsider its March 27 Order denying his Motion for Leave to Remand. We denied Mr. Johnson's Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated April 9, 2020. Mr. Johnson filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law on April 23, 2020, and this Court heard oral argument in this matter on October 29, 2020.

B. Factual Findings.

We begin by summarizing the hearing judge's factual findings. Mr. Johnson is originally from Liberia and immigrated to the United States in 1991. He received degrees in engineering and biochemistry from the University of Maryland at College Park. He also completed a teaching certificate in science and math, after which he spent several years working as a teacher. Mr. Johnson then attended the University of Maryland School of Law and, after graduating, was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 20, 2001. Mr. Johnson did not immediately begin practicing law upon admission to the bar and continued working as a teacher for several years before practicing law part-time in 2013. Sometime between December 2014 and October 2015, Mr. Johnson began practicing law full-time.⁶ At all relevant times, Mr. Johnson maintained a law office—the Law Offices of Chauncey B. Johnson. Mr. Johnson's law practice first operated from his home address in Fort Washington, Maryland, and he later opened an office in National Harbor, Maryland.

In this matter, the hearing judge first made factual findings involving Mr. Johnson's failure to maintain an attorney trust account or IOLTA account between 2013 and October 2015. Then, the hearing judge made factual findings regarding multiple instances of misconduct spanning twenty-one clients. Lastly, the hearing judge made factual findings regarding witness testimony that Mr. Johnson misappropriated client funds. Regarding mitigation, the hearing judge made findings about evidence and testimony that Mr. Johnson suffered from a Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor ("GIST tumor") when his misconduct occurred.⁷

1. Mr. Johnson's failure to maintain an attorney trust account or IOLTA account until October 2015.

When Mr. Johnson began practicing law part-time in 2013, he did not maintain an attorney trust account or IOLTA account. Mr. Johnson recognized this in a retainer agreement dated April 28, 2013, that provided:

I am currently a part-time lawyer transitioning from the Montgomery County School System and averages very small monthly balances. Therefore the undersigned does not intend to hold monies for you or any client. Therefore all settlement check(s) will be jointly endorsed before a teller and the money deposited jointly and a check immediately issued to you (the client) "on the spot" representing your portion of the settlement as agreed by the parties. The date to be placed on your check will be determined by the client but the check must be deposited immediately, within a week but preferably sooner. All medical liens signed for by the undersigned less the person injury protection paid directly to the provider will be paid by the undersigned from any source of income available to the undersigned. If you do not agree to this arrangement you are free at this point to hire another attorney or seek legal advice at this junction prior to signing!

(Emphasis and exclamation point in original.) However, on February 26, 2014, and November 10, 2014, Mr. Johnson opened two Bank of America operating accounts ("Account #1945" and "Account #6070") for his law practice that were not attorney trust accounts or IOLTA accounts. Between April 25, 2014, and September 28, 2015, Mr. Johnson deposited $223,251 in personal injury settlement funds into Account #1945 for eighteen clients. Additionally, on April 10, 2015, Mr. Johnson deposited $11,500 in settlement funds into Account #6070 for one client. Mr. Johnson did not maintain an attorney trust account until October 5, 2015, when he opened an IOLTA attorney trust account at Bank of America.

At all relevant times between 2013 and October 5, 2015, Mr. Johnson was required to receive informed consent from his clients before depositing client funds into an account other than an attorney trust account.⁸ The hearing judge found that Mr. Johnson's April 28, 2013, retainer agreement provided notice that he did not intend to hold client funds. But, in highlighting that...