Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 27 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | Misc. Docket AG No. 18,Misc. Docket AG No. 3 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. JOHN T. HAMILTON, JR. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE - DISCIPLINE - DISBARMENT - Court of Appeals disbarred attorney who failed to represent competently his clients, failed to appear in court at scheduled proceeding without timely or adequate explanation, failed to file discovery (resulting in sanctions imposed on his clients), failed to communicate with his clients, failed to deposit funds into an attorney trust account, charged an unreasonable fee, failed to return unearned fees, misrepresented that he filed paperwork in a case, and misappropriated funds. Respondent failed also to respond to lawful inquiries from Bar Counsel for information concerning client complaints. Such misconduct violated Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (c), 1.16(d), 8.1, and 8.4(a), (c), and (d). Respondent violated also Maryland Rule 16-604 and Maryland Code, Bus. Occ. & Prof. Art., § 10-306. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction.
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case Nos. 02-C-13-17899 & 02-C-13-186636
Barbera, C.J., *Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, JJ.
Opinion by Harrell, J.
*Harrell, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.
John T. Hamilton, Jr. ("Respondent") was admitted to the Bar of this Court on 11 December 2001. He maintained an office for the practice of law in Anne Arundel County at all times relevant to this opinion.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland ("Petitioner") asked us to disbar Hamilton for violating certain of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MLRPC"), Maryland Rule 16-604, and Maryland Code, Bus. Occ. & Prof. Art., § 10-306. On 4 June 2013, Petitioner, acting through Bar Counsel, filed against Hamilton a Petition for Disciplinary of Remedial Action ("PDRA"), in response to its investigation of the complaints of two of Respondent's former clients, Bryan Manning and Richard DeVincent. On 19 March 2014, we designated the Honorable Paul F. Harris, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to hear this case.
On 28 March 2014, Petitioner filed a second PDRA against Respondent for alleged violations of the MLRPC, Md. Rule 16-604, and Md. Code, Bus. Occ. & Prof. Art., § 10-306, based on its investigation of a complaint by Windy Grauer, another of Respondent's former clients. We consolidated for hearing the two petitions.
Petitioner charged Respondent with violating MLRPC 1.1 (Competence),1 1.3 (Diligence),2 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication),3 1.15(c) (Safekeeping Property),4 1.16(d)(Declining or Terminating Representation),5 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters),6 and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct)7 during Petitioner's investigation ofManning's complaint. Respondent was charged with violating MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)and (b), 1.15, and 8.4(a) and (d) while representing Richard DeVincent. Respondent was charged with violating MLRPC 1.1, 1.2(a) (),8 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a) (Fees),9 1.15(a)10 and(c), 1.16(d), 8.1(b) and 8.4(a), (b), (c)11, and (d), in addition to Maryland Rule 16-60412 and Maryland Code (2000, 2010 Repl. Vol.), Business Occupations & Professions Article, § 10-306 ("BOP")13 in connection with the complaint of Windy Grauer.
Judge Harris set a hearing for 7-8 July 2014. Respondent requested a continuance because of his hospitalization. After receiving an acceptable confirmatory fax from Dr. Kevin Ferentz, Judge Harris rescheduled the hearing for 4-5 August 2014. On 4 August 2014, Respondent requested another continuance. Respondent provided another letter from Dr. Ferentz, dated 24 July 2014. This letter did not explain, however, why Respondent would be unavailable for the August hearing dates. Judge Harris denied the continuance and heard the case. Respondent did not appear.
Neither party filed exceptions to Judge Harris's written factual findings and legal conclusions. Respondent failed also to offer any recommendation contrary to Petitioner's written recommendation for disbarment or avail himself of the opportunity to appear and argue the proposed sanction before us.
Finding Judge Harris's findings not clearly erroneous and virtually all of his conclusions of law were supported by clear and convincing evidence, we disbarred Respondent in a per curiam order issued 13 May 2015. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hamilton, 442 Md. 740, 114 A.3d 708 (mem.). In this opinion, we explain that decision.
Judge Harris accepted fully as his own Petitioner's proposed "Factual findings and Conclusions of Law". We parse here the hearing judge's findings of fact according to each client/complainant.
Bryan Manning retained Respondent on 21 January 2010 to represent him in his divorce case. Respondent entered his appearance on Manning's behalf in the case in the Circuit Court for Howard County, and filed an answer to the spouse's complaint and a counter-complaint.
Manning paid Respondent for the representation a "flat" fee of $10,000, in two installments of $5,000.00. Respondent failed to place Manning's payments into an attorney trust account. Despite Manning's requests for one, Respondent failed to provide a written retainer agreement.
On 4 March 2010, Manning's wife's attorney served upon Hamilton requests for discovery from his client. Manning provided promptly to Respondent responses to these discovery requests. Although Respondent was in possession of the responses, Manning's wife was compelled to file a motion to compel production of the items requested, claiming no responses had been received by her. On 16 April 2010, the trial court granted the motion to compel discovery and ordered Manning to provide, within 15 days, complete answers to the interrogatories and a response to the request for the production of documents. At about the same time, Respondent requested $500.00 more fromManning, ostensibly to obtain an extension of time to avoid missing a deadline. Manning gave Respondent a check for $500.00.
In early May, Respondent told Manning he needed Manning's responses to the interrogatories on 5 May 2010, so he could file them the next morning. Respondent demanded another $500.00 to submit the answers to interrogatories, which amount Manning paid in cash. Respondent failed to place either $500.00 payment into an attorney trust account.
As of July 2010, Respondent still had not submitted the answers to interrogatories or responded to the document production request. On 7 July 2010, the trial court granted Manning's wife's motion for sanctions. In the order granting sanctions, the court directed that, if Manning failed to provide full answers to the discovery requests by 8 September 2010, he would be prohibited from introducing contrary evidence at trial relative to the topics of the discovery requests. Despite the motion to compel and the sanctions imposed by the Court, Respondent never filed his client's discovery responses, which information was (or should have been) in his possession.
At trial, the Circuit Court granted Manning's wife's request for a divorce. The Court made also a marital award to Manning's ex-wife and awarded her attorney's fees in excess of $4,000.00 for Manning's failure to answer discovery. Manning learned, at trial and for the first time, that he had been sanctioned for failure to provide discovery responses.
Following Manning's divorce, Respondent refused to assist Manning with issues relating to the division of martial property. Respondent failed to inform Manning aboutcourt hearings and deadlines in his case. Finally, Respondent would not produce a copy of Manning's file upon request, despite Manning offering to pay for the copying.
Respondent failed to answer Bar Counsel's letter request for information regarding his representation of Manning and the client's complaint. Respondent failed to produce any response to Manning's complaint at trial or at any other time.
DeVincent hired14 Respondent in January 2010 to reopen his child custody case in order to seek full custody of his children. Respondent charged DeVincent a "flat" fee of $7500.00, which DeVincent paid in installments. Respondent did not deposit any of the funds into an attorney trust account because Respondent did not have an attorney trust account during the time he represented DeVincent.
In July 2010, DeVincent's wife served discovery requests on Hamilton. DeVincent provided his responses to Respondent approximately one week after service. Respondent confirmed that he received DeVincent's responses. The deadline for timely completion of discovery was 30 September 2010. Respondent failed to file the discovery responses provided to him by DeVincent. In November 2010, Respondent informed DeVincent they needed to meet to prepare answers to the discovery requests. In January 2011, Respondent told DeVincent he did not have the discovery responses DeVincent had provided in July 2010. DeVincent's fiancée located copies of DeVincent's earlier responses and forwarded them to Respondent via email.
On 8 February 2011, the court sanctioned DeVincent $250.00 for failure to respond to the discovery requests. The court required also that the answers be filed in 10 days or DeVincent's complaint would be stricken. On 10 February 2011, a family law master15 of the Circuit Court advised Respondent that he risked losing the case for his client based on his failure to respond to discovery. Respondent filed the discovery responses on 18 February...
To continue reading
Request your trial