Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Thomas-Bellamy
| Decision Date | 22 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Misc. Docket No. AG 7, Sept. Term, 2016 |
| Citation | 450 Md. 516,149 A.3d 601 |
| Parties | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandy F. Thomas–Bellamy |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Raymond A. Hein, Deputy Bar Counsel (Glenn M. Grossman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.
Alexander Williams, Jr., of Silverman Thompson, Slutkin & White (Baltimore, M.D.), for Respondent.
ARGUED BEFORE: Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.
McDonald, J.The Attorney Grievance Commission (“Commission”) initiated this reciprocal attorney discipline action against Sandy F. Thomas–Bellamy based on discipline imposed on her last year by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. That court suspended her from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year, with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness, for making a deliberate misrepresentation in 2012 on her District of Columbia Bar application. In accordance with Maryland Rule 19–737, we impose corresponding discipline in Maryland—an indefinite suspension of Ms. Thomas–Bellamy's license to practice law in Maryland with the right to apply for reinstatement after one year. We do not find exceptional circumstances that would justify, under the rule, a greater or lesser sanction in Maryland.
Ms. Thomas–Bellamy was admitted to the Maryland Bar in June 1999. She was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in November 2012.
Although this is a reciprocal discipline case emanating from the District of Columbia, its genesis was a prior investigation by the Commission into several complaints made by clients of Ms. Thomas–Bellamy concerning her practice in Maryland. That investigation resulted in disciplinary proceedings in Maryland, as well as a reciprocal disciplinary action in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. It is the pendency of that Maryland investigation—and specifically, Ms. Thomas–Bellamy's failure to disclose it when she was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar—that resulted in both a second disciplinary proceeding in the District of Columbia, and this proceeding in this Court.
In late 2011 and early 2012, four of Ms. Thomas–Bellamy's Maryland clients separately complained to the Commission about the services she provided—or, more precisely, the lack of services. The complaints had a common pattern. Each client had asked Ms. Thomas–Bellamy to file a bankruptcy petition on the client's behalf and had paid Ms. Thomas–Bellamy money for filing fees and professional services. Thereafter, Ms. Thomas–Bellamy did not promptly file the bankruptcy petitions and failed to respond to inquiries from the clients. The Commission launched an investigation.
On January 9, 2012, Ms. Thomas–Bellamy submitted an application for admission to the District of Columbia Bar. On that application, she indicated that she had never been the “subject of any charges, complaints, or grievances (formal or informal) concerning [her] conduct as an attorney, including any now pending,” and attested that all information on the application was “true and complete.” From the record before us, there is no indication that she knew about the Maryland client complaints, or the Commission's investigation, at the time she completed that application. However, it was not long before she became aware of them.
On May 14, 2012, Ms. Thomas–Bellamy signed a return receipt indicating that she had received a letter from the Commission regarding its investigation into the complaints of her Maryland clients. Additionally, on June 25, 2012, she responded to one of the client complaints in a letter to the Commission.
On November 15, 2012, the day before she was to be sworn into the District of Columbia Bar, Ms. Thomas–Bellamy completed a supplemental questionnaire in connection with her application for admission. In her response to an item on that questionnaire, she reiterated that there were no “charges or complaints now pending concerning [her] conduct as an attorney ....” As Ms. Thomas–Bellamy concedes, that was not true, and she knew it was not true when she completed the supplemental questionnaire. She was sworn into the District of Columbia Bar the next day.
In the meantime, Ms. Thomas–Bellamy cooperated in the Commission's investigation of the Maryland client complaints. She also completed her work on the bankruptcy petitions for three of the clients to their satisfaction and refunded the money paid by the fourth client.
After the Commission completed its investigation, the Commission and Ms. Thomas–Bellamy filed with this Court a Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension by consent. The Joint Petition outlined her client communication failures, but noted that she had resolved each of the client complaints. The Joint Petition also described Ms. Thomas–Bellamy's failure to maintain appropriate records concerning her attorney trust account and to file timely tax returns (apparently due in part to mistakes by the accountant she originally hired for that purpose).1 In the Joint Petition, the parties agreed that an appropriate sanction would be an indefinite suspension from the practice law in Maryland with the right to apply for reinstatement no sooner than six months from the date of suspension.
On March 28, 2014, this Court accepted the Joint Petition and the agreed disposition, and suspended Ms. Thomas–Bellamy indefinitely from the practice of law in Maryland with the right to apply for reinstatement after six months. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thomas–Bellamy , 437 Md. 606, 88 A.3d 773 (2014). Since that time Ms. Thomas–Bellamy has not petitioned for reinstatement and remains suspended from the practice of law in Maryland.
Shortly after we sanctioned Ms. Thomas–Bellamy, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in a reciprocal discipline proceeding based on her suspension in Maryland, imposed “functional[ly] equivalent” reciprocal discipline—a six-month suspension of her license in the District of Columbia with reinstatement contingent on a showing of fitness. In re Thomas–Bellamy , 97 A.3d 591 (D.C. 2014).2
In 2015, the District of Columbia authorities undertook an additional investigation—this time for the misrepresentation Ms. Thomas–Bellamy had made in the supplemental questionnaire concerning the existence of complaints against her. Ms. Thomas–Bellamy cooperated in that investigation and admitted to the misconduct. A Petition for Negotiated Discipline was submitted to a hearing committee of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. The hearing committee found that Ms. Thomas–Bellamy's misrepresentation violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d)3 and recommended a one-year suspension consecutive to the six-month suspension imposed in 2014, again with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals accepted the hearing committee's recommendation. In re Thomas–Bellamy , 125 A.3d 1136 (D.C. 2015). The Court stated that, although the earlier reciprocal discipline was an aggravating factor, the fact that Ms. Thomas–Bellamy had not taken on any clients in the District of Columbia and had cooperated with the investigation were mitigating circumstances.4
On April 7, 2016, the Commission initiated this reciprocal disciplinary proceeding based on the 2015 disciplinary action taken by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. In accordance with the procedure set forth in what is now Maryland Rule 19–737,5 we issued a show cause order requiring the Commission and Ms. Thomas–Bellamy to advise whether or not we should impose corresponding discipline on her. In response, Ms. Thomas–Bellamy initially asked that we impose a lesser sanction than corresponding discipline, but did not recommend any particular disposition. At oral argument, her counsel argued that a one-year suspension would be appropriate, but asked that we impose it retroactively from November 2015 when the District of Columbia imposed its sanction. The Commission has recommended a greater sanction—in particular, disbarment.
In most reciprocal discipline cases, a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney committed professional misconduct is “conclusive evidence” of misconduct. Maryland Rule 19–737(g). However, we will not accept that finding if the Commission or the respondent attorney demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, certain “exceptional circumstances” that undermine that conclusion—i.e. , that the other jurisdiction's “procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process;” that “there was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to a clear conviction that the Court, consistent with its duty, cannot accept as final the determination of misconduct;” or that the “conduct does not constitute misconduct in [Maryland].” Maryland Rule 19–737(e), (g).6
Assuming that there are no such extraordinary circumstances and that we accept that misconduct is established, we must then determine the appropriate sanction in Maryland. As a general rule, the appropriate sanction is discipline that “corresponds” to the discipline in the other jurisdiction—again, unless one of the parties demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances,” by clear and convincing evidence, that the misconduct warrants a different sanction. Maryland Rule 19–737(e), (f). Such circumstances may exist if “the imposition of corresponding discipline would result in a grave injustice” or if the conduct “warrants substantially...
To continue reading
Request your trial