Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Hodes, Misc. Docket AG No. 61, Sept. Term, 2013.

Decision Date23 December 2014
Docket NumberMisc. Docket AG No. 61, Sept. Term, 2013.
PartiesATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, v. Michael C. HODES.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Raymond A. Hein, Deputy Bar Counsel (Glenn M. Grossman, Bar Counsel, Atty. Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.

Andrew J. Graham, Esquire, Kramon and Graham, P.A.,

Argued before BARBERA, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD, DALE R. CATHELL (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion

BATTAGLIA, J.

Michael C. Hodes, Respondent, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 18, 1975. On October 29, 2013, the Attorney Grievance Commission, (Petitioner or “Bar Counsel), acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–751(a),1 filed a “Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action” against Respondent related to his representation of Gloria S. Ominsky. Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated the following Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rule”): 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule),2 Rule 1.15(d) (Safekeeping Property),3 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters),4 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d) (Misconduct),5 as well as Section 10–306 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Code (Misuse of trust money).6

In an Order dated November 4, 2013, we referred the matter to Judge Vicki Ballou–Watts of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for a hearing, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–757.7 Respondent was served with the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, our Order and the Writ of Summons on November 20, 2013, to which Respondent filed a timely response.

Judge Ballou–Watts held evidentiary hearings on March 4, 2014, March 5, 2014 and March 10, 2014. At the hearings, Bar Counsel presented testimony from individuals associated with Respondent's former law firm, Hodes, Pessin and Katz, P.A. (hereinafter “HPK”), to include Richard “Ricky” Adams, a paralegal, Donna Zurowski, one of Hodes's secretaries, and five attorneys, Kimberly Battaglia,8 Steven Allen, Kevin Bress, Helen Smith and Drake Zaharris. Hodes testified on his own behalf; he additionally called Lynn Lazzaro, his accountant, LeDonna Berman, a paralegal from his former law firm, Ellen Hodes, his wife, Donna Balanesi, his current secretary, and several character witnesses.

Bar Counsel introduced various documents, which were admitted into evidence, including Gloria S. Ominsky's Last Will and Testament, a Power of Attorney executed by her, an unexecuted Promissory Note, a Promissory Note Guaranty signed by the Respondent, correspondence between Ms. Ominsky and the Respondent, copies of numerous checks and copies of bank account statements. Respondent introduced various documents, which were admitted into evidence, including another copy of Gloria S. Ominsky's Last Will and Testament, a memorandum to the Ominsky file written by Richard Adams, bank account statements and Hodes's resume.

Judge Ballou–Watts issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in which she found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated Rules 1.7, 1.15(d), 8.1(a),9 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct and Section 10–306 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Code, all of which had been charged.

Judge Ballou–Watts's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law state:10

The Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar in December 1975. He is a 1975 graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law. Respondent practiced law at several law firms throughout Maryland until he founded Michael Hodes, P.A. during the late 1980's. He developed a practice concentration in the areas of estates, trusts and what came to be recognized as elder law. Over time, the law firm he founded grew and became known as Hodes, Ulman, Pessin and Katz. Respondent served as Managing Partner of the law firm until 2007. Drake Zaharris succeeded Respondent as the Managing Partner and continues to serve in that capacity. When Attorney Lou Ulman left the practice, the firm was known as Hodes, Pessin and Katz, P.A. (hereinafter “HPK”) until Respondent left the firm in May 2012. After his departure from HPK, Respondent established a new Towson-based firm known as “Michael Hodes, LLC.”
Respondent has been recognized by several organizations for his skill and experience in the practice areas of elder law, estates and trusts and wealth preservation. He serves as an adjunct law professor at two area law schools and discusses elder law issues during weekly radio broadcasts. Respondent has also been associated with philanthropic efforts for local institutions including his law school alma mater, the University of Baltimore. During the evidentiary hearing, several witnesses testified that they trusted him, valued his advice and appreciated his professional service.
At all relevant times herein, until his departure from the firm in May 2012, Respondent practiced in HPK's “Wealth Preservation” Department. There were three sections within the Wealth Preservation Department, namely, Estate Planning, Probate and Trust Administration and Elder Law.
In 2005, Respondent and HPK began representing Gloria S. Ominsky. Ms. Ominsky sought legal advice in connection with elder care planning and asset preservation related to her sister Elaine Ominsky, who became disabled after a stroke. Both women were unmarried, had no children and no close relatives. They lived together in Pikesville, Maryland in a home inherited from their parents. The law firm helped secure Medicaid coverage for Elaine Ominsky and prepared estate planning documents for both Elaine and Gloria Ominsky. In the early stages of Respondent's Attorney–Client relationship with Gloria Ominsky, the value of her asset portfolio was between 1.5 to 2 million dollars.

Events During 20092011

After Gloria Ominsky's health began to decline in 2009, she talked with Respondent about executing a new will to replace the will she executed in 2005. Another HPK attorney prepared a new Last Will and Testament which named Respondent as Personal Representative. The new will also contained certain trust provisions for which Respondent was named as Trustee.
In addition, the law firm prepared a Durable Power of Attorney naming Respondent and another HPK attorney, Kevin Bress, to serve as Gloria Ominsky's attorneys-in-fact, jointly or individually, with regard to her personal care and various financial and property transactions. Although Kevin Bress was named as attorney-in-fact for Gloria Ominsky under the Durable Power of Attorney, he never exercised any authority on her behalf. And, Kevin Bress was never directly involved in the firm's representation of Gloria Ominsky.
The Last Will and Testament and the Durable Power of Attorney were executed by Gloria Ominsky on April 27, 2009.
During the last two years of her life, Gloria Ominsky moved from her home in Pikesville to an assisted living facility in Owings Mills (hereinafter “The Atrium”) and later to Levindale Geriatric Center. She developed a relationship of trust with Respondent as her adviser and depended upon him for legal, financial, medical and personal matters. In November 2009, after Gloria Ominsky moved to The Atrium, Respondent's nephew, Brian Gates, moved into the Ominsky home. Although Mr. Gates did not pay rent, he paid the BG & E bills and kept the home secure.
Paralegals in the law firm ran personal errands for Gloria Ominsky, paid bills, coordinated medical appointments and pharmacy needs and provided transportation for medical appointments. Ricky Adams was the HPK paralegal who handled the payment of bills and monitored her financial records. Another HPK paralegal, LeDonna Berman, coordinated medical appointments, pharmacy needs and transportation for medical visits. Gloria Ominsky was aware that the law firm billed her for the aforementioned nonlegal work at the HPK paralegal rate of $200.00 to as much as $275.00 per hour. Sometime between 2009 and 2010, Respondent introduced his wife (Ellen Hodes) to Gloria Ominsky. Subsequently, Respondent suggested to Gloria Ominsky that his wife could perform personal errands such as transporting Ms. Ominsky to medical appointments, talking with medical providers and shopping. Ms. Ominsky signed an undated letter on HPK letterhead agreeing to pay for Mrs. Hodes' services at an hourly rate of “$25.00 per hour plus out of pocket expenses” for “day to day tasks” and to “be an advocate with ... [her] personal and health care concerns and other situations that may arise.” Respondent drafted and signed the letter. This arrangement saved money for Ms. Ominsky and provided income for Mrs. Hodes who was not employed.
In 2010, Gloria Ominsky was diagnosed with cancer and began receiving chemotherapy. Because of her declining health, she could no longer drive and Respondent recommended that she sell her Buick LaCrosse. However, Ms. Ominsky did not want to sell her car. Instead, in May 2010, she authorized Respondent to “operate and maintain the vehicle on her behalf and by her direction,” according to a file memo prepared by Mr. Adams. Ms. Ominsky also agreed to pay expenses associated with driving her vehicle.
After her health began to decline, Ms. Ominsky's personal checkbook, Wachovia bank statements and all other financial records were kept at the HPK office in a file cabinet near the desk of paralegal Richard Adams. As noted, Mr. Adams was the HPK paralegal responsible for handling the payment of Ms. Ominsky's bills. Whenever bill payment was needed, he followed an established procedure: Mr. Adams would take an invoice (or bill), prepare a check for payment with all sections completed except the date and signature line. Next, he would submit the invoice, an envelope and the prepared check to Respondent for approval and signature. Once Respondent signed the check, Mr. Adams made a copy of the invoice and check for the file. The payment was then mailed.
There was a similar approval process for the payment
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rheinstein
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 24, 2020
    ...of 'attorney discipline is protection of the public, rather than punishment' of the errant attorney." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136, 205, 105 A.3d 533, 574 (2014) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Coppola, 419 Md.370, 404, 19 A.3d 431, 451 (2011) (further citation omit......

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