Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Sperling

• Decision Date: 01 March 2021
• Docket Number: Misc. Docket AG No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019
• Citation: 248 A.3d 224,472 Md. 561
• Parties: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Samuel SPERLING
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

472 Md. 561

248 A.3d 224

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.Samuel SPERLING

Misc. Docket AG No. 6, Sept. Term, 2019

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 1, 2021

Argued by Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel (Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.

Argued by Craig Stephen Brodsky and George Samuel Mahaffey, Jr., Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP (Baltimore, MD), for Respondent.

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

Biran, J. Respondent Samuel Sperling operates a solo law practice in Baltimore County, Maryland, known as The Sperling Firm, LLC. On June 11, 2019, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland ("AGC" or the "Commission"), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action ("PDRA") against Mr. Sperling, alleging that Mr. Sperling violated several rules of professional conduct.¹ Bar Counsel alleged that, in connection with his representation of Ebony Boyd and Darius Bailey in 2016-18 as plaintiffs in the same personal injury matter, Mr. Sperling violated Rule 1.1 (competence); Rule 1.3 (diligence); Rules 1.4(a) and (b) (communication); Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information); Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest); Rule 8.1(a) (knowing false statement of material fact in a disciplinary matter); and Rules 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct). Bar Counsel subsequently withdrew the allegation concerning Rule 1.6. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Honorable Jan M. Alexander of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County concluded that Mr. Sperling committed multiple rules violations.

Although we shall sustain several of Mr. Sperling's exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law, we conclude that Mr. Sperling violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(2) and (b), and 8.4(a) and (d). For the reasons discussed below, we shall suspend Mr. Sperling from the practice of law for 120 days.

I

Background

A. Mr. Sperling's Prior Professional Discipline

From the time Mr. Sperling was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1996, until he formed his current firm in June 2014, Mr. Sperling worked for law firms owned by his father, Leonard Sperling. The last of these firms was known as The Sperling Law Office, P.C. (the "Sperling Law Office"). In 2013, this Court indefinitely suspended Leonard Sperling from the practice of law. See AGC v. Sperling , 434 Md. 658, 76 A.3d 1172 (2013).

In 2016, the AGC, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a PDRA against Samuel Sperling and his brother, Jonathan Sperling, relating to professional misconduct that they allegedly committed while working at the Sperling Law Office. On May 21, 2018, we suspended Samuel Sperling for 90 days. See AGC v. Sperling & Sperling , 459 Md. 194, 281, 185 A.3d 76 (2018). Mr. Sperling's misconduct in that case involved his failure to safeguard funds in an attorney trust account and his failure to supervise Jonathan Sperling – a suspended attorney – at the Sperling Law Office. See id. at 212, 237-40, 244-49, 185 A.3d 76.²

Separately, on June 29, 2018, the AGC issued a public reprimand to Mr. Sperling in connection with his filing of a lawsuit in 2015 against a former client, in violation of Rule 1.7. The reprimand further recited that Mr. Sperling violated Rule 8.1(b) (knowing failure to respond to lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority), and that Mr. Sperling's conduct described in the reprimand also violated Rule 8.4(d).

On August 10, 2018, with his 90-day suspension period almost concluded, Mr. Sperling filed a petition with this Court seeking reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland under Maryland Rule 19-751. By this time, Mr. Bailey and Ms. Boyd had filed complaints against Mr. Sperling with the AGC relating to his representation of them as plaintiffs in a motor vehicle tort case. In his petition for reinstatement, Mr. Sperling disclosed that Bar Counsel had requested he provide responses concerning Mr. Bailey's and Ms. Boyd's complaints.

Bar Counsel objected to Mr. Sperling's petition for reinstatement. In its filing, Bar Counsel asserted that Mr. Sperling had failed to provide information about his attorney trust accounts during the pendency of his suspension. In addition, Bar Counsel stated that Mr. Sperling was the subject of ongoing investigations relating to his representation of Mr. Bailey and Ms. Boyd. Bar Counsel provided the Court with details of what it claimed those investigations had revealed up to that point. Bar Counsel concluded by stating that additional investigation was necessary with respect to both the attorney trust account issue and the Bailey/Boyd complaints.

On September 5, 2018, Mr. Sperling filed a response to Bar Counsel's objections. On September 28, 2018, without holding a hearing, this Court granted Mr. Sperling's petition for reinstatement.

B. Procedural History of This Case

After the AGC filed the current PDRA on June 11, 2019, under Maryland Rule 19-722(a) we designated Judge Alexander to conduct a hearing in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-727 concerning the alleged violations and to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law. Prior to the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Sperling filed a motion for summary judgment based on the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. Mr. Sperling contended that this Court previously decided the issues raised by the PDRA when we granted Mr. Sperling's petition for reinstatement over the objections of Bar Counsel. On January 6, 2020, the circuit court held a hearing on Mr. Sperling's motion for summary judgment. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the motion for summary judgment from the bench.

The evidentiary hearing concerning the PDRA went forward on January 22 and 23, 2020. Bar Counsel called three witnesses: Ms. Boyd, Mr. Bailey, and Deborah Friend, an employee of Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund ("MAIF"), the insurer of the at-fault driver in the accident, Lauren LaPlante. Mr. Sperling testified in his own defense. After concluding his testimony, Mr. Sperling sought to introduce expert testimony from H. Briggs Bedigian, an experienced Maryland personal injury attorney. The hearing judge excluded Mr. Bedigian's testimony, explaining, "I think I have a very good understanding of what happened here."

On April 17, 2020, the hearing judge issued an opinion containing his findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as findings concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Mr. Sperling filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law and made several other claims of legal error. Mr. Sperling also excepted to the hearing judge's findings regarding aggravating factors and the hearing judge's failure to identify several mitigating factors. For its part, Bar Counsel asked us to note the existence of several aggravating factors that the hearing judge did not identify.

On November 5, 2020, we heard oral argument regarding these exceptions and the parties’ recommendations as to an appropriate sanction.

C. The Hearing Judge's Findings of Fact

The hearing judge stated his findings of fact as follows:

Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the Court of Appeals of Maryland on June 5, 1996. Since admission to the Bar, respondent has engaged in the general practice of law and has been a solo practitioner in Baltimore County, Maryland since 2014.

Ebony Boyd, Darius Bailey and Denise Davis were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Baltimore City, Maryland on January 8, 2016. Bailey was the driver of the vehicle in which Boyd and Davis were passengers. Said vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Lauren LaPlante. LaPlante was insured with policy limits of $30,000.00 per person and $60,000.00 per accident, through Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF). The accident resulted in minimal damage to the rear of Bailey's vehicle and all three occupants complained of bodily injuries. Boyd, who was ten weeks pregnant, and Bailey were seen in the emergency room of a local hospital for treatment of their injuries and it was determined that she had suffered a miscarriage.

Boyd and Bailey retained Respondent on January 17, 2016, to represent them in their claims for damages pursuant to the accident. Each executed retainer agreements which provided for Respondent to be paid one-third of any recovery on a contingency basis. They also executed documents allowing for Respondent to receive their health information and to act as their Power of Attorney. There was no discussion of any potential conflict of interest in Respondent's representation of the parties.

Respondent filed claims with MAIF on behalf of Boyd and Bailey on January 19, 2016. Boyd and Bailey received physical therapy treatment for their injuries through the months of January and February 2016 and notified Respondent when treatment had ended. On October 11, 2016, MAIF offered settlements of $500.00 each to Boyd and Bailey. After discussions with Respondent, both decided to reject the offers. Respondent filed suit on behalf of Boyd and Bailey in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on January 8, 2017.^[3] From February 14, 2017 until July 2, 2017, to no avail, Respondent attempted to perfect service upon LaPlante via certified mail return-receipt requested, and private process server. Unable to obtain service, Respondent filed and was granted a Motion to Defer Dismissal in the expectation that service would be obtained. However, on December 27, 2017, the Circuit Court issued a dismissal of the suit without prejudice as service had not been obtained.

Respondent received a ninety-day suspension from the practice [of law] by the Court of Appeals on May 21, 2018. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sperling & Sperling, 459 Md. 194, 185 A.3d. 76 (2018). He advised MAIF of his suspension by way of a letter dated June 1, 2018. He also sent letters to Boyd and Bailey dated June 3, 2018, notifying them of his suspension. The letters characterized their cases as "pending" and

...