Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Miller

• Decision Date: 29 January 2020
• Docket Number: Misc. Docket AG No. 40 September Term, 2018
• Citation: 223 A.3d 976,467 Md. 176
• Parties: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Anne Margaret MILLER
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

467 Md. 176

223 A.3d 976

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.Anne Margaret MILLER

Misc. Docket AG No. 40 September Term, 2018

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

January 29, 2020

Argued by Jessica M. Bolk, Assist & Bar Counsel, Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel (Atty. Grievance Commission, Maryland), for Petitioner.

Argued by Larry Jason Feldman (Baltimore, MD), for Respondent.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Clayton Greene Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

Greene, J.

This attorney discipline case arises out of an attorney's misrepresentations to her client concerning an adoption and subsequent misrepresentations the attorney made to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland ("Bar Counsel") throughout its investigation of complaints lodged against the attorney. Anne Margaret Miller and her client, R.W.,¹ met in 2015. Based on events which occurred throughout this representation, R.W. filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission that ultimately led to Bar Counsel filing a "Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action" ("Petition") against Ms. Miller.

Pursuant to Md. Rule 19-721(a), Bar Counsel filed its Petition with this Court on December 12, 2018. Therein, Bar Counsel averred that Ms. Miller's conduct throughout her representation of R.W. ran afoul of several provisions of the MARPC.² More specifically, Bar Counsel alleged that Ms. Miller violated Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4 (Misconduct).

On December 18, 2018, we ordered that the case be transmitted to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to hold a hearing under Maryland Rule 19-727. The Honorable Charles H. Dorsey, III ("hearing judge") held a hearing in the matter on May 17 and 20, 2019. Before the circuit court, Bar Counsel withdrew its allegation that Ms. Miller violated MARPC 1.16, and Ms. Miller conceded that her conduct constituted violations of both MARPC 1.4 and 8.4(a). Ms. Miller denied the remaining allegations of misconduct. As a result of that hearing, Judge Dorsey issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as required under Maryland Rule 19-727(d), in which he found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Miller violated MARPC 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 8.1(a) and (b), and 8.4(a), (b), and (c). Based on the record before us, we are convinced that the evidence adduced at the hearing clearly and convincingly supports the hearing judge's conclusions of law concerning Ms. Miller's violations of the MARPC.

The Hearing Judge's Factual Findings and Conclusions of Law.

We summarize the hearing judge's findings of fact as follows:

Ms. Miller was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 24, 1998. At all relevant times, Ms. Miller maintained a law office in Baltimore City as a sole practitioner. She focused her practice on panel work for the Office of the Public Defender, private criminal defense, and guardianship work. Prior to June 2015, Ms. Miller had completed two or three adoption cases.

Ms. Miller met R.W. in 2015 at R.W.'s brother's wedding. Ms. Miller had previously represented R.W.'s brother. At the wedding, R.W. informed Ms. Miller that she and her soon-to-be husband, M.W., wished to adopt her grandniece N.R. R.W. had been awarded custody and guardianship of N.R. by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in March of 2009. N.R.'s mother suffered from issues with substance abuse, and the identity of N.R.'s biological father was unknown. After the wedding, R.W. contacted Ms. Miller to discuss representation and the adoption generally. Ms. Miller indicated to R.W. that the adoption would likely cost $5,000 or more.

Prior to entering an attorney-client relationship, R.W. informed Ms. Miller that she wanted to have the adoption completed by July 30, 2016, the date she and M.W. were scheduled to marry, because she and her future husband wished to announce the adoption at the wedding. The hearing judge noted that, although Ms. Miller informed R.W. that the adoption process may not be complete by this date, Ms. Miller was aware that this deadline was "significant" to R.W. Thereafter, R.W. retained Ms. Miller to represent her in the adoption proceedings.

The parties disputed the circumstances leading up to execution of the retainer agreement. Ms. Miller contended that she provided R.W. with two copies of the retainer agreement, R.W. signed one of them, and M.W. delivered the signed retainer agreement to Ms. Miller's office on July 7, 2015. Ms. Miller maintained that she had never visited R.W.'s home. In contrast, R.W. testified that Ms. Miller brought the retainer agreement to her home on July 7, 2015, she signed the agreement, made a copy, and provided Ms. Miller with the copy. The hearing judge found R.W.'s testimony on this point more credible, because she introduced the original retainer agreement into evidence and rejected Ms. Miller's account of the events.

The retainer agreement indicated that Ms. Miller would charge $275 per hour and requested a $2,500 retainer. R.W. delivered a $2,500 cashier's check to Ms. Miller to cover the retainer. The retainer agreement also indicated that the adoption proceedings would cost between $3,000 and $5,000 in total. R.W. testified that she and M.W. had set aside sufficient funds to cover the estimated cost of the adoption.

The hearing judge found that, by August 15, 2015, Ms. Miller had prepared a "Petition for Adoption", affidavits for both R.W. and M.W. to sign, a "Motion to Waive Publication", a "Motion to Waive Investigation", and the "Consent of Biological Parent to Adoption." He also found that the papers and pleadings drafted by Ms. Miller "were not complex and generally contained boilerplate language." Although Ms. Miller testified that she provided R.W. with the first monthly invoice, dated August 15, 2015, in a letter accompanying drafts of initial pleadings, R.W. testified that this letter did not contain a copy of the invoice. The hearing judge found R.W.'s testimony more credible and rejected Ms. Miller's assertion.

On September 16, 2015, Ms. Miller emailed R.W. a draft of the adoption petition. She also advised R.W. that she required several documents to effectuate the adoption proceedings.³ On October 26, 2015, Ms. Miller, in an email correspondence, provided R.W. with a copy of the "Consent of Biological Parent to Adoption" that N.R.'s biological mother needed to sign. In that email, Ms. Miller indicated to R.W. that she required one final form "from the Department of Health," and that, after they met with the biological mother and obtained her signature, the petition for adoption would be ready to file. The hearing judge concluded that R.W. provided the documents necessary to file the adoption petition to Ms. Miller on or before December 10, 2015.

On December 10, 2015, Ms. Miller traveled to R.W.'s home to meet with the child's biological mother. At this meeting, the child's biological mother executed a consent to the petition for adoption and name change. Ms. Miller informed R.W. that she would file the petition for adoption and motions to waive a home visit and publication. Ms. Miller testified that she had mailed monthly invoices to R.W.'s home address and that she mentioned the outstanding balance to R.W. during the December 10, 2015 meeting. Ms. Miller testified that R.W. told her she would pay the additional balance of $2037 after Christmas. The hearing judge found Ms. Miller's testimony incredible and determined that R.W. was not aware of any outstanding balance as of December 10, 2015. Primarily, the hearing judge determined that Ms. Miller's testimony, i .e . that she sent R.W. monthly invoices, was unsubstantiated. The hearing judge also rejected Ms. Miller's testimony that she informed R.W. that she would not file the petition for adoption until after the outstanding balance had been paid. The hearing judge also found that Ms. Miller failed to file a motion to waive home study as she had previously represented to R.W.

Additionally, the hearing judge rejected Ms. Miller's testimony that she and R.W. had a heated telephone conversation in February 2016, where Ms. Miller testified that she called R.W. to discuss payment. Ms. Miller testified that R.W. informed her that she did not intend to pay until Ms. Miller appeared on her behalf in court, and, when she requested payment in full, R.W. responded belligerently by raising her voice, cursing, and calling Ms. Miller names. The hearing judge determined that Ms. Miller's testimony was again unsubstantiated, because it was inconsistent with cordial text messages exchanged between R.W. and Ms. Miller on April 22, 2016 and R.W.'s testimony that no such dispute occurred.

Between December 10, 2015 and April 22, 2016, R.W. contacted Ms. Miller by phone on several occasions. In each phone call, R.W. inquired as to the date the adoption would be finalized. In response to her inquiry, Ms. Miller misled her to believe that the petition for adoption had been filed, and occasionally represented that she needed to visit the clerk's office to check on the status of the case. The hearing judge determined that Ms. Miller did not request additional funds from R.W. at that time. Similarly, between April and October of 2016, Ms. Miller and R.W. exchanged several text messages in which Ms. Miller misled R.W. to believe that she had filed the petition for adoption. Again, in the text messages, Ms. Miller represented to R.W. that she would visit the clerk's office to determine the status of the case, but Ms. Miller ultimately failed to do so.⁴ Ms. Miller conceded that she intentionally misrepresented the status of the petition for adoption to R.W. to delay resolution of the case in hopes of receiving payment from R.W.

R.W. only became aware of any outstanding balance from Ms. Miller on September 7, 2016 through an exchange of text messages. The hearing judge rejected Ms. Miller's...