Attorney Grievance Comm'n Of Md. v. Thaxton.
Decision Date | 28 July 2010 |
Docket Number | Misc. Docket AG No. 53, Sept. Term, 2009. |
Citation | 415 Md. 341,1 A.3d 470 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Ronnie THAXTON. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gail D. Kessler, Asst. Bar Counsel (Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for petitioner.
No argument on behalf of the Respondent.
Argued before HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, BARBERA and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
This is a reciprocal discipline action concerning Ronnie Thaxton, Respondent, who was admitted to the Bar of this Court on July 1, 2002, and to the Bar of the District of Columbia on December 4, 1995. On September 10, 2009, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ordered Thaxton be suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months stayed, followed by a three year probationary period, in which he was required to participate in the District Bar's Practice Management Advisory Service. The Court of Appeals based its decision on Thaxton's violation of District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a), 1 1.4(a), 2 1.4(b), 3 1.4(c), 4 1.5(c), 5 1.15(a), 6 1.15(b), 7 1.15(c), 8 and 8.4(d), 9 to which Thaxton admitted his wrongdoing, and upon the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility's Report and Recommendation for discipline.
On December 11, 2009, the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, acting pursuant to Rules 16-751(a)(2) 10 and 16-773(b), 11 filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Thaxton to which a certified copy of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion and the Hearing Committee's Report were attached. Bar Counsel incorporated by reference into its Petition the Opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the findings of fact of the Hearing Committee. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals' opinion, filed on September 10, 2009, provided:
PER CURIAM: Respondent Ronnie Thaxton, a member of the bar of this court, has admitted to the negligent misappropriation of settlement funds in one case and interfering with the administration of justice in another. Respondent admits that in his representation of Ms. Terri
Roberts, he (1) did not notify his client when a settlement was offered or secure her consent to accept the settlement offer; (2) failed to notify his client when the settlement funds had been received and deposited into his trust account; (3) failed to timely pay Doctor Ashkan Aazmi's fee, which he was entitled to receive from the settlement for healthcare services rendered; and (4) withdrew $5,000 as his attorney's fees from his trust account immediately upon depositing them in 2006 without notifying his client that he did so. In his representation of Ms. Janice Arkue, Respondent admits that he interfered with the administration of justice when he failed to appear at a status hearing and a show cause hearing, resulting in the dismissal of Ms. Arkue's civil action for want of prosecution.
Respondent made the aforementioned admissions voluntarily, with the advice of counsel in connection with a petition for negotiated discipline, and supporting affidavit that was prepared by Bar Counsel and jointly filed on April 30, 2009. The Board on Professional Responsibility referred the petition to Hearing Committee Number Four, and following a hearing on May 29, 2009, where Respondent (1) reaffirmed his admission to all of the factual allegations in the petition; (2) acknowledged that each constituted a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct; (3) stated that he understood the ramifications of the proposed sanction; and (4) confirmed that he was entering into the disposition freely and voluntarily, and not as the result of any coercion or duress, the Committee issued the report now before this court that recommends the negotiated sanction be imposed.
three year probationary period to include participation in the District of Columbia Bar's Practice Management Advisory Service. The conditions of Respondent's probation are as outlined by the Hearing Committee's Report and Recommendation: if a new complaint is filed against Respondent within one year of the date of the beginning of the period of suspension, and such complaint results in a finding that Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, Respondent will be required to serve the remaining six months of the suspension consecutively with whatever other sanction may be imposed on him in the new matter or matters. Further, Respondent must return Ms. Robert's attorney's fees with interest and remit interest on money he has already delivered to her, prior to the expiration of the three-year probationary period. Finally, for the purpose of seeking reinstatement to the Bar, Respondent's suspension shall not begin until he complies with the affidavit requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g) (2001 & 2008 Supp.).
So ordered.
(Footnotes omitted).
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals based its opinion on the Report and Recommendation of Hearing Committee Number Four Approving Petition for Negotiated Discipline, filed on July 10, 2009:
by Respondent (the “ Affidavit”), and the representations made during the limited hearing by Respondent and Bar Counsel. The Chairman of the Hearing Committee also has fully considered Bar Counsel's investigative files ex parte.
promises or inducements were made to him other than those set forth in the Petition.
9. Respondent has not been subjected to coercion or duress.
results in a finding that Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, Respondent will be required to serve the remaining six months of the suspension consecutively with whatever other sanction may be imposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Smith
...a portion of the cases of Ms. Matthews and the Hardys without the clients' knowledge or consent. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thaxton, 415 Md. 341, 362, 1 A.3d 470 (2010) (attorney violated MLRPC 1.2(a) by failing to obtain the client's consent to settle, notify client of when settlemen......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Brady
...reinstate her claims. Therefore, Respondent's conduct severely obstructed the administration of justice. See Att'y Griev. Comm'n v. Thaxton, 415 Md. 341, 356, 1 A.3d 470, 479 (2010) (attorney's failure to appear at two hearings, which resulted in the dismissal of his client's case, was cond......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Zhang
...out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter.In Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thaxton, 415 Md. 341, 362, 1 A.3d 470, 482 (2010), we held that a lawyer violated MLRPC 1.2(a) by “fail[ing] to obtain his client's consent to a settlement[.]” Here......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Paz
...10 to open the estate for the deceased defendant resulted in the dismissal of his client's complaint. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thaxton, 415 Md. 341, 362, 1 A.3d 470 (2010) (attorney violated, inter alia, Rule 8.4(d) when his absence from client's hearings prompted dismissal of the c......