Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Levin

• Decision Date: 02 July 2013
• Docket Number: Misc. Docket AG No. 10,Sept. Term, 2012.
• Citation: 69 A.3d 451,432 Md. 429
• Parties: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Robert Norman LEVIN.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

432 Md. 429

69 A.3d 451

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.Robert Norman LEVIN.

Misc. Docket AG No. 10, Sept. Term, 2012.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 2, 2013.

Dolores O. Ridgell, Assistant Bar Counsel(Glenn M. Grossman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.

Philip F. Hudock, Esquire, Reston, VA, for Respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, BARBERA and McDONALD, JJ.

BATTAGLIA, J.

Robert Norman Levin, Respondent, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 17, 1965.On April 2, 2012, the Attorney Grievance Commission(“Bar Counsel”), acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–751(a), ¹ filed a “Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action” against Levin.

The complaint arose from Levin's representation of Sean Shahparast and Royal Investment Group, LLC, as plaintiffs in a legal malpractice action filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.²Years earlier, in an unrelated case in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Creative Concrete Corporation, represented by Michael T. Nalls, Esq., sued Shahparast and Royal for the balance of a debt they owed to Creative for a driveway installed by Creative.Creative obtained judgment in November of 2005, in the amount of $24,355, plus $5,000 in attorneys' fees, against Shahparast for the balance of the amount owed for the driveway.

In October of 2010, prior to reaching a settlement in the legal malpractice litigation, Levin was served with a Charging Order in Aid of Enforcement and a Writ of Garnishment by Creative.The Writ named Shahparast as the judgment debtor, Creative as the judgment creditor, and Levin as the garnishee.

In November of 2010, Levin filed an Answer to the Writ of Garnishment in which he denied holding any property of the judgment debtor.Upon receiving the Answer, Nalls wrote to Levin and expressed his belief that the Writ applied to the unmatured debt arising from Shahparast's ongoing legal malpractice claim.Levin responded in writing that he was not in possession of any of the judgment debtor's property, but that he would honor the court's order should he come into possession of any such property.Nalls then filed a Reply to Levin's Answer, stating that the debt owed by Levin to Shahparast was unmatured and, therefore, garnishable.At this point, pursuant to Rule 2–645 (g),³ the garnishment proceedings became contested.Thereafter, Levin filed a Response to Nalls' Reply.At no point in the garnishment proceedings did Levin argue that the Writ of Garnishment was invalid.

In February of 2011, a settlement in the legal malpractice litigation was reached with Levin receiving two settlement checks with a total value of $107,500.The checks named Levin, Shahparast, and an attorney from a D.C. firm as payees.Levin did not contact Creative or Nalls to inform them of his receipt of the checks.Instead, Levin endorsed the checks and handed them over to his client to be endorsed by the client and the attorney from the D.C. firm.

In March of 2011, upon learning of the legal malpractice settlement, Nalls contacted Levin to inquire about the proceeds, to request an accounting, and to notify Levin that he intended to seek legal relief.Levin responded that he was never in receipt of any funds in connection with the settlement and that those funds had been deposited into the D.C.'s firm's trust account.In March of 2011, Nalls filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief and served a Request for Production of Documents on Levin seeking documents related to his representation of Shahparast in the legal malpractice action.After a hearing on the Motion for Appropriate Relief, the Court ordered Levin to produce documents relevant to the garnishment action.Levin failed to produce all of the requested documents by the court-imposed deadline, but produced them at a later date.

In April of 2011, Nalls filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Petition for Contempt on behalf of Creative against Levin for failing to comply with the court's orders relating to the production of documents and for disobeying the Writ of Garnishment.After a hearing, the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted, the Petition for Contempt regarding the willful violation of the Writ of Garnishment was taken under advisement, and the Petition for Contempt for failing to comply with the Court's Order regarding the production of documents was denied.Thereafter, Levin and Nalls negotiated a settlement.Pursuant to that settlement, Levin agreed to pay $40,000 of his own money to Creative in exchange for the assignment of Shahparast's debt to Creative.The grant of summary judgment was then stricken and the Petition for Contempt was withdrawn.

Prior to the hearing on Creative's Motion for Summary Judgment, Nalls filed a complaint with Bar Counsel regarding Levin's handling of the legal malpractice proceeds.Bar Counsel charged Levin with violations of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), (d), and (e)(Safekeeping Property), ⁴3.4(c) and (d)(Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel),⁵4.1(a)(Truthfulness in Statements to Others), ⁶and 8.4(c) and (d)(Misconduct).⁷

In an Order dated April 9, 2012, we referred the Petition to the Honorable Sharon V. Burrell of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.A hearing was held on September 14, [432 Md. 436]2012.Nalls and Levin testified and various documents were introduced into evidence including the Charging Order, the Writ of Garnishment, correspondence between Nalls and Levin, and transcripts of the relevant proceedings.Judge Burrell issued the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in which she determined that Levin violated Rules 1.15(d) and (e)and3.4(c), but did not violate Rules 1.15(a),4.1(a), and8.4(c) and (d):

Findings of Facts

Robert Norman Levin(hereinafter “Respondent”) graduated from Harvard Law School in 1965.He was admitted to the Bar of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in December 1965 and admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia in January 1966.Respondent is also admitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the U.S. Tax Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, and has been admitted pro hac vice to numerous other state and federal courts.He has never been the subject of any disciplinary actions by any court.

Respondent is 72 years of age and has practiced law continuously in Maryland for 47 years.During all times relevant to this matter, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Montgomery County, Maryland.

As of October 2010, Respondent represented Sean Shahparast(“Shahparast”) and Royal Investment Group, LLC(“Royal”), who were Plaintiffs in a legal malpractice action filed in this Court against John C. Moffett and his law firm.Mr. Moffett had represented Shahparast and Royal in a real estate matter that led to the malpractice action.The case was styled Sean Shahparast and Royal Investment Group, LLC vs. John C. Moffett and John C. Moffett Chartered, CaseNo. 320660V, and the amount claimed was $700,000.(The Defendants in that action will be referred to as “Moffett.”)Leo Roth, Esq. represented Moffett.Mr. Moffett then filed in this Court a separate suit against Shahparast, Royal, and Shahparast's wife (Homa Ravanbakhsh) for unpaid legal fees.Respondent represented the three defendants.The case was styled John Moffett Chartered v. Sean Shahparast, Homa Ravanbakhsh and Royal Investment Group, LLC, CaseNo. 335738V.The legal malpractice case and the collection case were consolidated by this Court.

Shahparast filed a second and unrelated legal malpractice case in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against Moffett.Respondent was not counsel in the D.C. litigation.Plaintiffs were represented in D.C. by the firm of Gordon & Simmons.

In a prior and unrelated construction case in this Court, Creative Concrete Corporation(“Creative”) had sued Shahparast and Royal, formerly known as Foreclosure Real Estate Services, LLC, to collect payment for a driveway (the “Creative litigation”).Creative was represented by Michael T. Nalls, Esq.(“Mr.Nalls”), an attorney with an office in Montgomery County, Maryland whose practice includes representing construction companies, including debt collection on their behalf.These collection matters included the issuance of Writs of Garnishment and Charging Orders.Respondent was not counsel of record, or otherwise involved in the Creative litigation.In the Creative litigation, a judgment was entered on November 7, 2005, against Shahparast.No judgment was entered against Royal.The principal amount of the judgment claimed by Mr. Nalls to be owed by Shahparast was $24,355, plus a $5,000 attorney's fee, and interest.

Mr. Nalls engaged in extensive post-judgment efforts to collect the judgment, including the issuance of Writs of Garnishment and efforts to attach real property.As of October 2010, Nalls' collection efforts had not been successful.At some point Nalls became aware of the legal malpractice action brought by Shahparast and Royal.On October 4, 2010, Nalls filed a Request for Writ of Garnishment on behalf of Creative against Shahparast as the Judgment Debtor and Respondent as the Garnishee, because Respondent was counsel for Shahparast in the Moffett case.At the same time Nalls requested the issuance of a Charging Order “against any interest [Shahparast] may have in [Royal] and Foreclosure Real Estate Services, LLC, for the amount of the judgment and interest ... and that said Order be served on Robert N. Levin, Esquire, as Counsel of record in Civil 320660.”By this time Creative was owed over $43,000.The Court granted both requests.The Writ of Garnishment was issued on October 8, 2010....