Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Rand
Decision Date | 22 December 2015 |
Docket Number | Misc. Docket AG No. 40, Sept. Term, 2014. |
Citation | 128 A.3d 107,445 Md. 581 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Charles Stephen RAND. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Lydia E. Lawless, Asst. Bar Counsel (Glenn M. Grossman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.
Alan M. Wright, Esquire, Sandy Spring, MD, Charles N. Shaffer, Esquire, Damascus, MD, for Respondent.
Argued before: BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD, WATTS, GLENN T. HARRELL, JR. (Retired, Specially Assigned), and DALE R. CATHELL (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Charles Stephen Rand, Respondent, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 14, 1973. On September 17, 2014, the Attorney Grievance Commission, ("Bar Counsel"), acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–751(a),1 filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Rand related to his representation of Nancie Klein, in which it was alleged that he violated the following Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct ("Rule"): 1.1 (Competence),2 1.3 (Diligence),3 1.4 (Communication),4 1.5(a) (Fees),5 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property),6 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation),7 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters),8 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct),9 as well as Maryland Rule 16–606.1 (Attorney Trust Account Record–Keeping).10
By Order dated September 22, 2014, this Court referred the matter to Judge Gary E. Bair of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,11 for a hearing in accordance with maryland rule 16–757(a).12 Rand was served with the petition for disciplinary or Remedial Action, our Order, Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories, Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents and the Writ of Summons on October 4, 2014; he filed a Motion for More Definite Statement on October 23, 2014, which was denied. An answer to the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action was filed by Rand on November 13, 2014, followed by a Revival of his Motion for More Definite Statement, which was denied on January 13, 2015. On December 12, 2014, Bar Counsel filed an Amended Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in which the allegations that Rand violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3 were withdrawn.
Judge Bair held hearings on January 21 and 22, 2015 during which Bar Counsel presented testimony from Nancie Klein and her husband, Stephen Klein. Rand testified on his own behalf.
In addition, both Bar Counsel and Rand submitted substantial documentation, which was received in evidence, including Rand's fee agreement with Ms. Klein, various letters and email correspondence between Ms. Klein and Rand and Rand's account ledger, bank statements and IOLTA checks. On February 13, 2015, Bar Counsel filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Rand filed a Recommended Statement of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
The essence of Ms. Klein's complaint was that she had retained Rand to assist her in bringing a claim for age and race discrimination against her supervisor at the public school where Ms. Klein taught. Rand, after meeting with Ms. Klein and her husband, entered into a fee arrangement that provided for an hourly rate of $350, later reduced to $250 an hour, and, in an "evergreen" clause,13 required Ms. Klein to provide a retainer of $1,500 which would be replenished by her to maintain a minimum of $1,500, to cover fees, costs and expenses related to the matter.14
Ms. Klein paid the initial $1,500 as well as an additional $2,000, in two separate $1,000 payments, when Rand requested replenishment, without his ever having provided a bill which in any way reflected time spent. During the course of the representation, Ms. Klein took early retirement from the school because of stress and the mental and physical symptoms related to the job situation, without having been counseled by Rand about the possibility of a disability retirement.
Although Ms. Klein and Rand had also worked on drafting an addendum to her original complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), detailing specific instances of discrimination in addition to those earlier cited, Rand did not file the addendum, deciding unilaterally to incorporate it into a later response filed with the EEOC. Rand did not advise Ms. Klein of his decision regarding the addendum.
Ms. Klein, believing Rand was not giving sufficient attention to her matter, discharged him and requested both an invoice—having not received a single bill—and a copy of her file. Rand provided an enigmatic invoice, containing some duplicate entries, which demanded $11,230.00. Rand refused to provide Ms. Klein a copy of her file, and asserted an attorney retaining lien.15
After she discharged Rand, Ms. Klein hired new counsel to continue her attempts at mediation and conciliation with the EEOC and the school system, as she had received a determination from the EEOC that discrimination had occurred. After she filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission on April 15, 2013, Bar Counsel contacted Rand, and, over a protracted period, attempted to obtain data and documents from Rand regarding his representation of Ms. Klein. Those efforts continued until the morning of the first day of the disciplinary hearing, January 21, 2015.16
Judge Bair issued, on March 6, 2015, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in which he determined that Rand violated Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(a) and (b), 8.4(a), (c) and (d), as well as Maryland Rule 16–606.1. Judge Bair's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law state:17
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Brooks
...information required to make informed decisions regarding continuance of the representation"); see also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rand , 445 Md. 581, 628-29, 128 A.3d 107 (2015) (concluding a Rule 1.4(a) violation occurred where the attorney failed to provide invoices despite repeated re......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Edwards
...in a client's case." It is true that Rule 1.4 violations are based on substance rather than regularity, see Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rand , 445 Md. 581, 608, 128 A.3d 107 (2015), but Respondent's failure to communicate permeates each complaint against her and includes her failures to in......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Smith-Scott
...misrepresentations to the client, which includes the concealment of material information from the client." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rand , 445 Md. 581, 640, 128 A.3d 107 (2015) ; see Brown , 426 Md. at 324, 44 A.3d 344 (finding a violation of Rule 8.4(c) where an attorney concealed the ......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Johnson
...material information from a client, that action constitutes a misrepresentation that violates Rule 8.4(c). Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rand , 445 Md. 581, 640, 128 A.3d 107 (2015) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Brown , 426 Md. 298, 324, 44 A.3d 344 (2012) )."[C]onduct prejudicial to ......