Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Planta

• Decision Date: 28 February 2020
• Docket Number: Misc. Docket AG No. 62, Sept. Term, 2018
• Citation: 225 A.3d 19,467 Md. 319
• Parties: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. William Clark PLANTA
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

467 Md. 319

225 A.3d 19

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.William Clark PLANTA

Misc. Docket AG No. 62, Sept. Term, 2018

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

February 28, 2020

Argued by Michael W. Blow, Jr., Senior Assistant Bar Counsel (Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.

No argument on behalf of the Respondent.

Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Lynne A. Battaglia (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Battaglia, J. William Clark Planta ("Respondent") was admitted to the Bar of this Court on June 24, 1998. He maintained an office for the practice of law in Montgomery County at all times relevant to this opinion.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland ("Petitioner") asks us to disbar Respondent for violating certain of the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC").¹ On February 19, 2019, Petitioner, acting through Bar Counsel, filed against Respondent a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action ("PDRA"), in response to its investigation of the complaints of six of Respondent's former clients, Raymond Boteler, Robert Huber, Darshna Patel, Nicarsia Jackson and Brandon Jackson (collectively "the Jacksons") and LeeAnne Jeffreys. On February 26, 2019, we designated the Honorable Jill Cummins of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to hear this case.

With respect to Respondent's representation of Mr. Boteler, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating MARPC 1.1 (Competence),² 1.2 (Scope of Representation),³ 1.4 (Communication),⁴ 1.5 (Fees),⁵ 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property),⁶ 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation),⁷ 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters)⁸ and 8.4(a), (c) and (d) (Misconduct).⁹

With respect to Respondent's representation of Mr. Huber, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating MARPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.16, 8.1 and 8.4(a), (c) and (d). With respect to Respondent's representation of Ms. Patel, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating MARPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(a), 1.16, 3.2 (Expediting Litigation),¹⁰ 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney),¹¹ 8.1 and 8.4(a), (c) and (d). With respect to Respondent's representation of the Jacksons, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating MARPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(a), 1.16, 8.1 and 8.4(a), (c) and (d). With respect to Respondent's representation of Ms. Jeffreys, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating MARPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal),¹² 3.4, 8.1 and 8.4(a), (c) and (d).

Respondent was served with the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, our Order and the Writ of Summons on March 7, 2019. On March 15, 2019, Bar Counsel propounded on Respondent interrogatories, requests for documents and admission of facts as well as genuineness of documents. Having received no response from Respondent, on April 30, 2019, upon request of Bar Counsel, the circuit court entered an Order of Default. Notice of the default was mailed to Respondent; Respondent did not file a motion to set aside the order of default or otherwise communicate with the court. The circuit court then granted Bar Counsel's Motion for Sanctions by order entered on June 3, 2019, which resulted in the Petition's averments being admitted and precluded Respondent from presenting any witnesses or documents at a hearing on the disciplinary matter. A hearing took place on June 19, 2019, at which Respondent did not appear, resulting in the circuit court admitting Petitioner's exhibits.

On August 23, 2019, Judge Cummins entered her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, to which neither party filed exceptions. Respondent failed also to offer any proposal of a sanction, unlike Bar Counsel who recommended disbarment; Respondent also failed to avail himself of the opportunity to appear and argue before us.

We disbarred Respondent in a per curiam order issued December 6, 2019.

Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Planta , 466 Md. 434, 221 A.3d 139 (2019). In this opinion, we explain that decision.

In our review of the record, we accept the hearing judge's findings of fact unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hodes , 441 Md. 136, 168–69, 105 A.3d 533, 552 (2014). "Under our independent review of the record, we must determine whether the findings of the hearing judge are based on clear and convincing evidence."¹³ Id. (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Mooney , 359 Md. 56, 73, 753 A.2d 17, 26 (2000) ). "A hearing judge's factual finding is not clearly erroneous if there is any competent evidence to support it." Id. at 169, 105 A.3d at 552 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. McDonald , 437 Md. 1, 16, 85 A.3d 117, 125 (2014) ).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Judge Cummins accepted Petitioner's exhibits, which included complaints from Respondent's former clients, motions filed in the underlying cases and attempted communications with Respondent, among others, and based her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law upon the Petition and those exhibits.

We frame the hearing judge's findings of fact according to each client.

Raymond Boteler

Mr. Boteler had previously represented himself in a custody, visitation and child support case against his former wife, Isabelle Chahpoori, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. After having received an adverse ruling, resulting in his having to pay Ms. Chahpoori attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,000.00, Mr. Boteler retained Respondent and Respondent's law partner, Wanda Martinez, to represent him in an in banc review of that adverse decision.¹⁴ Under the agreement, Respondent's hourly rate was $375.00 and Mr. Boteler was to pay an $8,000.00 retainer.

Before the hearing took place, as Judge Cummins found, Respondent had "negotiated a partial resolution" with Ms. Chahpoori's attorney regarding child support but failed to review the proposed order before submitting it to the court. Following the in banc hearing, the panel reversed the award of attorneys' fees and remanded the matter back to the Honorable Ronald Rubin of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

Respondent failed to timely appear for the hearing on remand which had been scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on January 17, 2018. Judge Rubin ordered Respondent to appear at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Boteler then traveled to Respondent's office, but Respondent did not arrive until 1:00 p.m., after Mr. Boteler had already left to return to the circuit court. At approximately 2:00 p.m., Respondent and Mr. Boteler did appear before Judge Rubin, but Mr. Boteler had to leave to pick up his son. Judge Rubin, after hearing arguments, ordered Mr. Boteler to again pay Ms. Chahpoori $10,000.00 in attorneys' fees; Respondent failed to communicate the order to Mr. Boteler.

Mr. Boteler called Respondent numerous times in the week following the hearing to inquire about its outcome, but never received a response. About nine days after the hearing, Respondent contacted Mr. Boteler to inform him of the outcome, stating that he would file an appeal after the order was entered. Over the course of the next few weeks, Respondent again failed to respond to Mr. Boteler's request for updates. Eventually, after Mr. Boteler had reviewed his case file, he learned that the time by which to file an appeal of Judge Rubin's order had passed.

Mr. Boteler eventually terminated Respondent's representation and retained new counsel. Respondent, however, "failed and refused, despite repeated requests, to return Mr. Boteler's file" including a copy of a hearing transcript paid for by Mr. Boteler, even though Mr. Boteler had paid Respondent $11,500.00. Judge Cummins also found that Respondent failed to deposit and maintain those funds in an attorney trust account until they were earned and noted that "Respondent failed to provide any legal services of value to Mr. Boteler and failed to provide any refund to Mr. Boteler."

Robert Huber

Mr. Huber contacted Respondent by phone seeking representation in connection with a peace order that had been filed against him by a former domestic partner. Respondent had informed Mr. Huber that he would represent him for a flat fee of $1,500.00 but would enter his appearance on Mr. Huber's behalf for a cash payment of $500.00. On the night before the peace order hearing, Respondent instructed Mr. Huber to meet him outside of his residence in Washington, DC to deliver the $500.00 appearance fee and original documents associated with his case, which Mr. Huber did; Respondent then also instructed Mr. Huber to meet him at his Rockville office the next morning to review the documents and prepare for the hearing.

Mr. Huber and a friend arrived at Respondent's office at 7:00 a.m. the next morning, as instructed, but Respondent did not arrive by the time Mr. Huber walked over to the District Court at around 8:15 a.m. At around 9:40 a.m. that morning, Respondent arrived at the District Court "wearing street clothes and unprepared for the hearing." Judge Cummins also noted that Respondent did not have the case files that Mr. Huber provided the night before. The hearing was set to continue at a later date. Mr. Huber, however, terminated the representation and requested the return of the documents he provided Respondent the night before.

Over two months later, after having filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission, Mr. Huber received a copy of the charging documents from Respondent. Judge Cummins noted, however, that, as of March 14, 2019, eight months after Respondent's termination, Mr. Huber had not received any of the other documents he provided Respondent nor a refund. She found that "Respondent failed to provide any legal services of value to Mr. Huber and failed to provide Mr. Huber a refund."

Darshna Patel

In early September of 2017, Ms. Patel had retained Respondent to represent her in a divorce from her husband, Sahill Saxena. Mr. Saxena's attorney, shortly thereafter, served Respondent with discovery requests about which Respondent failed to inform Ms....