Attorney Grievance Comm'n Of Md. v. Bleecker

Decision Date12 May 2010
Docket NumberMisc. AG No. 27,2009.
Citation994 A.2d 928,414 Md. 147
PartiesATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLANDv.Lorin Henry BLEECKER.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Raymond A. Hein, Asst. Bar Counsel (Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for petitioner.

Melvin G. Bergman, Greenbelt, for respondent.

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

BATTAGLIA, J.

Lorin Henry Bleecker, Respondent, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on January 14, 1972. On July 16, 2009, the Attorney Grievance Commission (Petitioner or “Bar Counsel), acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751(a),1 filed a “Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action” against Bleecker, charging numerous violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC” or “Rule”), including Rule 1.1 (Competence), 2 Rule 1.3 (Diligence),3 Rule 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication),4 Rule 1.8(h) (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules),5 Rule 1.16(a) (Declining or Terminating Representation),6 Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions),7 Rule 3.3(a)(1) and (b) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 8 Rule 8.1(a) and (b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 9 and Rule 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct).10 The factual bases of the charges involved Bleecker's failure to timely file a complaint on behalf of Carolyn Stelle, his client, in a claim arising from a motor vehicle accident in which she sustained significant personal injuries. This Court referred the matter to Judge Ronald B. Rubin of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a hearing to determine findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-757 (Judicial Hearing). 11

On November 2, 2009, Judge Rubin held an evidentiary hearing, during which Bleecker was represented by counsel, and thereafter, issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in which he found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Bleecker's acts and omissions constituted violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(a), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a) and (d), but not violations of 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c). In so doing, Judge Rubin made the following findings regarding Bleecker's background, as well as his initial representation of Mrs. Stelle:

Lorin Henry Bleecker (“Bleecker”) was admitted to the Maryland Bar on January 14, 1972. He also is admitted to the District of Columbia Bar and to the Bars of the United States District Courts for the Districts of Maryland and the District of Columbia, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He began his career in the office of the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel, and then went into private practice where he concentrated in commercial litigation, real estate transactions, and personal injury cases.
From 2000 until July 2004, Bleecker was a partner in the law firm of Blaylock and Bleecker, Chartered, which had an office in Bethesda, Maryland. While with that firm, Bleecker began representing Carolyn Stelle following her involvement in a serious automobile accident on November 25, 2002. Mrs. Stelle sustained significant injuries, including fractures of her left ankle and tibia, for which she was
hospitalized at Suburban Hospital in Bethesda until early December of 2002. While in the hospital, one of her physicians gave her a business card from Blaylock and Bleecker. Upon being discharged from Suburban Hospital, Mrs. Stelle spent several additional weeks convalescing at the Hebrew Home of Greater Washington in Rockville. Mrs. Stelle's son contacted Bleecker while she was still in the Hebrew Home. Bleecker visited Mrs. Stelle at the Hebrew Home, and she agreed to retain the firm of Blaylock and Bleecker to handle any claim she might have against the other driver involved in her November 25, 2002 accident.
Mrs. Stelle advised Bleecker that her insurance carrier was planning to terminate her coverage for treatment at and discharge her from the Hebrew Home. At Mrs. Stelle's request, Bleecker contacted the carrier and objected to the proposed release date. The carrier revised its decision and extended coverage to allow Mrs. Stelle to remain at the Hebrew Home and receive an additional thirty days of treatment at that facility.

The hearing judge described Bleecker's continued representation of Mrs. Stelle after the dissolution of the Blaylock and Bleecker firm in July 2004:

Bleecker was the attorney responsible for Mrs. Stelle's case throughout the time he remained a partner at Blaylock and Bleecker. In July 2004, Bruce Blaylock, Esquire, without consulting Bleecker, decided to dissolve the firm. Blaylock then locked Bleecker out of the firm's office space in Bethesda and gave him only minimal access to the client files. As a result, Bleecker had to set up his own law practice at a new location. Bleecker found office space in Rockville and established The Bleecker Law Firm, P.A.
Mrs. Stelle first learned about the dissolution of Blaylock and Bleecker from Bruce Blaylock, who contacted her about continued representation by his successor law practice. Blaylock attempted to pressure Mrs. Stelle into remaining his client. Mrs. Stelle testified that she was unnerved by Blaylock's actions and told him that she preferred to have Bleecker represent her on a going forward basis. Through
a third party, Mrs. Stelle contacted Bleecker at his new office.
Mrs. Stelle testified that she signed a Retainer Agreement employing The Bleecker Law Firm, P.A. in July 2004. The copy of the Retainer Agreement received in evidence bears Mrs. Stelle's signature, but it is not dated. Nevertheless, it is clear that The Bleecker Law Firm, P.A. represented Mrs. Stelle as of October 12, 2004, the date on which Bleecker sent letters confirming his representation to claim representatives at Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). Allstate insured Mrs. Stelle's vehicle, while State Farm was the insurance carrier for the other driver, Philip A. Kostrzewiski.

Judge Rubin found that in correspondence to insurance carriers, medical providers, and Mrs. Stelle, Bleecker appropriately identified the date of the accident as November 25, 2002:

In both of his October 12, 2004 letters to the insurance carriers, Bleecker correctly referenced the “Date of Loss” as November 25, 2002. In his letter to State Farm, Bleecker wrote:
I am advised that my client is nearing the completion of her treatment and that her treating physician is soon to discharge her from active care. As soon as we know that she has reached maximum medical improvement we will be in touch with you with our demand.
In January and February 2005, Bleecker sent additional correspondence related to his representation of Mrs. Stelle. There was a billing dispute with Suburban Hospital, where Mrs. Stelle had been hospitalized, both immediately following the accident and again in May and July of 2004 for follow-up surgical procedures. Also, on February 14, 2005, Bleecker sent a letter to Mrs. Stelle enclosing a “revised Authorization and Assignment agreement that I have received from the attorneys for Suburban Hospital.” Bleecker's February 14, 2005 letter to Mrs. Stelle correctly referenced
the date of loss as 11/25/02.” In that letter, Bleecker wrote that he had spoken with Mrs. Stelle's primary treating physician, Dr. Victor Wowk, about her case and that Dr. Wowk was “in the process of preparing a final report for me.” Bleecker further noted that Mrs. Stelle was to provide a loss of earnings statement from her place of employment, the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Bleecker then wrote:
As soon as I hear from Dr. Wowk, I will prepare a demand letter which will include a complete copy of your records and bills. We can then review it before it goes out.
On February 14, 2005, the same day he wrote to Mrs. Stelle, Bleecker also sent out a letter addressed to Doctors Ira Brecher and Betsy Ballard, two physicians involved in treating Mrs. Stelle for injuries sustained in the accident. That letter correctly referenced the date of loss as November 25, 2002, and requested these physicians to provide records pertaining to their treatment of Mrs. Stelle. Bleecker considered the matter to be of some urgency, as he pointed out that [t]he applicable Statute of Limitations runs in November of this year.”
Mrs. Stelle testified that she submitted to Bleecker an itemized schedule of time she had missed from work at various intervals following the November 2002 accident. This court admitted a summary cover page dated March 14, 2005, prepared by a supervisor at NIH, along with a three-page attachment compiled by Mrs. Stelle in conjunction with the NIH payroll office.

The hearing judge described Bleecker's failure to prepare a written settlement demand as he had promised in his February 2005 letter to Mrs. Stelle, as well as his failure to timely file the complaint, in which he misrepresented that the accident occurred on November 25, 2003, rather than 2002, ostensibly due to a clerical error:

Bleecker testified that commencing with the acrimonious dissolution of Blaylock and Bleecker in July 2004, and for
several years thereafter, he had been coping with marital difficulties, as well as serious personal and family medical conditions. Bleecker underwent quadruple by-pass surgery in August of 2006 and was prescribed anti-depressant medication. Moreover, during the time Bleecker was setting up his new practice, his step-mother required institutionalization due to dementia. Bleecker traveled to Florida on many occasions during this period to assist his father with this difficult process.
Over the nine months following his correspondence to State Farm, dated February 14, 2005, Bleecker failed to prepare a written settlement demand concerning Mrs. Stelle's claim. Bleecker also failed to file suit on behalf of Mrs. Stelle within three years from the date her cause of action
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
137 cases
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Dailey
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 23, 2021
    ...of the status of the representation ... ‘which tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute.’ " Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bleecker , 414 Md. 147, 175, 994 A.2d 928 (2010) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rose , 391 Md. 101, 111, 892 A.2d 469 (2006) ). We conclude that Ms. Dail......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Sperling
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 1, 2021
    ...835.Similarly, without referring to judicial notice, we effectively took judicial notice of a prior public reprimand in AGC v. Bleecker , 414 Md. 147, 994 A.2d 928 (2010). In that case, the hearing judge found that the respondent had established the mitigating factor of the absence of prior......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Edwards
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 26, 2019
    ...communicate to Bar Counsel if her duties as a daughter were going to interfere with her legal duties. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bleecker , 414 Md. 147, 174, 994 A.2d 928 (2010) (collecting cases). She took no steps to notify Bar Counsel, and thus we overrule her exception that her mo......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Shapiro
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 2015
    ...from representation of a client once their interests become “untenably at odds with [their] client[s'].” Attorney Grievance v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147, 173, 994 A.2d 928, 943 (2010). In Bleecker, the attorney filed accidentally a complaint averring that the date an accident occurred was one y......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT