Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Wemple

• Decision Date: 16 June 2022
• Docket Number: Misc. Docket AG No. 69, Sept. Term, 2020
• Citation: 479 Md. 167,277 A.3d 427
• Parties: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Mark David WEMPLE
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

479 Md. 167

277 A.3d 427

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.Mark David WEMPLE

Misc. Docket AG No. 69, Sept. Term, 2020

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 16, 2022

Argued by Erin A. Risch, Deputy Bar Counsel (Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.

No response filed by the respondent.

Argued before:^* Getty, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Robert N. McDonald (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Hotten, J.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel ("Petitioner") filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action ("the Petition") against Mark David Wemple ("Respondent") with this Court pursuant to Md. Rule 19-721.¹ By order dated February 5, 2021, this Court designated the Honorable Christopher C. Fogleman ("hearing judge") of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to consider the matter against Respondent and render findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Following a hearing on December 1, 2021, and upon consideration of the evidence presented, the hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC") 19-301.1 (Competence), 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-303.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 19-303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-304.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 19-304.4 (Respect for Rights of Third Persons), 19-305.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multi-Jurisdictional Practice of Law), and 19-308.4 (Misconduct).

We agree with the conclusions reached by the hearing judge and, for the following reasons, we disbar Respondent from the practice of law in Maryland.

FINDINGS OF FACT

We summarize the hearing judge's findings of fact that have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 20, 2001. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent worked as an independent contractor for DC Law Group, LLC ("the firm") in Montgomery County. Respondent maintained a separate home office for the practice of law in Howard County.

Representation of Sida Qiao

On October 19, 2018, Sida Qiao was charged in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Montgomery County, with reckless driving and related traffic offenses. Mr. Qiao met with Sandy Y. Chang, an attorney with the firm, and signed a retainer agreement. Mr. Qiao was unaware that Ms. Chang was a suspended Maryland attorney.² Mr. Qiao paid a $1,500 retainer to be billed against a $350 hourly rate for attorneys and $120 for legal assistants.

Respondent entered his appearance in Mr. Qiao's case on October 31, 2018. Respondent had not spoken with Mr. Qiao, and the trial was scheduled for December 20, 2018. The hearing judge found that the case was assigned to Respondent because Ms. Chang was suspended. The hearing judge also found that Ms. Chang, with Respondent's knowledge and authorization, communicated with Mr. Qiao and provided him legal advice.

On December 19, 2018, someone at the firm advised Mr. Qiao for the first time that he needed to appear in court the following day. Mr. Qiao also learned for the first time that Respondent would represent him. The same day, Mr. Qiao texted Respondent that he expected neither to appear at trial, nor to be represented by someone other than Ms. Chang. Respondent replied, "Yes. Please show up tomorrow." Mr. Qiao appeared, but Respondent arrived late, and the District Court postponed the trial until January 24, 2019. Respondent requested and received another postponement until March 7, 2019 because of a scheduling conflict. Ms. Chang advised Mr. Qiao of the postponement. During the hearing on March 7, Mr. Qiao pleaded guilty to reckless driving and not guilty to the other charges. The District Court ordered Mr. Qiao to pay a fine and court costs.

On March 26, 2019, Mr. Qiao received an invoice from the firm for $3,736.50. Mr. Qiao was unaware that the firm's fee would exceed $1,500. Mr. Qiao wrote a letter to Ms. Chang and Respondent disputing the amount and asserting that Respondent and Ms. Chang provided conflicting information regarding the legal consequences of entering a guilty plea. In a subsequent communication with Ms. Chang, Mr. Qiao "admittedly lost his temper and cursed at Ms. Chang."

On May 3, 2019, Ms. Chang filed a Petition for Peace Order against Mr. Qiao in the District Court, claiming that he had threatened and harassed her. Following a hearing, the District Court entered a final peace order against Mr. Qiao, who appealed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on June 6, 2019. The parties appeared for a de novo trial. On July 17, 2019, Ms. Chang, pro se , and Respondent, on the firm's behalf, sued Mr. Qiao for unpaid legal fees and damages allegedly resulting from his harassment of Ms. Chang. The parties reached a settlement whereby Mr. Qiao agreed to pay $5,000 in full and final settlement of the firm's and Ms. Chang's claims of unpaid legal fees and harassment.

On August 18, 2019, Ms. Chang executed a release in connection with the settlement both individually and on behalf of the firm. On or about November 14, 2019, Ms. Chang, individually and on behalf of the firm, filed a Notice of Dismissal. The hearing judge did not find clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Chang engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by executing a release on her behalf and on behalf of the firm. The hearing judge was unpersuaded that the "mere presence in Respondent's file" of the dismissal notice signed by Ms. Chang was evidence of Respondent assisting Ms. Chang in the negotiation of a settlement. Therefore, the hearing judge found that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent assisted Ms. Chang in the unauthorized practice of law by permitting her to negotiate a settlement and sign a release in an individual capacity and on behalf of the firm.

Huaimin Long Representation

In December 2017, Ms. Huaimin Long retained the firm in a divorce matter. On January 5, 2018, Respondent entered his appearance and filed an Answer to a complaint for absolute divorce filed by Ms. Long's then-husband Pien Sheng Mo in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The trial was postponed due to Respondent's illness. On June 26, 2019, Respondent filed a Motion for Special Admission of Out of State Attorney requesting that Ms. Chang be specially admitted pursuant to Md. Rule 19-217.³

In the motion, Respondent knowingly and intentionally misrepresented that Ms. Chang was an out-of-state attorney and failed to mention that Ms. Chang was suspended from the practice of law in Maryland. The circuit court granted the motion and admitted Ms. Chang pro hac vice . Respondent and Ms. Chang served as co-counsel during trial. The circuit court granted the complaint for absolute divorce.

On June 6, 2018, Respondent filed a complaint, on Ms. Long's behalf, against Mr. Mo's daughter for fraud and unjust enrichment in connection with real property.

That same day, Respondent filed a complaint alleging similar claims of fraud and unjust enrichment against Mr. Mo, Pei C. Hsieh, and Chin Yuan Hsieh. The circuit court granted the parties’ motion to consolidate the two cases for trial on July 30, 2019.

On July 29, 2019, Respondent filed an Emergency Motion to Continue Trial and a Motion to Shorten Time. The motions were signed "Mark Wemple by Sandy Chang." The hearing judge found that Respondent authorized Ms. Chang to sign the motions on his behalf. The Emergency Motion stated that Respondent was in New York with his hospitalized mother and could not attend trial the next day. Counsel for Mr. Mo opposed the motion and stated that Ms. Chang, as Respondent's associate, was adequately prepared to proceed with the case.

On July 30, 2019, Ms. Chang appeared in the circuit court with Respondent's knowledge and authorization to request a postponement. The circuit court contacted Respondent by telephone regarding his absence. The hearing judge found that Respondent knowingly and intentionally failed to inform the circuit court about Ms. Chang's suspension and unauthorized practice of law. The circuit court granted the postponement request and rescheduled trial for August 19, 2019.

On August 19, 2019, Respondent and Ms. Chang appeared before the circuit court regarding the fraud and unjust enrichment claim, and Respondent argued that Ms. Chang was permitted to appear because of her admission pro hac vice in the related divorce matter. Respondent stated that Ms. Chang was not a Maryland attorney and that "[the circuit court previously] ordered my partner to be in the [divorce] case." The hearing judge found that these statements were knowingly and intentionally false and misleading because the circuit court never ordered Ms. Chang's appearance and Ms. Chang was not Respondent's law partner. The hearing judge found that these knowingly false statements were made to conceal Respondent's assistance of Ms. Chang in the unauthorized practice of law.

The circuit court orally permitted Respondent to admit Ms. Chang pro hac vice and directed Respondent to formally file a written motion. In the motion, Respondent intentionally misrepresented that Ms. Chang was an "out-of-state attorney who is a member in good standing of the Bar of Virginia." Both Respondent and Ms. Chang served as co-counsel in the fraud and unjust enrichment trial. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the circuit court granted opposing counsel's motion for judgment and dismissed the case.

Sihan Gao Representation

Sihan Gao constructed a fence between his property and that of his neighbor, Joanne Costes Fradkin. Ms. Fradkin complained to the Montgomery County Department of Permitting Services ("DPS") that Mr. Gao had not acquired a necessary permit. Mr. Gao applied for a retroactive permit, which DPS granted on June 11, 2018. Ms. Fradkin appealed the issuance of the permit to the Board of Appeals for Montgomery County.

Mr. Gao...