Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Taniform
| Decision Date | 16 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | Misc. AG 40-2021 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. TERENCE TANIFORM |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
v.
TERENCE TANIFORM
Misc. AG No. 40-2021
Maryland Supreme Court
December 16, 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND[*]
Argued: October 3, 2022
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No.: C-15-CV-21-000238
Fader, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ.
OPINION
Gould, J.
On November 17, 2021, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-721, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the "Commission"), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (the "Petition") against Terence Taniform. The Petition alleged that Mr. Taniform violated multiple provisions of the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC") and also violated the Professional Conduct for Practitioners governing federal immigration proceedings set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102. In accordance with Maryland Rules 19-722(a) and 19-727, we assigned the Petition to the Honorable Theresa M. Chernosky of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (the "hearing judge") to hold an evidentiary hearing and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The hearing occurred was held on May 16 and 17, 2022. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties presented the court with a joint exhibit of stipulated facts. Bar Counsel then presented its case with one witness and 31 exhibits. Mr. Taniform testified on his own behalf, called one character witness, and submitted no exhibits.
On July 1, 2022, the hearing judge issued a written statement containing findings of fact and conclusions of law (the "findings"), concluding by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Taniform violated MARPC 1.1 (Competence),[1] 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b)
(Communication), 1.15 (Safekeeping of Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 8.1(a) and (b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct), and Maryland Rule 19407 (Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping).[2]
Mr. Taniform filed exceptions to the findings pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-728(b).
Oral arguments were held before this Court on October 3, 2022. As explained below, we overrule Mr. Taniform's exceptions, sustain the hearing judge's findings, and determine that an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement after 18 months is the appropriate sanction under the facts and circumstances of this case.
BACKGROUND
Factual Findings
Mr. Taniform was born in Cameroon. There, in 2003, he graduated from the University of Yaounde II, with a bachelor's degree in law. He subsequently emigrated to the United States in 2007, at the age of 24. He arrived in Sacramento, California, and planned to go to the University of the Pacific to obtain an LLM. At that point, he intended to eventually return to Cameroon. He enrolled at the University of the Pacific but withdrew after he lost his financial support when his grandfather died. When he told his family that
he wanted to return to Cameroon for his grandfather's funeral, he learned there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest in that country due to his political activity there while in college. Mr. Taniform then moved to Maryland to be with an uncle and petitioned for asylum. In 2009, he was granted political asylum and became a U.S. citizen.
In 2014, he was married with two children. He began law school at the University of Dayton in Ohio, but his family remained in Maryland. While in law school, he was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, for which he was treated.
During law school, Mr. Taniform interned for a Maryland immigration attorney, Kevin Tabe. His tasks included conducting initial client interviews and filling out asylum forms, green card applications, and other immigration forms.
Mr. Taniform graduated law school in 2017 and was admitted to the Maryland Bar in December 2017. During 2018, he stayed busy working on document review projects in the District of Columbia. He also worked for Mr. Tabe on a case-by-case basis, for which he had a limited role. According to Mr. Taniform, "we would discuss the case together, and I would tell him what, I would go through the case telling what difficulties I think might come up with the case, and then he would discuss with me on how to handle those." Mr. Taniform's assignments included visiting Mr. Tabe's clients in detention centers around the country, interpreting for them at their preliminary hearings (master calendar hearings), and helping them complete the asylum forms. Eventually, Mr. Taniform began representing the clients at their final hearings.
In 2019, Mr. Taniform began representing his own clients. He maintained an office in Montgomery County, focusing his practice on immigration law. He was assisted by
Kuji Mundi, a paralegal in California working in immigration law. Mr. Mundi conducted initial client interviews and filled out asylum forms.
A. Representation of Fon Halley Fon
On March 1, 2019, Fon Halley Fon, a citizen of Cameroon, entered the United States at the port of entry at San Ysidro, California. On April 23, the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") formally charged him with removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and served him with notice to appear in court. He was arrested by immigration authorities, detained in Mississippi for two months, and then transported to Louisiana. While in Louisiana, he hired Mr. Tabe to file an asylum petition on his behalf. Mr. Tabe filed the petition, but on August 13, the immigration judge found Mr. Fon removable as charged, denied his petition, and ordered him to be deported to Cameroon.
On Mr. Fon's behalf, Mr. Tabe appealed the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the "BIA"). On January 13, 2020, the BIA denied the appeal and gave Mr. Fon 30 days to petition for a review of the denial.
While Mr. Fon remained in detention in Louisiana, he authorized his aunt, Dorothy Fongum, to find counsel on his behalf. By happenstance, upon the recommendation of someone (not Mr. Tabe), Ms. Fongum retained Mr. Taniform on Mr. Fon's behalf to file a motion to reopen the BIA appeal and, according to Mr. Fon, to also file the necessary paperwork to secure his release on parole or bond. The deadline for filing the motion to reopen was February 12.
On January 28, 2020, Mrs. Fongum signed a retainer agreement on behalf of Mr. Fon, agreeing to pay Mr. Taniform $5,000, with an initial deposit of $1,500. Ms. Fongum advanced the $1,500 by check.
Mr. Taniform testified that Ms. Fongum provided him with documents to file the motion to reopen. He also testified that he reached out to Mr. Mundi for assistance.
After he retained Mr. Taniform, Mr. Fon spoke with him by phone. Mr. Taniform told Mr. Fon that he would seek to reopen the case to introduce new evidence based on a change in conditions in Cameroon. Mr. Taniform also agreed to seek Mr. Fon's parole or release from detention.
Approximately two weeks after he retained Mr. Taniform, Mr. Fon called Mr. Taniform to tell him that ICE wanted Mr. Fon to sign a deportation form because he had lost his appeal. Mr. Taniform advised Mr. Fon to tell ICE that he had a lawyer taking care of his case. He also told Mr. Fon not to worry because he would file the motion to reopen by February 10.
On February 3, 2020, Ms. Fongum attempted to reach Mr. Taniform by phone. Mr. Taniform sent her a text message saying that he would call her back. When he did not, on February 5, Ms. Fongum left another message for Mr. Taniform, asking why he was not returning her calls.
In February, Mr. Fon met with and told an ICE officer that he had retained counsel to reopen his case. The officer agreed to give Mr. Fon additional time before scheduling his deportation.
Between February and May 2020, Mr. Taniform had multiple phone conversations with Mr. Fon and Ms. Fongum regarding the status of Mr. Fon's case. Each call was initiated by either Mr. Fon or Ms. Fongum. Mr. Fon called Mr. Taniform weekly to find out what was happening with his case; each time, Mr. Taniform told him that he was working on his case and that Mr. Fon need not worry. On February 10, Mr. Taniform told Mr. Fon that the motion to reopen had been filed and that he was waiting for a response from the BIA. Mr. Taniform testified that Mr. Taniform said that he believed what he had said because, he claimed, that's what Mr. Mundi had told him. Mr. Taniform did not in fact file the motion to reopen before the February 12 deadline or anytime thereafter.
On February 26, 2020, fourteen days after the motion to reopen was due, Mr. Taniform deposited Ms. Fongum's $1,500 check into his attorney trust account.
After February 10, Mr. Fon continued to contact Mr. Taniform weekly to inquire whether there had been any update from the BIA; each time, Mr. Taniform led Mr. Fon to believe that the motion had been filed and that he had not received an update from the BIA. On March 24, Ms. Fongum sent Mr. Taniform a text message asking whether he had contacted the court to verify its receipt of Mr. Fon's appeal documents.
Mr. Taniform testified that he had directed Mr. Mundi to file a "skeletal" motion by the February 12 deadline advising the BIA that Mr. Fon was seeking to reopen the case, and that he intended to subsequently file a supplemental motion stating the basis for the request. Mr. Taniform claimed that each time he told Mr. Fon or Ms. Fongum that the motion was pending, he was referring to the "skeletal" motion. He acknowledged that he never informed Mr. Fon or Ms. Fongum of his plan to first file a "skeletal" motion and
then to file a supplemental one. He admitted that he never drafted or filed a supplemental motion and never directed Mr. Mundi to do so. In contrast to his testimony at the hearing, when he responded to Bar Counsel's...
To continue reading
Request your trial