Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Proctor
| Docket Number | Misc. Docket AG No. 1, Sept. Term, 2020 |
| Decision Date | 25 July 2022 |
| Citation | 479 Md. 650,279 A.3d 879 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Deidra Nicole PROCTOR |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Erin A. Risch, Deputy Bar Counsel (Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner
Argued by Deidra Nicole Proctor, Charlotte, NC, for Respondent
Argued before:* Getty, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Robert N. McDonald (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
On March 11, 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland ("AGC"), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (the "Petition") against Deidra Nicole Proctor, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-721. The Petition alleged that Ms. Proctor violated numerous provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC").1 In accordance with Maryland Rules 19-722(a) and 19-727, we assigned the Petition to the Honorable Crystal D. Mittelstaedt ("hearing judge") to hold an evidentiary hearing and render findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The hearing was held on September 20, 2021. Bar Counsel presented its case with no witnesses and 58 exhibits, including the requests for admissions that were deemed admitted. Ms. Proctor appeared pro se . In lieu of closing arguments, the hearing judge asked the parties to submit post-hearing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Only Bar Counsel chose to do so.
On November 4, 2021, the hearing judge issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the "findings"), finding by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Proctor violated MARPC 1.1 (Competence), 1.2(a) (), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.3 (Candor Towards the Tribunal), 5.5(a) and (b) (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 8.1(a) and (b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4 (a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct).2
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-728(b), Ms. Proctor filed exceptions to the findings.
Oral arguments were held before this Court on March 8, 2022. By Per Curiam Order issued March 9, 2022, this Court disbarred Ms. Proctor. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v . Proctor , 477 Md. 631, 271 A.3d 792 (2022). We now explain why.
On November 11, 2020, Ms. Proctor was personally served with the Petition, interrogatories, a request for production of documents, and a request for admission of fact and genuineness of documents. Pursuant to Maryland Rules 2-421(b), 2-422(c), and 2-424(b), she had 45 days to respond to Bar Counsel's discovery requests.3 Ms. Proctor failed to respond to either the Petition or the discovery requests, prompting Bar Counsel to move for an order of default on January 26, 2021. Ms. Proctor filed an untimely opposition to the motion, claiming she was never served with the Petition. On March 1, 2021, Ms. Proctor filed her answer to the Petition.
On March 23, 2021, Bar Counsel withdrew its motion for default and re-served its discovery requests on Ms. Proctor by email and regular mail, along with a notice of service. Once again, she did not respond. As a result, Bar Counsel filed a motion seeking sanctions and that its requests for admissions of fact and genuineness of documents be admitted in accordance with Maryland Rule 2-424(b), or alternatively, an order compelling Ms. Proctor to answer the requested discovery. On July 16, 2021, the hearing judge granted Bar Counsel's motion and ordered Ms. Proctor to respond to the discovery requests by July 26, 2021.
Ms. Proctor failed to comply with the discovery order, prompting Bar Counsel to again move for sanctions, pursuant to Maryland Rules 2-432(a) and 2-433, seeking to (1) have the court deem admitted the requests for admissions of fact and genuineness of documents; (2) strike Ms. Proctor's answer; (3) admit the averments in the Petition; and (4) preclude Ms. Proctor from presenting witnesses or discovery at the hearing and preclude her testimony related to any facts not related to mitigation. On September 16, 2021, the hearing judge granted Bar Counsel's motion and prohibited Ms. Proctor from presenting any documents at trial that were not produced in discovery.
Ms. Proctor has been a member of the Maryland Bar since December 13, 2000. She was temporarily suspended for failing to pay her annual assessment to the Client Protection Fund for: April 8 - 17, 2003; April 7 - July 4, 2004; April 10, 2007 - February 28, 2008; March 15 - April 5, 2012; and March 20 - April 3, 2014. Ms. Proctor continued to practice law during her periods of suspension.
Between September 10, 2009 and March 8, 2010, Ms. Proctor was decertified from the practice of law due to her failure to submit her pro bono reporting forms. Despite her decertification, Ms. Proctor continued to practice law.
Around January 18, 2006, Robin R. Belfast retained Ms. Proctor to represent her in connection with her claim of age and race discrimination against her former employer, Verizon Communications ("Verizon"). Verizon dismissed Ms. Belfast after 27 years, due to a reduction in work force. Prior to retaining Ms. Proctor, Ms. Belfast had filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued a right to sue letter on December 29, 2005, giving Ms. Belfast 90 days to file a civil complaint against Verizon.
Ms. Proctor failed to file the complaint. Over the next six years, Ms. Proctor not only failed to disclose that fact to Ms. Belfast, but she affirmatively misrepresented the status of the matter, that the litigation was underway and ongoing. Based on such misrepresentations, Ms. Belfast believed that Ms. Proctor was actively litigating her case and engaging in settlement discussions.
For example, on March 12, 2010, Ms. Belfast wrote Ms. Proctor to inquire about the status of her case. Three days later, Ms. Proctor responded with intentionally misleading statements, indicating that she was working to resolve the matter and "looking into additional details" of a potential witness.
Between August 20, 2010 and December 2011, Ms. Proctor continued to mislead Ms. Belfast by stating that settlement discussions were ongoing, that she was having discussions with Verizon, and that a trial was scheduled for March 29, 2012.
After several additional communications indicating that the case was pending, on March 21, 2012, Ms. Proctor finally admitted to Ms. Belfast that there was no lawsuit pending against Verizon. Ms. Proctor feigned uncertainty whether the blame rested with her for failing to file the complaint, or with the court for failing to properly docket it. In April 2012, Ms. Proctor stated that she would compensate Ms. Belfast for the case "should that be necessary," and then falsely indicated that more could be done on the case and informed Ms. Belfast that she was going to "focus[ ] on the courts."
On August 13, 2012, Ms. Proctor offered Ms. Belfast $250,000 to settle a potential malpractice claim arising from her neglect of Ms. Belfast's case. Ms. Proctor did not advise Ms. Belfast that she had a conflict of interest and that Ms. Belfast should seek the advice of other counsel in connection with the proposed settlement. Without the benefit of counsel, Ms. Belfast accepted the offer. On October 9, 2012, Ms. Proctor prepared and provided to Ms. Belfast a written settlement agreement which inexplicably reduced her payment obligation to $200,000. Again without the benefit of counsel, Ms. Belfast agreed to the twenty percent reduction in the settlement amount. Ms. Belfast repeatedly asked for a copy of her file, but Ms. Proctor never provided it to her.
Between January and September 2013, Ms. Proctor made empty promises, stating that she was waiting for a personal injury settlement and trying to obtain a loan in order to pay the settlement. When neither source of funds came through, in October 2013, Ms. Proctor offered to pay Ms. Belfast $1,000 a month towards the settlement. Ms. Proctor made her first payment in November 2013, which was returned for insufficient funds. In January 2014, Ms. Proctor made her first $1,000 payment and thereafter made only minimal, sporadic payments.
In July 2017 and January 2018, fed up with Ms. Proctor's sporadic and unreliable payments, Ms. Belfast told Ms. Proctor that she was going to file a complaint with the AGC and the Maryland State Bar Association if Ms. Proctor did not pay her debt in full immediately. Ms. Proctor attempted to dissuade Ms. Belfast from contacting the AGC by knowingly misrepresenting to Ms. Belfast that the settlement amount would likely be relitigated and would "result in a lower amount due, which may ultimately resolve this matter sooner." When Ms. Belfast filed her complaint with the AGC in January 2018, Ms. Proctor still owed her approximately $224,000, inclusive of late fees stipulated in the settlement agreement.
On or about October 13, 2017, Antonia G. Colvin retained Ms. Proctor to represent her in her capacity as personal representative for her husband's estate (the "Estate"). Ms. Proctor agreed to defend a $55,942 disallowed claim made against the Estate by King T. Leatherbury Associates, Inc. ("Leatherbury"). When Ms. Proctor was retained, Ms. Colvin had already been served with the complaint as well as discovery requests. The deadline for completion of discovery was March 18, 2018.
On November 13, 2017, Ms. Proctor entered her appearance and filed an answer to the complaint. Ms. Proctor did not, however, respond to the discovery requests or discuss them with Ms. Colvin. Shortly thereafter, Leatherbury's counsel served a second request for production of documents and a notice of deposition. Ms. Proctor stated that she was unavailable on the deposition date.
On February 19, 2018,...
To continue reading
Request your trial