Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Jones
| Docket Number | 1-2021 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 2023 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. GREGORY WAYNE JONES |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Argued: November 4, 2022
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-21-001414
Fader C.J. Watts Hotten Booth Biran Gould Eaves, JJ.
On March 8, 2021, Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the "Commission"), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (the "PDRA") alleging that Respondent, Gregory Wayne Jones, violated several of the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC"). On September 9, 2021, the Commission filed an Amended Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (the "Amended PDRA"), alleging that Mr. Jones violated the following rules:[1] 1.1 (Competence); 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Attorney); 1.3 (Diligence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.5 (Fees); 1.15 (Safekeeping Property); 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation); 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters);[2] and 8.4 (Misconduct).
This Court designated the Honorable Dana M. Middleton of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (the "hearing judge") to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the alleged rules violations. That hearing went forward on May 20 and May 23, 2022. On July 7, 2022, the hearing judge issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Jones violated the MARPC, as alleged by Bar Counsel. As detailed below, we conclude that Mr. Jones violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, and 8.4, and determine that a 90-day suspension, stayed in favor of 12 months of probation with conditions, is the appropriate sanction.
The Hearing Judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law A. Factual Findings
We summarize here the hearing judge's findings of fact.
Mr Jones was admitted to the Maryland Bar on February 4, 2010. Mr. Jones operates a solo law office in Baltimore City.
Rick'kell Johnson hired Mr. Jones to represent him in relation to charges stemming from a traffic stop that occurred on February 6, 2017. Mr. Johnson was charged in the District Court of Maryland in Allegany County with operating an unregistered motor vehicle, unauthorized use of a license plate, and knowingly driving an uninsured vehicle. He received three citations in relation to these traffic violations. Additionally, Mr. Johnson was charged in the District Court with criminal violations, including possession with the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance - not marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and obstruction of justice. State v. Johnson, Case No. 6W0007646. The District Court scheduled a trial date of March 3, 2017, for the criminal violations and a separate trial date of May 9, 2017, for the traffic violations.
Mr. Johnson retained Mr. Jones on February 23, 2017, seeking representation in both the traffic and criminal matters. Mr. Johnson signed Mr. Jones's "Legal Representation Agreement." This agreement stated that Mr. Johnson was required to pay a "non-refundable engagement fee in the amount of $4,000" before Mr. Jones would begin to "work or enter [his] appearance in the case." The agreement stated that the engagement fee "is earned when received and is non-refundable." The agreement also stated that Mr. Johnson would pay an additional $4,000 flat fee for the representation. According to the terms of the agreement, this flat fee was "fully earned upon receipt." The agreement further stated that the flat fee payments would be placed in Mr. Jones's "Operating Account," rather than his "Escrow Account," and thus would "becom[e] property of [Mr. Jones]." At the outset of the representation, based upon the information that Mr. Jones had received from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jones incorrectly believed that the traffic offenses were included in the criminal case.
Prior to Mr. Johnson's initial appearance in his criminal case on March 3, 2017, Mr. Johnson had not yet paid any fees to Mr. Jones. For this reason, Mr. Jones did not enter his appearance in the criminal case or appear on Mr. Johnson's behalf at the March 3 hearing. Mr. Johnson appeared pro se at the March 3 hearing, and the District Court granted Mr. Johnson's request for a postponement in order to retain an attorney.
Soon afterwards, Mr. Johnson began to make payments toward Mr. Jones's flat fee. On March 7, 2017, Mr. Johnson paid Mr. Jones $300, and on March 24, 2017, he paid Mr. Jones $800. Mr. Jones deposited both of these payments into his operating account. Mr. Johnson then paid an additional $500 on April 28, 2017, bringing his total payment to Mr. Jones to $1,600.
On April 27, 2017, Mr. Johnson's criminal case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Allegany County. An initial hearing was set for June 27, 2017. On May 1, 2017, Mr. Jones contacted the Clerk of the District Court and asked about the status of Mr. Johnson's criminal case. The Clerk incorrectly told Mr. Jones that the criminal case had been dismissed.[3] In fact, the criminal case only appeared closed because it had been transferred to the Circuit Court and assigned a new case number. See State v. Johnson, No. 01-K-17-018467. In this May 1 conversation, the Clerk did not mention the traffic charges because they were not part of the criminal case. Mr. Jones incorrectly believed that the traffic and criminal cases had been filed together, so he believed that the traffic case was closed as well, when in fact the trial on the traffic charges remained scheduled for May 9, 2017, in the District Court. Mr. Jones subsequently informed Mr. Johnson that his case had been dismissed.
Due to Mr. Jones's misunderstanding regarding the status of the traffic charges, Mr. Johnson did not appear for the trial in his traffic case on May 9, 2017. The District Court issued a bench warrant for Mr. Johnson's arrest. Mr. Johnson contacted Mr. Jones when he received notice of the warrant, and Mr. Jones promptly filed a motion to recall the warrant. In this motion, Mr. Jones explained that he had misinformed Mr. Johnson and was responsible for Mr. Johnson's failure to appear. On June 22, 2017, the District Court granted the motion and recalled the warrant. The court set a new trial date for the traffic case for September 25, 2017.
This was the first time that Mr. Jones understood that the traffic and criminal cases were separate. After discussing his previous misunderstanding with Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jones was convinced that Mr. Johnson understood that Mr. Jones was only representing him in the criminal case in the Circuit Court. However, Mr. Johnson believed that Mr. Jones was representing him in both the criminal case in the Circuit Court and the traffic case in the District Court.
Meanwhile, Mr. Johnson continued to make payments toward the $4,000 fee. He paid Mr. Jones $500 on June 12, 2017, bringing his total payments to $2,100. Again, Mr. Jones deposited the funds in his operating account. At the June 27, 2017 status hearing in the criminal case, Mr. Jones did not appear because the flat fee still was not paid in full. The circuit court set the next status hearing for October 10, 2017, and scheduled the jury trial for October 11, 2017.
On September 1, 2017, Mr. Johnson paid Mr. Jones the remaining balance for his $4,000 flat fee, which Mr. Jones deposited into his operating account. At the time of that final payment, Mr. Johnson still expected that Mr. Jones would enter his appearance in both the criminal and traffic cases.[4] On October 2, 2017, Mr. Jones entered his appearance in the criminal case and filed discovery requests. On October 5, 2017, Mr. Jones served a Motion to Compel Discovery and a Request for Continuance based on the State's failure to provide discovery. However, the court did not receive Mr. Jones's continuance request in time for the October 10 status hearing, so no continuance was granted.
Mr. Jones failed to appear at the October 10 hearing due to car trouble. Mr. Jones informed Mr. Johnson and the court that his car had broken down and that he would be unable to travel from Baltimore to Cumberland to attend the hearing. Mr. Johnson appeared on his own at the hearing and requested a postponement, which the court granted. The court postponed Mr. Johnson's trial until November 28, 2017.
After the status hearing, Mr. Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Jones's representation and requested a copy of his file, as well as a refund of the $4,000 fee. Mr. Jones declined to refund the fee based on the terms of the Legal Representation Agreement. Mr. Jones also failed to provide Mr. Johnson with a copy of his file. Mr. Jones continued the representation of Mr. Johnson, negotiating a plea agreement with the State's Attorney, which was placed on the record on November 28, 2017. The court accepted the plea agreement and placed Mr. Johnson's case on the stet docket.
On November 9, 2017 (i.e., prior to Mr. Johnson resolving the criminal case with the stet disposition), Mr. Johnson filed a complaint with the Commission, claiming, among other things, that Mr. Jones failed to communicate with him and failed to appear at court hearings. Mr. Jones did not receive notice of this complaint until after the November 28, 2017 disposition of Mr. Johnson's case.
After conducting an investigation, Bar Counsel concluded that a Conditional Diversion Agreement ("CDA") would be the appropriate resolution of Mr. Johnson's allegations of professional misconduct. Mr. Jones, represented by counsel, agreed to enter into a CDA with Bar...
To continue reading
Request your trial