Attorney Grievance Commission v. Awuah
Decision Date | 09 May 2003 |
Docket Number | Misc. AG No. 3 |
Citation | 374 Md. 505,823 A.2d 651 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Frank A.K. AWUAH. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, James P. Botluk, Asst. Bar Counsel, for petitioner.
Frank A.K. Awuah, Jessup, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
The Respondent, Frank A.K. Awuah (hereinafter "Awuah" or "Respondent") was admitted to the Bar of this Court on June 28, 1990. On July 29, 1997 this Court indefinitely suspended Respondent with the right to apply for reinstatement after sixty days, as a result of his failure to maintain proper trust accounts, commingling client funds with his own and failing to keep proper records regarding the handling of the monies. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 697 A.2d 446 (1997).1 On February 12, 1999, this Court extended the suspension upon Joint Petition of Bar Counsel and Awuah with the right to apply for reinstatement after thirty days.2
On January 10, 2002, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (hereinafter "Bar Counsel"), acting pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-707 and 16-709(a),3 filed a petition for disciplinary action against Awuah charging numerous violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (hereinafter "MRPC"), including MRPC 1.1 (Competence),4 MRPC 1.3 (Diligence),5 MRPC 1.5 (Fees),6 MRPC 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law),7 MRPC 8.4(b),(c) & (d) (Misconduct).8
The charges involved complaints of Paul Brobbey, Boukari Tare, and Michael Grady. On March 18, 2002, this Court referred the petition to The Honorable Diane O. Leasure of the Circuit Court for Howard County for a hearing to determine findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-709.
Judge Leasure scheduled a hearing for June 11, 2002. Prior to the hearing, Awuah filed a motion to dismiss in which he alleged that he had not participated in the proceedings before the Inquiry Panel and the Review Board. Bar Counsel responded that he had sent correspondence regarding those proceedings to Awuah's office address, which had been maintained by the Client Security Trust Fund (now the Client Protection Fund). Judge Leasure denied the motion to dismiss and, by consent of the parties, proceeded to hold three hearings in the matter, on June 11, 2002, August 28, 2002 and November 8, 2002, to permit witnesses to be located.
Judge Leasure, on December 23, 2002, entered the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
"For the reasons set forth herein, the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent violated Rule 1.1 regarding his representation of Mr. Brobbey; Rule 1.3 regarding his representations of Ms. Okusaga and Mr. Brobbey; Rule 5.5 regarding his representation of Mr. Brobbey, Mr. Ouedraogo and Ms. Okusaga; and Rule 8.4(b), (c), and (d) regarding his representations of Ms. Okusaga, Mr. Brobbey and Mr. Ouedraogo. The court further finds that the evidence was insufficient to establish a violation of Rule 1.5.
Background
The Complaints
Ms. Okusaga testified that the Respondent represented her until July 5, 2000. She further testified that when she did not hear from the Respondent for two to three months and her phone calls to him were not returned, another attorney told her that the Respondent had been disbarred [sic, suspended]. Based upon that information, Ms. Okusaga wrote a letter to the Respondent on October 21, 2000 terminating his services as her attorney. She never received a response to this letter. Testimony adduced at the hearing established that Ms. Okusaga considered the Respondent to be her attorney up until the time she terminated his services. She...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance v. Culver
...case on its merits, paying attention to the particular facts and circumstances of the individual case. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Awuah, 374 Md. 505, 526, 823 A.2d 651, 663 (2003). As the Supreme Court of Washington noted in considering the appropriate sanction for attorney sexual miscond......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm. v. Zuckerman
...of each case, including consideration of any mitigating factors. Id. at 496, 850 A.2d at 1167; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Awuah, 374 Md. 505, 526, 823 A.2d 651, 663 (2003); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. McClain, 373 Md. 196, 211, 817 A.2d 218, 227 (2003). Primarily, we seek "to protect the......
-
Attorney Grievance Com'n v. Gisriel
...clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent did not act with reasonable diligence and promptness. In Attorney Grievance v. Awuah, 374 Md. 505, 516, 823 A.2d 651, 658 (2003), we determined that a lawyer violated Rule 1.3 after "failing to file a timely motion and/or appeal on behalf of......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Nussbaum
...of the record. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Mininsohn, 380 Md. 536, 564, 846 A.2d 353, 369-70 (2004); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Awuah, 374 Md. 505, 520, 823 A.2d 651, 660 (2003); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Jaseb, 364 Md. 464, 475, 773 A.2d 516, 522 (2001). In our review of the record, ......