Attorney Grievance v. Link

Decision Date19 March 2004
Docket NumberMisc. Docket AG No. 97
Citation844 A.2d 1197,380 Md. 405
PartiesATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Harold S. LINK, Jr.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel and Glenn M. Grossman, Deputy Bar Counsel for Atty. Grievance Com'n of MD, Petitioner.

Harold S. Link, Jr., Cockeysville, for Respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (retired, specially assigned), JJ.

BELL, Chief Judge.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 approved the filing by Bar Counsel of a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action charging the respondent, Harold S. Link, Jr., with violating Rule 4.4, Respect for Rights of Third Persons,2 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC"), as adopted by Maryland rule 16-812 and, in so doing, acting in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(d).3 We referred the case to the Honorable Robert E. Cadigan, of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, for hearing, Rule 16-752(a),4 and to find facts and draw conclusions of law. See 16-757(c).5

Following the hearing, at which the complainant, Wilbert Myles, the complainant's supervisor and the respondent, both for himself and in the petitioner's case, all testified, the hearing court concluded that the respondent violated the rules charged. Those conclusions were based on the findings of fact made by the court, after summarizing the testimony, as follows:

"1. The Incident of May 10, 2002

"The Respondent's testimony (hereinafter "Link") is best summarized by his letter directed to Mr. Grossman dated July 4, 2002 introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1(E)....6

"In addition, Link testified at the hearing that he has been a member of the Maryland Bar since 1990. He engages in a general practice working out of his home in Cockeysville. His practice emphasizes personal injury litigation. He employs no associates, paralegals or secretaries. Approximately 90% of his personal injury clients are African American. Link is Caucasian.

"In his testimony. Link alluded to `problems' he previously encountered at the MVA in Towson when a clerk informed him he was not entitled to certain information `because of the Privacy Act.' Following calls to one of the `higher-ups' at MVA, Link concluded that the `whole MVA system is imbued with violations of the Maryland Public Information Act.' He referred to another prior incident with a `government employee' following which he asked to see the employee's supervisor. He indicates that his conversation with the supervisor `was not friendly.'

"When Link went to the MVA office in Mondawmin on May 10, 2002 he was `hoping' they would give him the insurance coverage information he needed but he `wondered' if the MVA was `persisting in its policy' of non-disclosure because of the Privacy Act. He purposely dressed causally because he wanted to see `how ordinary people are treated.' He is `appalled' by the way he and others are `treated poorly.' Link admitted that he has had `difficulty' with other agencies. His `standard' is not to `back-down' but rather `go into the mouth of the beast.' Link stated in closing argument that the MVA is a `criminal organization' and is `acting illegally.' He argued that `its all about the little guy ... taking on the government... whistle-blowing.'

"As stated in Link's July 4, 2002 letter (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1(E)), he testified that the MVA Customer Service Agent, Wilbert Myles (hereinafter `Myles') was rude and curt. After being asked by Myles if he was an attorney and to produce identification. Link admits that he told Myles and his supervisor, Ms. Ryce, (hereinafter `Ryce') that Myles was incompetent, didn't know the law and `needs to be trained properly.' He admits that he called Myles `a loathsome bureaucrat.' In his testimony, he stated Myles is `rude, arrogant, incompetent and lazy.... He doesn't know the law ... he acted like a complete fool... he was shouting ... like a complete idiot.' Link contends that his right to tell an employee how he is doing his job is protected by the First Amendment.

"When Myles refused to give Link his name, he admits that he said `OK, Sparky, I've had enough of your nonsense-let me talk to your supervisor.' Link testified that `Sparky' is a `meaningless term ... for someone whose name you don't know... it's a filler. I would usually say "partner." I am being condescending ... the term "sir" is a form of respect and I had absolutely none.' Link denied any knowledge that `Sparky' has any racial connotation or is in any way racially offensive.

"Finally, Link testified that he `calmly answered Mr. Myles' silly questions' and never raised his voice during the May 2002 encounter but rather was verbally abused by Myles. Link contends that his conduct was `impeccable.'

"Wilbert Myles testified that he is 61 years old and has been a Customer Service Agent with MVA for nine years. He previously worked as a Senior Assistant Underwriter with USF & G for 15 years. He has had "four major surgeries" and takes `nine pills a day' including a `heart pill.' Myles is an African American.

"On May 10, 2002 Link approached Myles' work station and gave him an application for a driver's record in which he had checked off `registration records.' According to MVA policy, Myles requested Link's driver's license as identification. When asked `why' by Link, Myles responded that without identification, he could not give Link the requested information because of the Privacy Act. Myles explained that attorneys can get a complete driver's record including name and address. Myles then inquired as to whether Link was an attorney. Link responded `what difference does it make?' Myles offered an explanation which was in accord with his training manual. Link then stated that Myles was `breaking the law' in not providing the information.

"Myles described Link's demeanor as `very smug and pretentious.' Based upon Mr. Myles' `work experience', he suspected that Link was an attorney because they `have certain airs.'

"Myles testified that when Link continued the `name calling ... the maligning and the indignities that he hurled at me', Myles stated `you need to see the supervisor.' Link stated `you need to bring someone out here ... because obviously you don't know what you are doing.'

"Before the supervisor (Ryce) was summonsed, Myles testified that Link called him `Sparky' several more times. Myles took offense and protested that that was not his name and that Link's comment was demeaning, sarcastic, disrespectful and insulting. He stated that he was humiliated, upset, infuriated and embarrassed. Myles further testified that `Sparky' is just another name for the N word for `most people of color at my age or older.' As Myles left his work station to speak with his supervisor, he states that Link `threw his driver's license' on the counter.

"When Myles went to his supervisor's office, she was on the telephone with customers. She placed the customer on `hold a minute' and Myles told her `what had happened.' When the supervisor appeared, Myles testified that Link stated `what took you so long?' At the point, he stated Link was `irate' and told the supervisor that `Sparky over here doesn't know his job' and that he should be retrained because he doesn't know the law and is incompetent. Myles states that Link told his supervisor that `... the system needs to hire folk who have a brain because everyone I have encountered throughout the system does not have one and they are completely incompetent.'

"Myles further testified that Link asked his supervisor for his name. She gave his last name. He then asked for his first name and she replied `Wilbert.' Thereafter Link continued `to yell' and proceeded to refer to Myles as Wilbert which he found to be offensive and disrespectful.

"In his supervisor's presence, Link `proceeded to yell across the counter and pointing his finger, Wilbert, you have broken the law' and stated that he `could be brought up on charges and that type of thing.'

"Myles admitted that he has not read the Privacy Act or the Maryland Public Information Act but states his training manual contains all relevant information.

"After hearing Myles' testimony, Link later testified that Myles was `a liar' and that Myles was `incredibly rude, feisty, mean' and like the `Energizer bunny.'

"Delease Ryce has been a Customer Agent with MVA since 1988. She was Myles' supervisor at the Mondawmin office in May 2002. While she was on the telephone, Myles came to her office and told her that an attorney refused to show his identification. She had heard `voices' but couldn't hear the conversations.

"About five to ten minutes later, she left her office and went to Myles' work station. Both Myles and Link were `going at it'. Both were being `rude' to each other. Their voices were not in a `conversational' tone. She asked Myles to be quiet and `let me handle it.'

"She believes Link asked her-'what took you so long?' She replied that she was talking on the phone with two customers. She thinks Link said `you need to hire a competent person.' Link said `explain to me why I had to wait ten minutes.' She replied that `you didn't produce any identification.' She explained to Link that everyone has to show identification. She asked Link `what kind of report do you need?' She then gave him the information he had requested. She testified that Link was not rude to her. She believes Myles was `retaliating.' Myles only `retaliated' when Link said something to him. It was `back and forth' between Myles and Link.

"She stated that Link asked her for Myles' name. When she did so. Link referred to Myles as `Wilbert.' She did not hear Link call Myles `Sparky.' Ryce is an African American.

"The above summary of Link's testimony includes his testimony presented at the conclusion of Bar Counsel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rheinstein
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 24, 2020
    ...the legal process." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Payer, 425 Md. 78, 96, 38 A.3d 378, 388 (2012) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Link, 380 Md. 405, 425, 844 A.2d 1197, 1209 (2004)). An attorney may violate Rule 4.4 when he or she includes individuals in a lawsuit without substantial ju......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Rheinstein
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 24, 2020
    ...legal process." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Payer , 425 Md. 78, 96, 38 A.3d 378, 388 (2012) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Link , 380 Md. 405, 425, 844 A.2d 1197, 1209 (2004) ). An attorney may violate Rule 4.4 when he or she includes individuals in a lawsuit without substantial jus......
  • Duvall v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 2007
    ...358 Md. at 48, 746 A.2d at 404. Lawyers are officers of the court and should be treated as such. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Link, 380 Md. 405, 427, 844 A.2d 1197, 1211 (2004). If the administrative judge questioned defense counsel's credibility or motives in requesting the motion to c......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Joseph, Misc. Docket AG No. 11
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 2011
    ...findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Theriault, 390 Md. at 209, 888 A.2d at 296; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Link, 380 Md. 405, 420, 844 A.2d 1197, 1206 (2004); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Davis, 375 Md. 131, 157–58, 825 A.2d 430, 445–46 (2003). There was clear and con......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Blessed Are the Peacemakers: the Case for Civility in the Practice of Law
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 88-1, January 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...with the interests of the client."). [40] Pillars, "With respect to Courts," Rule 1. [41] Attorney Grievance Comn of Maryland v. Link, 380 Md. 405, 844 A.2d 1197, 1199 (2004), citing In the Matter of McAlevy, 69 N.J. 349, 354 A.2d 289, 290-91 (1976). [42] KRPC, Preamble, ¶ [5]. [43] Pillars......
  • "blessed Are the Peacemakers:" [1] the Case for Civility in the Practice of Law
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 88-1, January 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...with the interests of the client.”). [40] Pillars, “With respect to Courts,” Rule 1. [41] Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Link, 380 Md. 405, 844 A.2d 1197, 1199 (2004), citing In the Matter of McAlevy, 69 N.J. 349, 354 A.2d 289, 290-91 (1976). [42] KRPC, Preamble, ¶ [5]. [43] Pillar......
  • Formal Opinion No. 98—ethical Responsibilities of Lawyers Who Engage in Other Businesses, Adopted
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 44-4, April 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...argument that judge was biased against lawyer in lawyer's sixth appeal in his own divorce case). See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Link, 844 A.2d 1197, 1211-12 (Md. 2004) ("Only when such purely private conduct is criminal or so egregious as to make the harm, or potential harm, flowing from ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT