Attorney Grievance v. Mba-Jonas
Decision Date | 20 March 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 53, Sept. Term, 2005.,53, Sept. Term, 2005. |
Citation | 919 A.2d 669,397 Md. 690 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Victor MBA-JONAS. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Gail D. Kessler, Asst. Bar Counsel (Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel for Atty. Grievance Com'n), for petitioner.
Melvin G. Bergman, Greenbelt, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J. RAKER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE and ALAN M. WILNER, (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.
Bar counsel, acting on behalf, and with the approval, of the petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, filed in this Court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,1 a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action charging the respondent, Victor Mba-Jonas, with violating Rules 1.15, Safekeeping Property,2 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters,3 and 8.4, Misconduct,4 of the Maryland Rules of professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812, Maryland Rules 16-604, Trust Account-Required Deposits,5 16-607, Commingling of Funds,6 and 16-609, Prohibited Transactions,7 all pertaining to his attorney trust account, and Maryland Code (2000, 2004 Repl.Vol., 2006 Supp.) §§ 10-304, Deposit of trust money,8 10-306, Misuse of trust money,9 and 10-307, Disciplinary action,10 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article.
We referred the case, pursuant to Rules 16-752(a),11 to the Honorable Maureen Lamasney, of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757(c).12 After a hearing, at which the respondent was represented by counsel, the court found the following facts by clear and convincing evidence.
From the foregoing findings of fact, the hearing court concluded that the respondent committed most, but not all, of the charged violations. Reiterating that the respondents' records "do not reflect the disbursement of his fee," that some of the funds associated with the Ebos, Doghboe, Mwaiwu and Belt representations "were not used for the persons intended" and that the respondent did not keep, or preserve complete records of his representations, it concluded that Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules 16-604 and 16-607 were violated.
The hearing court also found that the respondent violated Rule 8.4(a). It did not find any other Rule 8.4 violation, however. It explained:
". . .
Nor did the hearing court conclude that there was a violation of Rule 8.1. While it acknowledged that "the respondent did not respond as promptly as would have been ideal, he did respond." Indeed, the hearing court "found the respondent to be quite candid and forthcoming." Accordingly, it concluded that he "did not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information."
No mention was made by the hearing court of Rule 16-609 or any of the charged statutory violations. It made mitigation findings, as follows:
Only the petitioner has filed exceptions. It does not challenge or take exception to the hearing court's findings of fact, only its conclusions of law. Thus, the findings of fact made by the hearing court are established. Rule 16-759(b)(2)(A).13 See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Logan, 390 Md. 313, 319, 888 A.2d 359, 363 (2005); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hodgson, 396 Md. 1, 6-8, 912 A.2d 640, 644 (2006). Specifically, the petitioner submits that the hearing court erred in failing to find that the respondent violated Rule 16-609 and § 10-306, both relating to the misuse of the respondent's trust account. It argues that the propriety of such findings is patent when "[t]he fact that the Respondent did not keep Monico Navaro's funds intact, used other client funds to cover post dated checks and the Yawa Dogboe[14] disbursements, as well as never accounting for $2,125.00 of the Dogboe settlement" is considered.
It also disagrees with the conclusion that a Rule 8.1 violation had not been established. In support of this exception, the petitioner relies on the testimony of its investigator, and the inferences it draws from that testimony, with regard to the respondent's failure to produce, at the investigator's request, records additional to the settlement sheets, banks statements and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance v. Garcia
...of the erring attorney. Attorney Grievance v. Goff, 399 Md. 1, 30-31, 922 A.2d 554, 571 (2007); Attorney Grievance v. Mba-Jonas, 397 Md. 690, 702-03, 919 A.2d 669, 677 (2007); Attorney Grievance v. Rees, 396 Md. 248, 254, 913 A.2d 68, 72 (2006); Attorney Grievance v. Kreamer, 387 Md. 503, 5......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. John Michael Coppola.
...of the erring attorney. Attorney Grievance v. Goff, 399 Md. 1, 30, 922 A.2d 554, 571 (2007), citing Attorney Grievance v. Mba–Jonas, 397 Md. 690, 702, 919 A.2d 669, 677 (2007); Attorney Grievance v. Rees, 396 Md. 248, 254, 913 A.2d 68, 72 (2006); Attorney Grievance v. Kreamer, 387 Md. 503, ......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Whitehead
...whether there was a violation of MRPC 8.4(c)." Id. at 69, 930 A.2d at 344 (emphasis in original). See also Attorney Grievance v. Mba-Jonas, 397 Md. 690, 697, 919 A.2d 669, 674 (2007) (affirming hearing court's conclusion that there was no Rule 8.4(c) violation if "respondent did not have th......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Mahone
...Comm'n. v. Mahone, 398 Md. 257, 265–66, 920 A.2d 458, 463, 2007 WL 1051696, *4 (2007); Attorney Grievance Comm'n. v. Mba–Jonas, 397 Md. 690, 700, 919 A.2d 669, 675, 2007 WL 816836, *4 (2007); Attorney Grievance Comm'n. v. Hodgson, 396 Md. 1, 6–7, 912 A.2d 640, 644 (2006); Attorney Grievance......