Attorney Grievance v. Mba-Jonas

Decision Date04 December 2007
Docket NumberMisc. Docket (Subtitle AG) No. 55 Sept. Term, 2006.
Citation936 A.2d 839,402 Md. 334
PartiesATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Victor MBA-JONAS.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Gail D. Kessler, Assistant Bar Counsel (Melvin Hirsman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for petitioner.

Melvin G. Bergman of Greenbelt, for respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE, (Retired, Specially Assigned), ALAN M. WILNER, (Retired, Specially Assigned), DALE R. CATHELL, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

ELDRIDGE, J.

The respondent, Victor Mba-Jonas, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on April 6, 1995. On March 20, 2007, this Court indefinitely suspended Mba-Jonas, with the right to apply for readmission after 90 days, because of misconduct in the management of his escrow account. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mba-Jonas, 397 Md. 690, 919 A.2d 669 (2007). In the present matter, the Attorney Grievance Commission, by Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Victor Mba-Jonas based upon allegations of substantially the same type of conduct involved in Mba-Jonas's previous case. Specifically, Bar Counsel alleged violations of Rules 1.1,1 1.15,2 8.13 and 8.44 of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct; Maryland Rules 16-607 and 16-609;5 and Maryland Code (2000, 2004 Repl.Vol.), §§ 10-306 and 10-307 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article.6 The matter was referred to Judge Maureen M. Lamasney of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County for a hearing and factual findings pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-752(a) and 16-757(c).7

The facts, as found by Judge Lamasney, are essentially as follows. On April 26, 2005, Bar Counsel received a letter from the Bank of America stating that there was an overdraft on Mba-Jonas's attorney escrow account in the amount of $39.79. Bar Counsel sent three letters to Mba-Jonas requesting an explanation for the overdraft but received no response. After a fourth letter was sent to Mba-Jonas's attorney, Bar Counsel received a letter, forwarded by Mba-Jonas's attorney, from McDonald C. Okechukwo of the Bank of America. The letter was in reference to the overdraft, but, as Judge Lamasney found, it was "totally non-responsive." Thereafter the Attorney Grievance Commission performed a "bank record analysis," sometimes referred to as a "trust account analyzer," for the period of January 1, 2005 to October 15, 2005, on Victor Mba-Jonas's escrow account at the Bank of America.

The central feature of the allegations against Mba-Jonas in this case concerns the maintenance of his escrow account, and those facts were not in dispute. Regarding the allegations, Judge Lamasney found as follows:

"The trust analyzer revealed that the trust account had a negative balance on January 10, [2005]. The respondent had only $47.88 in the bank when he wrote a $60.00 check payable to Agyeiwah Adwua. A negative balance of $12.12 ensued.

"On 2-2-05 a $3,000 deposit was immediately reduced to $2958.74. The second negative balance occurred on April 20, 2005 and resulted in the letter from the bank to the Attorney Grievance Commission.

"On April 27, 2005, a deposit of $9,000 attributable to Terri Belt was immediately reduced to $8,930 and brought the account to a positive level.

"During this period of time, the following clients of Mr. Mba-Jonas had amounts left over in their accounts that were not disbursed:

                   April Langley       $105.00
                   Terri Belt          $100.00
                   Solange Tang        $100.00
                   Nathan Drakeford    $ 30.00
                   Joseph Ebotarrey    $100.00
                   Christian Njoku     $ 15.00
                   Agnes Mongare       $100.00
                   Kufre Akpaidem      $ 68.80
                   Chinyere Uduhiri    $ 25.00
                   Joselyne Edmond     $ 66.00
                   Abel Getachew       $ 25.00
                   S. Olorungbohunmi   $400.00
                

"The undisbursed money totaled $1,732.80. Bank fees for the account were $370.05, approximately 25% of the total. Mr. Mba-Jonas testified that the money was his, not the clients.

"In two cases, more money was given out than taken in. In the matter of Hilaria Navarro, $15.00 more was expended. In the case of Dora Lima, the amount was $966.85.

"There were four occasions during this time period when money directed to one client was used for another. The respondent wrote a partial settlement check for $60.00 to Agyewash Adwua, when only $47.88 in funds remained. Secondly, on February 1, 2005 a deposit of $3000 was made from Progressive Insurance for Ekaette Essien. Because of the negative balance, the amount was immediately reduced to $2,958.74. On April 11,2005, a check was written to Godwin Ihionu for $79.41 with only $39.62 in the account.

"[Fourth], a deposit made for the benefit of Terri Belt in the amount of $9,000 became $8,930.21 because of the negative balance. Additionally, the respondent admitted to writing check number 3017 to cash."

Judge Lamasney made the following conclusions of law regarding Mba-Jonas's management of the escrow account:

"Rule 1.15 Safekeeping Property

The respondent failed to safeguard the property of his clients. He failed to keep his clients' property separate from his own. He maintained his own funds far in excess of the amount needed to cover expenses. He failed to generate complete records in the first place; whatever records he did produce he has not maintained for five years.

"Rule 8.4 Misconduct

"The manner in which the escrow account was maintained is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Court does not believe — nor has it been suggested — that the state of his escrow account is the result of dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

"Maryland Rule 16-607 — Commingling Funds

"The respondent did not withdraw his own [money] from the account money with any degree of promptness on multiple occasions.

"Maryland Rule 16-609 Prohibited Transactions

"The respondent acknowledges a check made out to cash.

"Business Occupations & Professions Article, 10-306 Misuse of Trust Money

"All of the above violations constitute a misuse of trust money under this section."

The remaining issue in this case concerns Mba-Jonas's interactions with Bar Counsel investigator Marc Fiedler and the letter from McDonald Okechukwu of the Bank of America. Marc Fiedler testified that he asked Mba-Jonas to produce certain documents so that he could review them, and Mba-Jonas failed to produce the documents. According to Mba-Jonas's testimony, "the files were not immediately accessible; . . . he had difficulty obtaining them; . . . the cost of photocopying was expensive, and . . . he was dealing with the consequences of the suspension mandated by the Court of Appeals." In addition, Fiedler testified that he gave Mba-Jonas information on how to balance his account and reviewed with him the requirements of an escrow account. Judge Lamasney stated that the "situation with his escrow account has not improved since that time."

As previously indicated, Bar Counsel received a letter signed by McDonald C. Okechukwu of the Bank of America concerning the overdraft.8 Marc Fiedler testified that he inquired if Mba-Jonas knew the author of the letter because the letter was nonresponsive and was from a branch of the Bank of America located some distance from Mba-Jonas's office. Fiedler further testified that Mba-Jonas said that he did not know McDonald Okechukwu and that Mba-Jonas repeated the same answer after Fiedler "said he hoped he would not find out that the respondent had represented the banker." According to Judge Lamasney's findings, Mba-Jonas "did in fact represent the banker in a divorce in 1999." Mba-Jonas testified that Fiedler did not ask whether Mba-Jonas knew the author of the letter, but whether the author was a friend. Mba-Jonas testified that, to this question, he answered "no." He also stated that he went to that particular branch of the Bank of America because he was shopping with his family in the area.

Regarding the letter from McDonald Okechukwu and the interactions with Marc Fiedler, Judge Lamasney found that Mba-Jonas violated Rule 8.1. Judge Lamasney stated as follows:

"Rule 8.1 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters

"The Court finds that the letter obtained from the Bank of America is another example of the extreme carelessness exhibited by the respondent and not an attempt at deliberate deception. Since the letter was so clearly non-responsive, there was no question that it would be accepted as a resolution of the overdraft by the Attorney Grievance Commission.

"However, the conversation with Mr. Fiedler is a different matter. The Court finds the testimony of Mr. Fiedler to be credible and finds that the respondent deliberately tried to conceal his connection to the banker. At the very least, he failed to volunteer the information since it was clear Mr. Fiedler's questions were directed to ascertain the relationship between the banker and respondent.

"The Court finds that he failed to provide information to the Attorney Grievance Commission despite their lawful demand. While the respondent was going through a difficult time in his life, at the time this case was instigated he was in the midst of the prior proceeding. He produced some documents in that matter, but almost none in this. His cooperation decreased, even with the prior grievance and the suspension by the Court of Appeals. That process should have induced more cooperation rather than less."

Finally, Judge Lamasney also found in mitigation that Mba-Jonas "had family problems that required a substantial amount of attention during this period of time."

II.

Bar Counsel filed no substantive exceptions to Judge Lamasney's findings of fact or conclusions of law. Bar Counsel filed a few technical exceptions to correct minor typographical errors in dates set forth in Judge Lamasney's findings and conclusions, and we sustain those exceptions.

Victor Mba-Jonas filed a single exception objecting to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Attorney Grievance v. Byrd
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 14, 2009
    ...Judge Rubin was entitled to weigh the testimony and make credibility determinations, based on it. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Mba-Jonas, 402 Md. 334, 344, 936 A.2d 839, 844 (2007). We can and do defer to such credibility assessments. We note, moreover, Mr. Johnson's testimony detailing......
  • Attorney Grievance Com'n v. Gisriel
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 18, 2009
    ...that the judge may elect to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon") (internal quotations omitted); Attorney Grievance v. Mba-Jonas, 402 Md. 334, 344, 936 A.2d 839, 844 (2007) ("We accept [the hearing judge's] finding and [resulting] legal conclusion as she had the opportunity to weigh......
  • Attorney Grievance v. Kreamer
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 17, 2008
    ...is among the factors this Court considers in determining the appropriate sanction for misconduct." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Mba-Jonas, 402 Md. 334, 346, 936 A.2d 839, 846 (2007); see also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sapero, 400 Md. 461, 490, 929 A.2d 483, 501 (2007); Attorney Grievance......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Miller
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 29, 2020
    ...of fact. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Marcalus , 414 Md. 501, 512, 996 A.2d 350, 356 (2010) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Mba-Jonas , 402 Md. 334, 344, 936 A.2d 839, 844 (2007) ). This standard is met where the hearing judge's factual findings are supported by "any competent material......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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