Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed an attorney disciplinary proceeding involving Barry S. Brown's representation of four clients. The court upheld findings that Brown violated multiple Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, including duties of competence, diligence, communication, and honesty, and ordered his disbarment. The court declined to treat Brown's untimely or improperly filed motions as exceptions.

Holdings

1. Brown's motion for a new trial was improperly filed in the circuit court because the Court of Appeals alone had authority to order a remand or new hearing, and his motion to dismiss filed in the Court of Appeals was untimely under Maryland Rule 16-758(b) and (c). Neither motion was treated as an exception.
2. When no exceptions are filed, the Court may treat the hearing judge's factual findings as established for purposes of determining sanctions, while reviewing the hearing judge's conclusions of law without deference.
3. Brown violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c) and (d), but did not violate MLRPC 1.6(a) or 8.1(a).
4. Disbarment was required because Brown engaged in severe and pervasive misconduct affecting four clients, including neglect, failure to communicate, misrepresentations, failure to provide client files, and failure to respond to Bar Counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brown's post-hearing motions could be treated as timely exceptions to the hearing judge's findings and conclusions.
2. Whether the hearing judge's factual findings and legal conclusions established violations of MLRPC 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c) and (d).
3. What sanction was appropriate for Brown's repeated neglect, failure to communicate, misrepresentations, failure to provide client files, and failure to respond to Bar Counsel.

Disposition

other