Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sheron A. Barton

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered three consolidated attorney-discipline proceedings against Sheron A. Barton arising from her operation of the Cardinal Law Firm. The court found violations involving competence, diligence, client communication, fees, safekeeping property, termination of representation, supervision of a nonlawyer, unauthorized practice of law, and professional misconduct, and imposed an indefinite suspension.

Holdings

1. The hearing judge acted within her discretion by deeming the requests for admission admitted and declining to permit withdrawal or amendment on the eve of the hearing.
2. The Court independently reviews the record, accepts factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and reviews conclusions of law de novo.
3. Barton violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 5.3(a), (b) and (c), 5.4(b), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a), (c) and (d) of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
4. The evidence was insufficient to establish that Barton violated Rule 5.4(a) by sharing legal fees with Tolbert.
5. Barton violated Rule 5.4(b) by treating Tolbert as a principal in the law firm while Tolbert participated in the practice of law.
6. Indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Maryland was the appropriate sanction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the hearing judge properly relied on deemed admissions entered after Barton failed to timely respond to requests for admission.
2. Whether the hearing judge’s factual findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and whether the Court should defer to the hearing judge’s credibility determinations.
3. Whether Barton violated the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct governing competence, diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping property, termination of representation, supervision of nonlawyers, professional independence, unauthorized practice of law, and misconduct.
4. Whether Barton violated Rule 5.4(a) by sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.
5. What sanction was appropriate for Barton’s pattern of client neglect, failure to supervise, unauthorized-practice assistance, commingling, failure to refund fees, and misrepresentation to a bankruptcy court.

Disposition

other