Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Susan Myra Geller Kirwan

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that Susan Myra Geller Kirwan violated multiple Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to competently and diligently pursue a negligence claim, communicate with her client, protect the client’s interests upon termination, and respond to Bar Counsel. The court identified several aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. It indefinitely suspended Kirwan from the practice of law and assessed costs against her.

Holdings

1. Kirwan violated MLRPC 1.1 by failing to take the necessary steps and perform the preparation and substantive work reasonably necessary to competently pursue the client's claim, resulting in harm when the claim could no longer be pursued.
2. Kirwan violated MLRPC 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client.
3. Kirwan violated MLRPC 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(b) by failing to keep the client informed, failing to respond to reasonable requests for information, and failing to explain whether she would continue representing the client.
4. Kirwan violated MLRPC 1.16(d) by abandoning the representation without reasonable notice and by failing to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client's interests or cooperate with successor counsel.
5. Kirwan violated MLRPC 8.1(b) by knowingly failing to respond to the Commission's lawful demands for information concerning the disciplinary complaint.
6. Kirwan violated MLRPC 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) because her other professional-conduct violations constituted misconduct and her failure to pursue the claim, communicate with the client, and respond to the Commission was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
7. Indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Maryland, with the right to apply for reinstatement, was the appropriate sanction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Kirwan violated the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to competently and diligently pursue the client's claim.
2. Whether Kirwan violated the communication duties by failing to keep the client informed, respond to reasonable requests, and explain that she would not continue as counsel.
3. Whether Kirwan violated the duties applicable upon termination or abandonment of representation by failing to protect the client's interests and cooperate with successor counsel.
4. Whether Kirwan violated the disciplinary-investigation and misconduct rules by failing to respond to Bar Counsel and by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
5. What sanction was appropriate for the violations and aggravating circumstances.

Disposition

other