Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robin Keith Annesley Ficker

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that Robin Keith Annesley Ficker violated rules governing competence, diligence, candor toward a tribunal, supervision of a non-lawyer assistant, and professional misconduct. The violations arose from his failure to appear for a client's scheduled trial, false or misleading statements concerning a continuance motion, and related misrepresentations. In light of Ficker's extensive disciplinary history and repeated similar misconduct, the Court ordered disbarment.

Holdings

1. Ficker violated Rules 19-301.1 and 19-301.3 by failing to keep informed about the status of the Sauls case, failing to appear for the scheduled trial, and appearing later unprepared to address the continuance motion and the client's absence.
2. Ficker violated Rule 19-303.3(a)(1) by knowingly misrepresenting to the trial judge that he had signed the continuance motion and by asserting without a reasonable basis that someone in his office had contacted Sauls. He also violated Rule 19-308.4(c) by making those knowing misrepresentations and failing to correct them.
3. Ficker violated Rule 19-305.3(b) by permitting his non-lawyer office manager, a disbarred former attorney, to prepare and file a continuance motion bearing Ficker's name without Ficker's review or approval.
4. The Court did not find clear and convincing evidence that Ficker violated Rule 19-305.3(c) based on Kobin's false consent statement because the evidence did not establish that Ficker ordered the specific misconduct, ratified it with knowledge, or knew of it at a time when its consequences could have been avoided or mitigated.
5. Ficker violated Rule 19-308.4(d) by failing to appear when the Sauls case was called and by making repeated misrepresentations to the District Court.
6. Disbarment was the appropriate sanction for Ficker's intentional dishonest conduct and repeated competence, diligence, supervision, and administration-of-justice violations, given his extensive prior disciplinary history and the likelihood that the misconduct would recur.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Ficker violated the competence and diligence rules by failing to monitor the Sauls case, appear for trial, and adequately prepare to address the continuance motion and the client's absence.
2. Whether Ficker violated the candor and dishonesty rules by making false or knowingly unsupported statements to the trial court concerning his signature on the continuance motion and whether his office had contacted Sauls.
3. Whether Ficker violated the supervision rule by permitting a non-lawyer, disbarred former attorney to prepare and file an unreviewed continuance motion bearing Ficker's name.
4. Whether Ficker was responsible under Rule 5.3(c) for the false consent statement in the motion.
5. Whether disbarment was the appropriate sanction in light of the misconduct, aggravating factors, mitigating factors, and Ficker's lengthy disciplinary history.

Disposition

other