BELL, C.J.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,
filed a Petition For Disciplinary Action against Ronald A.
Brown, the respondent, in which it was charged that the respondent violated Rules 1.1, Competence,
1.15, Safekeeping property,
8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters,
and 8.4, Misconduct,
of the Maryland Rules of Professional Con
duct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812. Bar Counsel also alleged that the respondent violated Maryland Rules 16-606, Name and Designation of Account,
and 16-609, Prohibited Transactions,
and Maryland Code (1989, 2000 Replacement Volume) § § 10-306
and 10-307
of the Business Occupations and Professions Article.
We referred the case, pursuant to Rules 16-752(a),
to the Honorable Christopher C. Henderson, of the Circuit Court for
Charles County, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757(c).
Although served with this Court’s Order and the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the respondent did not file a response. Consequently, an Order of Default was entered and a hearing date set. The Order of Default has not been vacated and the respondent has not requested that relief. Following the hearing, at which the respondent neither appeared nor participated, the hearing court found facts by a clear and convincing standard and drew conclusions of law as follows:
“FINDINGS OF FACT
“In 2002, the Respondent represented Sara August in a personal injury matter that had occurred on January 13, 2002. Respondent settled August’s matter in July 2002 with the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund in the amount of $ 4,500. Thereafter, on July 25,2002, Respondent deposited August’s $ 4,500 settlement check into his attorney trust account at Sun Trust Bank. On July 20, 2002,
Respondent wrote Check No. 1001, on that account in the amount of
$ 4,500 made payable to his law office leaving a balance of $ 105.44. On August 20, 2002 Respondent wrote August Check No. 1028 in the amount of $ 2,280 when he did not have sufficient funds in the trust account to cover that check.
“Sun Trust Bank honored Respondent’s Check No. 1028 made payable to August in the amount of $2,820 [sic]. Thereafter, Sun Trust Bank filed suit in the District Court for Charles County Maryland against the Respondent. On May 21, 2003, judgment was entered against the respondent in the amount of $ 2,866.56, interest of 74.92, costs of $ 20 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $ 716.64. As of December 1, 2003, Respondent had not paid the judgment entered against [him] in favor of Sun Trust Bank.
“Respondent opened up his attorney trust account at Sun Trust Bank on July 11, 2002, depositing $ 105.44. The only activity that was conducted on that account was the August settlement of $ 4,500. Further when Respondent opened the trust account at Sun Trust Bank, he did not have the account nor the checks clearly designated as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow Account,’ or ‘Client Funds Account’ as required pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-606.
“Petitioner mailed letters to the Respondent dated September 10, 2002, November 1, 2002, and November 13, 2002 requesting a written response to the overdraft on his attorney trust account held at Sun Trust Bank. The Respondent never responded to those letters. On January 10, 2003, the Respondent agreed to an interview with Bar Counsel’s investigator, however, he failed to appear for that interview.
“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“By his conduct, the Respondent violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, l.[15](a)(b), 8.1(b), 8.4(a)(b)(c)(d), Maryland Rules 16-606 and 16-6098 and Business Occupations and Professions Article § 10-306 and § 10-307. The Respondent’s failure to properly maintain August’s settlement monies in his escrow account demon
strates his incompetence pursuant to Rule 1.1. The Respondent’s failure to hold the money in his escrow account and his failure to promptly deliver the money to his client August, violates Rule 1.15(a) and (b). Respondent’s failure to respond to the Petitioner’s letter[s] and attend the scheduled interview violates Rule 8.1(b). The Respondent’s failure to properly designate his attorney trust account at Sun Trust Bank as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow Account,’ or ‘Client Funds Account’ violates Rule 16-606.
“The Respondent’s misuse of August’s settlement monies violates Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a)(b)(c)(d), Maryland Rule 16-609 and Business Occupations and Professions Article § 10-306 and § 10-307. The Respondent’s misappropriation of August’s $ 2,820 is an act of theft and dishonesty which is a violation of Rules 8.4(b) and (c).”
The petitioner took no exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the hearing court. It did make a recommendation for sanction, however. Relying on
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Spery,
371 Md. 560, 568, 810 A.2d 487, 491-92 (2002);
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sullivan,
369 Md. 650, 655-56, 801 A.2d 1077, 1080 (2002);
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Van-derlinde,
364 Md. 376, 410, 773 A.2d 463, 483 (2001) and noting what we have often said, “that ‘[misappropriation, by an attorney, of funds entrusted to his/her care is an act of deceit and dishonesty, and, in the absence of compelling and extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser sanction, will result in disbarment,’” it urges the respondent’s disbarment. The petitioner concludes, “Respondent’s misrepresentation coupled with his failure to participate in the disciplinary process would justify a sanction of disbarment.”
Although he did not appear or participate in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent filed Respondent’s Exceptions and Recommendations.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BELL, C.J.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,
filed a Petition For Disciplinary Action against Ronald A.
Brown, the respondent, in which it was charged that the respondent violated Rules 1.1, Competence,
1.15, Safekeeping property,
8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters,
and 8.4, Misconduct,
of the Maryland Rules of Professional Con
duct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812. Bar Counsel also alleged that the respondent violated Maryland Rules 16-606, Name and Designation of Account,
and 16-609, Prohibited Transactions,
and Maryland Code (1989, 2000 Replacement Volume) § § 10-306
and 10-307
of the Business Occupations and Professions Article.
We referred the case, pursuant to Rules 16-752(a),
to the Honorable Christopher C. Henderson, of the Circuit Court for
Charles County, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757(c).
Although served with this Court’s Order and the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the respondent did not file a response. Consequently, an Order of Default was entered and a hearing date set. The Order of Default has not been vacated and the respondent has not requested that relief. Following the hearing, at which the respondent neither appeared nor participated, the hearing court found facts by a clear and convincing standard and drew conclusions of law as follows:
“FINDINGS OF FACT
“In 2002, the Respondent represented Sara August in a personal injury matter that had occurred on January 13, 2002. Respondent settled August’s matter in July 2002 with the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund in the amount of $ 4,500. Thereafter, on July 25,2002, Respondent deposited August’s $ 4,500 settlement check into his attorney trust account at Sun Trust Bank. On July 20, 2002,
Respondent wrote Check No. 1001, on that account in the amount of
$ 4,500 made payable to his law office leaving a balance of $ 105.44. On August 20, 2002 Respondent wrote August Check No. 1028 in the amount of $ 2,280 when he did not have sufficient funds in the trust account to cover that check.
“Sun Trust Bank honored Respondent’s Check No. 1028 made payable to August in the amount of $2,820 [sic]. Thereafter, Sun Trust Bank filed suit in the District Court for Charles County Maryland against the Respondent. On May 21, 2003, judgment was entered against the respondent in the amount of $ 2,866.56, interest of 74.92, costs of $ 20 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $ 716.64. As of December 1, 2003, Respondent had not paid the judgment entered against [him] in favor of Sun Trust Bank.
“Respondent opened up his attorney trust account at Sun Trust Bank on July 11, 2002, depositing $ 105.44. The only activity that was conducted on that account was the August settlement of $ 4,500. Further when Respondent opened the trust account at Sun Trust Bank, he did not have the account nor the checks clearly designated as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow Account,’ or ‘Client Funds Account’ as required pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-606.
“Petitioner mailed letters to the Respondent dated September 10, 2002, November 1, 2002, and November 13, 2002 requesting a written response to the overdraft on his attorney trust account held at Sun Trust Bank. The Respondent never responded to those letters. On January 10, 2003, the Respondent agreed to an interview with Bar Counsel’s investigator, however, he failed to appear for that interview.
“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“By his conduct, the Respondent violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, l.[15](a)(b), 8.1(b), 8.4(a)(b)(c)(d), Maryland Rules 16-606 and 16-6098 and Business Occupations and Professions Article § 10-306 and § 10-307. The Respondent’s failure to properly maintain August’s settlement monies in his escrow account demon
strates his incompetence pursuant to Rule 1.1. The Respondent’s failure to hold the money in his escrow account and his failure to promptly deliver the money to his client August, violates Rule 1.15(a) and (b). Respondent’s failure to respond to the Petitioner’s letter[s] and attend the scheduled interview violates Rule 8.1(b). The Respondent’s failure to properly designate his attorney trust account at Sun Trust Bank as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow Account,’ or ‘Client Funds Account’ violates Rule 16-606.
“The Respondent’s misuse of August’s settlement monies violates Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a)(b)(c)(d), Maryland Rule 16-609 and Business Occupations and Professions Article § 10-306 and § 10-307. The Respondent’s misappropriation of August’s $ 2,820 is an act of theft and dishonesty which is a violation of Rules 8.4(b) and (c).”
The petitioner took no exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the hearing court. It did make a recommendation for sanction, however. Relying on
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Spery,
371 Md. 560, 568, 810 A.2d 487, 491-92 (2002);
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sullivan,
369 Md. 650, 655-56, 801 A.2d 1077, 1080 (2002);
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Van-derlinde,
364 Md. 376, 410, 773 A.2d 463, 483 (2001) and noting what we have often said, “that ‘[misappropriation, by an attorney, of funds entrusted to his/her care is an act of deceit and dishonesty, and, in the absence of compelling and extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser sanction, will result in disbarment,’” it urges the respondent’s disbarment. The petitioner concludes, “Respondent’s misrepresentation coupled with his failure to participate in the disciplinary process would justify a sanction of disbarment.”
Although he did not appear or participate in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent filed Respondent’s Exceptions and Recommendations. Without providing any particulars or argument, he merely “deniefd] that he misappropriated funds entrusted to him or failed to properly establish his attorney trust account or committed the misconduct as found by the
Circuit Court.” His recommendation is that the proceeding be dismissed.
The respondent’s “exceptions” are overruled. It is well settled that the “hearing court’s findings of fact are prima facie correct and will not be disturbed unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous.”
Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Garland,
345 Md. 383, 392, 692 A.2d 465, 469 (1997) (citing
Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Goldsborough,
330 Md. 342, 347, 624 A.2d 503, 505 (1993)).
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McCoy,
369 Md. 226, 234-235, 798 A.2d 1132, 1137 (2002). Indeed, the findings of fact made by the hearing court are reviewed to determine if they are based on clear and convincing evidence.
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Powell,
328 Md. 276, 287-288, 614 A.2d 102, 108 (1992);
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Clements,
319 Md. 289, 298, 572 A.2d 174, 179 (1990). The findings of fact made in this case are not clearly erroneous. In point of fact, there is ample evidence to support them and, just as important, to justify the conclusions drawn from them. Significantly, the respondent has presented nothing to suggest, not to mention demonstrate, otherwise. Exceptions will be overruled, we have said, when the findings are not clearly erroneous.
McCoy,
369 Md. at 234-235, 798 A.2d at 1137.
Turning to the sanction, the petitioner has accurately stated the general rule, “that disbarment will inevitably follow any unmitigated misappropriation of client, or any third party’s funds[.]”
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hayes,
367 Md. 504, 512-13, 789 A.2d 119, 124 (2002), and the cases therein cited. Moreover, we have made clear, albeit in the context of a reciprocal discipline proceeding, that “the burden is on the respondent to demonstrate — in Maryland, the burden of establishing factual matters in defense must be carried by a ‘preponderance of the evidence,’
Powell,
328 Md. at 288, 614 A.2d at 109;
Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Bakas,
322 Md. 603, 605, 589 A.2d 52, 53 (1991) — that less severe discipline than that [recommended by Bar Counsel], or no discipline, should be imposed.”
McCoy,
369 Md. at 236, 798 A.2d at 1137. The
respondent’s submission, consisting of only a recommendation, without any further amplification or statement of basis, certainly has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a less severe sanction than that recommended should be imposed in these proceedings.
Given the hearing court’s findings, the only appropriate sanction in this case is disbarment.
IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING COSTS OF ALL TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 16-761, FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST RONALD ALLEN BROWN.