GREENE, J.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”), acting through Bar Counsel and pursuant to Mary[209] land Rule 16-751(a),1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent, Ernest S. Nichols on August 14, 2007. The Petition alleged that Respondent, who was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 13, 1995, violated Rules 1.1 (Competence),2 1.3 (Diligence),3 1.5 (Fees),4 1.15 (Safekeeping Property),5 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminat[210] ing Representation),6 Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters),7 and 8.4(c) (Misconduct)8 of the Maryland [211] Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) during his representation of Charles Caralle in connection with a personal injury claim and in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-752(a)9 and 16—757(c),10 we referred the matter to the Honorable Lawrence R. Daniels of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to submit to this Court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Respondent did not answer the Petition, as required by Maryland Rule 16-754,11 and, therefore, an Order of Default was entered against him and the matter was [212] scheduled for an evidentiary hearing. See Maryland Rule 2-613(b).12 Although notified by the clerk of the court that the order of default had been entered, see Maryland Rule 2-613(c),13 Respondent did not move to vacate the order, as allowed by Rule 2-613(d).14 Respondent, however, did appear at the December 20, 2007 hearing.15
On January 29, 2008, Judge Daniels issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which he found that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(d) and (e), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), but not Rule 8.4(c). Judge Daniels’ findings of fact and conclusions of law read in pertinent part:
The Respondent, Ernest S. Nichols, Esquire, is a member of the Maryland Bar, with an office in Bel Air, Maryland. Charles Caralle retained Mr. Nichols to represent him in connection with personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident in 2003. Mr. Caralle subsequently retained Mr. [213] Nichols to represent him to file a petition for discharge in bankruptcy.
Mr. Nichols prepared and filed the bankruptcy petition, which failed to identify the personal injury claim as an asset. Mr. Nichols later disclosed the personal injury claim to the Bankruptcy Trustee, Bud Stephen Tayman, Esquire, at the meeting of creditors.
Mr. Tayman’s office wrote to Mr. Nichols on September 29, 2003, to determine the status of the personal injury case. On October 6, 2003, Mr. Nichols wrote to Mr. Tayman, stating that the case was still unsettled, that he believed that the medical bills exceeded the policy limits and that it was unlikely that Mr. Caralle would receive any money from the case.
The Bankruptcy Court discharged Mr. Caralle’s debts in late 2003. Mr. Nichols negotiated a settlement for policy limits, which was, in fact, $100,000.00. Mr. Caralle signed a release on January 23, 2004. Mr. Tayman wrote to Mr. Nichols on February 29, 2004, inquiring about the status of the case. On March 15, 2004, Mr. Nichols replied to Mr. Tayman, informing him that the case had settled for $100,000.00, that he disbursed $43,279.29 to himself for attorney’s fees and expenses, and that he disbursed $ 30,-000.00 to Mr. Caralle. He stated that he retained the remaining portion of the settlement proceeds in his escrow account to pay medical bills.
The Bankruptcy Trustee made several attempts to discuss this matter with Mr Nichols. He informed Mr. Nichols that the proceeds of the settlement of the personal injury claim were an asset of the Bankruptcy estate and that Mr. Nichols could not take a fee without approval of the Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Tayman believed that Mr. Nichols should have turned over the remaining funds to him.
Mr. Caralle discharged Mr. Nichols in August 2005, and directed him to send a copy of his file to Caralle’s new attorney, Thomas Dolina, Esquire. Mr. Nichols claims he sent the file to Mr. Dolina on February 21, 2006. Mr. Caralle filed a malpractice suit against Mr. Nichols. In [214] April 2006, he filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Mr. Nichols forwarded a check to Mr. Tayman in the amount of $33,962.38 on August 31, 2006, representing the funds retained from the settlement proceeds. Although Mr. Tayman has repeatedly explained that Mr. Nichols is not entitled to his attorney’s fee without approval of the Bankruptcy Court, Mr. Nichols did not return that fee. Attorney Grievance Commission Investigator, Sterling H. Fletcher, interviewed Mr. Nichols on August 23, 2006. At that meeting, Mr. Fletcher asked Mr. Nichols to produce records concerning his escrow account and the transactions related to Mr. Caralle’s case. Mr. Nichols promised to submit the documents by September 16, 2006. Assistant Bar Counsel wrote to Mr. Nichols on October, 11, 2006, to request the records. Mr. Nichols failed to respond to that request.
The Petitioner alleges that Mr. Nichols violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.5(a) (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping of property), 1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation), 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters) and 8.4(c) (misconduct).
Mr. Nichols failed to competently represent his client, Mr. Caralle, by failing to include his personal injury claim as an asset when he prepared the bankruptcy petition, by failing to notify the Bankruptcy Trustee of the settlement before funds were disbursed, and by disbursing a large portions of the settlement funds when the Bankruptcy Trustee had a claim to the funds. Respondent’s conduct violated Rule 1.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
GREENE, J.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”), acting through Bar Counsel and pursuant to Mary[209] land Rule 16-751(a),1 filed a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent, Ernest S. Nichols on August 14, 2007. The Petition alleged that Respondent, who was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 13, 1995, violated Rules 1.1 (Competence),2 1.3 (Diligence),3 1.5 (Fees),4 1.15 (Safekeeping Property),5 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminat[210] ing Representation),6 Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters),7 and 8.4(c) (Misconduct)8 of the Maryland [211] Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) during his representation of Charles Caralle in connection with a personal injury claim and in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-752(a)9 and 16—757(c),10 we referred the matter to the Honorable Lawrence R. Daniels of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to submit to this Court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Respondent did not answer the Petition, as required by Maryland Rule 16-754,11 and, therefore, an Order of Default was entered against him and the matter was [212] scheduled for an evidentiary hearing. See Maryland Rule 2-613(b).12 Although notified by the clerk of the court that the order of default had been entered, see Maryland Rule 2-613(c),13 Respondent did not move to vacate the order, as allowed by Rule 2-613(d).14 Respondent, however, did appear at the December 20, 2007 hearing.15
On January 29, 2008, Judge Daniels issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which he found that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(d) and (e), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), but not Rule 8.4(c). Judge Daniels’ findings of fact and conclusions of law read in pertinent part:
The Respondent, Ernest S. Nichols, Esquire, is a member of the Maryland Bar, with an office in Bel Air, Maryland. Charles Caralle retained Mr. Nichols to represent him in connection with personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident in 2003. Mr. Caralle subsequently retained Mr. [213] Nichols to represent him to file a petition for discharge in bankruptcy.
Mr. Nichols prepared and filed the bankruptcy petition, which failed to identify the personal injury claim as an asset. Mr. Nichols later disclosed the personal injury claim to the Bankruptcy Trustee, Bud Stephen Tayman, Esquire, at the meeting of creditors.
Mr. Tayman’s office wrote to Mr. Nichols on September 29, 2003, to determine the status of the personal injury case. On October 6, 2003, Mr. Nichols wrote to Mr. Tayman, stating that the case was still unsettled, that he believed that the medical bills exceeded the policy limits and that it was unlikely that Mr. Caralle would receive any money from the case.
The Bankruptcy Court discharged Mr. Caralle’s debts in late 2003. Mr. Nichols negotiated a settlement for policy limits, which was, in fact, $100,000.00. Mr. Caralle signed a release on January 23, 2004. Mr. Tayman wrote to Mr. Nichols on February 29, 2004, inquiring about the status of the case. On March 15, 2004, Mr. Nichols replied to Mr. Tayman, informing him that the case had settled for $100,000.00, that he disbursed $43,279.29 to himself for attorney’s fees and expenses, and that he disbursed $ 30,-000.00 to Mr. Caralle. He stated that he retained the remaining portion of the settlement proceeds in his escrow account to pay medical bills.
The Bankruptcy Trustee made several attempts to discuss this matter with Mr Nichols. He informed Mr. Nichols that the proceeds of the settlement of the personal injury claim were an asset of the Bankruptcy estate and that Mr. Nichols could not take a fee without approval of the Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Tayman believed that Mr. Nichols should have turned over the remaining funds to him.
Mr. Caralle discharged Mr. Nichols in August 2005, and directed him to send a copy of his file to Caralle’s new attorney, Thomas Dolina, Esquire. Mr. Nichols claims he sent the file to Mr. Dolina on February 21, 2006. Mr. Caralle filed a malpractice suit against Mr. Nichols. In [214] April 2006, he filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Mr. Nichols forwarded a check to Mr. Tayman in the amount of $33,962.38 on August 31, 2006, representing the funds retained from the settlement proceeds. Although Mr. Tayman has repeatedly explained that Mr. Nichols is not entitled to his attorney’s fee without approval of the Bankruptcy Court, Mr. Nichols did not return that fee. Attorney Grievance Commission Investigator, Sterling H. Fletcher, interviewed Mr. Nichols on August 23, 2006. At that meeting, Mr. Fletcher asked Mr. Nichols to produce records concerning his escrow account and the transactions related to Mr. Caralle’s case. Mr. Nichols promised to submit the documents by September 16, 2006. Assistant Bar Counsel wrote to Mr. Nichols on October, 11, 2006, to request the records. Mr. Nichols failed to respond to that request.
The Petitioner alleges that Mr. Nichols violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.5(a) (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping of property), 1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation), 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters) and 8.4(c) (misconduct).
Mr. Nichols failed to competently represent his client, Mr. Caralle, by failing to include his personal injury claim as an asset when he prepared the bankruptcy petition, by failing to notify the Bankruptcy Trustee of the settlement before funds were disbursed, and by disbursing a large portions of the settlement funds when the Bankruptcy Trustee had a claim to the funds. Respondent’s conduct violated Rule 1.1 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.
At several points in the representation, Respondent failed to act diligently on behalf of his client in violation of Rule 1.3. He did not promptly notify the Trustee of the settlement of the personal injury case. He took a year and a half to deliver the retained funds to the Trustee. He did not respond to the Trustee’s messages. He took an inordinate amount of time to forward the client’s file to new counsel.
Respondent’s fee was unreasonable, in violation of Rule 1.5(a) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. Re[215] spondent was required to obtain permission of the Bankruptcy Court before taking a fee from the settlement proceeds. He failed to obtain that permission and did not return the fee.
Respondent failed to notify promptly the Bankruptcy Trustee that he had received the settlement funds even though he was aware of the claim of the bankruptcy estate. He disbursed $30,000.00 to his client despite the Trustee’s claim to those funds. He disbursed attorney’s fees and costs to himself even though his fee had not been approved. He then retained over $33,000 for a year and a half before turning the funds over to the Trustee. By this conduct, Respondent violated Rule 1.15(d) and (e).
Respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to forward the client’s file to his new attorney for a period of six months.
Respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) by failing to produce bank records regarding his handling of the settlement funds despite the requests of the Commission Investigator and Assistant Bar Counsel
Respondent is alleged to have engaged in acts of dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. His initial failure to disclose the existence of the personal injury claim appears to have been inadvertent since he disclosed the claim to the Trustee at the meeting of creditors. The Respondent believed that the policy limits would be insufficient to cover his client’s medical bills when he made that representation to the Trustee. After he made that representation and obtained his client’s discharge in bankruptcy, Respondent failed to inform the Trustee that he was settling the case for a substantially larger amount until after he made the improper disbursements to himself and his client, and then only after the Trustee made an inquiry. The Court finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence to establish that Respondent’s conduct, under these circumstances, was dishonest or deceitful. Accordingly, the Court finds that Respondent did not violate Rule 8.4.
[216] In summary, this [c]ourt finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent, Ernest S. Nichols, Esquire, violated Rule 1.1,1.3, 1.5(a), 1.15(d) and (e), 1.16(d), 8.1(b) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.
Neither Respondent nor Bar Counsel filed exceptions to the hearing court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. Thus, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-759(b)(2),16 we elect to “treat the findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining appropriate sanctions, if any.” See Attorney Grievance Commission v. Elmendorf, 404 Md. 353, 360, 946 A.2d 542, 546 (2008); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Logan, 390 Md. 313, 319, 888 A.2d 359, 363 (2005). After a review of the record, we are satisfied that the hearing judge’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. See Attorney Grievance Commission v. Dunietz, 368 Md. 419, 428, 795 A.2d 706, 711 (2002) (noting that despite neither the respondent nor Bar Counsel taking exceptions to the hearing judge’s factual findings, the Court shall review the factual findings to ensure that they are not clearly erroneous). Moreover, upon a our de novo review of the hearing court’s conclusions of law, we hold that the conclusions of law are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Maryland Rule 16—759(b)(1);17 Dunietz, 368 Md. at 428, 795 A.2d at 711.
We are thus left only to resolve the question as to the appropriate sanction to be imposed. Bar Counsel recommends an indefinite suspension. Bar Counsel contends that “Respondent’s unauthorized taking of a fee without approval of the Bankruptcy Court is analogous to the taking of a fee [217] from an estate without complying with the relevant statute or obtaining permission of the Orphans’ Court.” Bar Counsel then points to several recent cases where we indefinitely suspended an attorney for the unauthorized taking of fees without appropriate judicial approval: Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kendrick, 403 Md. 489, 943 A.2d 1173 (2008); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409, 818 A.2d 1108 (2003); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Thompson, 376 Md. 500, 830 A.2d 474 (2003); Attorney Grievance Commission v. Eisenstein, 333 Md. 464, 635 A.2d 1327 (1994). Respondent makes no recommendation as to sanction; however, he does request that we take into consideration the potential hardship a suspension would have on his family because he is the sole provider.
“It is well settled that our obligation in disciplinary matters is to protect the public and maintain the public’s confidence in the legal system rather than to punish the attorney for misconduct.” Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ward, 394 Md. 1, 32-33, 904 A.2d 477, 496 (2006). This Court’s goal “when imposing sanctions[,] is to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and to prevent misconduct by other attorneys.” Id. at 33, 904 A.2d at 496. The severity of the sanction depends on several things, including “the circumstances of each case, the intent to which the acts were committed, the gravity, nature and effects of the violations as well as any mitigating factors.” Id. To be sure, we have stated that “the gravity of misconduct is not measured solely by the number of rules broken but is determined largely by the lawyer’s conduct.” Attorney Grievance Commission v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554, 568, 745 A.2d 1037, 1044 (2000).
Violations of the Rules stemming from the taking of fees without prior consent of the appropriate judicial authority has warranted both disbarments and suspensions in prior cases before this Court. In our most recent case, Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kendrick, 403 Md. 489, 943 A.2d 1173 (2008), we imposed an indefinite suspension because an attorney failed to seek Orphans’ Court approval prior to [218] taking a fee and failed to properly administer the estate. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409, 818 A.2d 1108 (2003), we imposed an indefinite suspension, with leave to reapply after thirty days, because an attorney took his fee from the estate without the permission of the Orphans’ Court. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Thompson, 376 Md. 500, 830 A.2d 474 (2003), we imposed an indefinite suspension because an attorney mishandled the administration of an estate, failed to timely file reports and accounts, failed to pay estate taxes at the time of distribution, and failed to obtain prior approval of the Orphans’ Court before taking fees. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sullivan, 369 Md. 650, 801 A.2d 1077 (2002), we disbarred an attorney who, as the personal representative of an estate, failed to administer the estate and took over $50,000 from the estate without prior approval of the Orphans’ Court. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 334, 587 A.2d 511 (1991), we suspended an attorney for three years for his careless and neglectful handling of an estate, his mishandling of estate funds, and his taking of fees without prior court approval. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Eisenstein, 333 Md. 464, 635 A.2d 1327 (1994), we suspended an attorney for two years for taking a fee in a Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act case before the fee had been approved by an administrative law judge.
Under the totality of the circumstances and in light of our relevant prior cases, we conclude that the appropriate sanction in the present case is an indefinite suspension. In this case, the hearing judge concluded, and we agree, that Respondent’s misconduct was due neither to dishonesty nor to criminal conduct, but rather due to lack of diligence as well as incompetence in bankruptcy matters. Indeed, this is Respondent’s first disciplinary proceeding in over thirteen years of practicing law. Respondent acknowledges his misconduct as he agrees that he did not seek proper authorization from the Bankruptcy Court before taking his fee and did not follow federal bankruptcy law in his disbursement of the settlement award to his client.
[219] We cannot say, however that he has taken adequate steps to remediate his conduct. It appears from the record, for example, that Respondent has yet to seek approval of his attorney’s fee from the Bankruptcy Court.18 In addition, Respondent failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel and the Attorney Grievance Commission in answering their demands for information.
The suspension shall commence thirty (30) days after the filing of this Opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED. RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THIS COURT, INCLUDING THE COST OF TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 16-761 FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST ERNEST S. NICHOLS.
RAKER, J., Dissents.