BELL, Chief Judge.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,
approved the filing by Bar Counsel of a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Shuan Rose, the respondent. In the petition, Bar Counsel charged that the respondent engaged in misconduct, as defined by Maryland Rules 16 — 701(i),
and 16-812, and consisting of violations of various of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by the latter Maryland Rule. Specifically, he alleged that the respondent violated
Rules 1.15, Safekeeping Property,
5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer,
5.5, Unauthorized Practice of Law,
8.1,
Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters,
and 8.4, Misconduct.
We referred the case to the Honorable Evelyn Omega Cannon, of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, for hearing pursuant to Rules 16-752(a)
and 16-757(c).
Despite being served, the respondent did not respond to the petition or file an answer to the petitioner’s request for discovery. Conse
quently, an Order of Default was entered and served on him. Nevertheless, the respondent did not move to vacate the order and, although he appeared at the hearing, he arrived late and offered no evidence. Following the hearing, the hearing court made findings of fact, by clear and convincing evidence, and drew conclusions of law, as follows.
“The Respondent was admitted to practice law in the State of Maryland on March 4, 1985. The Respondent is not admitted to practice law in any other jurisdiction. During times relevant to the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, Respondent maintained a law office in Baltimore City, Maryland.
“Bar Counsel sent a letter to Respondent dated February 20, 2002 asking Respondent to explain an overdraft on his trust account and requested that Respondent provide financial records relating to his attorney trust account. Bar Counsel asked that Respondent send a written response within ten (10) days of the receipt of the letter. On February 21, 2002, Respondent received the letter and on or about that date, telephoned Bar Counsel’s office, and spoke with Bar Counsel’s Assistant. Respondent represented that he would send a written response to the letter. He did not. On or about April 25, 2002, Bar Counsel’s Assistant contacted Respondent by telephone and reminded the Respondent of Bar Counsel’s request. During the telephone call of April 25, 2002, Respondent once again represented that he would send a written response. He did not.
“On or about May 14, 2002, an Assistant Bar Counsel sent Respondent a letter requesting that he provide the financial records relating to the attorney trust account and a written response explaining the overdraft. On or about May 28, 2002, Attorney Grievance Commission Investigator, Dennis Biennas, served the Respondent with a copy of a subpoena to the Bank of America for records on Respondent’s attorney trust account. That same day, Respondent gave Biennas a letter addressed to Assistant Bar Counsel dated May 28, 2002. In this letter, Respondent states, T was contacted by Mary
Harris, of the Paralegal Network, a company that performs paralegal services’ and she ‘told me that she had a client that needed legal representation that she could not provide.’ The letter explained that Respondent served as the attorney for the client, James King, and that Ms. Harris performed paralegal services as an independent contractor with his law firm. Describing the fee arrangement, the letter stated that ‘[Mr. King] agreed to pay $2500 dollars by February 13, 2002’ and that upon receipt of the check, ‘Ms. Harris asked for an advance of $1250 dollars on the check for work that she had done as well as for ongoing efforts on the case.’
Also, the letter noted that Harris ‘had done the bulk of the consultations with the client and the document preparation.’ “
In, an apparent effort to address the overdraft on his Attorney Trust Account, Respondent explained, “I had intended to deposit the check in the bank the following day, but unfortunately did not get to the bank until two days later. Ms. Harris [in the] meantime had deposited the check in her account without checking with me first to see whether I had deposited Mr. King’s check ... Mr. King has passed two bad checks.”
“The bank records obtained by Bar Counsel show that, on February 12, 2002, Respondent wrote check number 1027 payable to Mary Harris in the amount of $1,250.00. Check number 1027 was posted to the account on February 12, 2002. As of February 12, 2002, the balance in the attorney trust account was less than $10.00. This Court finds that on February 12, 2002, when Respondent wrote the check, he knew that he did not have $1,250.00 in his attorney trust account.
“The bank records also indicated that, on February 14, 2002, Respondent deposited two checks from James King to his attorney trust account. The deposit slip for these two checks does not include the designation ‘attorney trust account,’ ‘attorney escrow account,’ or ‘clients’ funds account’ On or about February 14, 2002, Respondent wrote check number 1028 payable to Paralegal Network in the amount of $1,250.00.
Check number 1028 cleared the attorney trust account on February 15, 2002. On or about March 7, 2002, Respondent wrote check 1029 payable to the Paralegal Network, Inc., in the amount of $1,435.00.
“Checks 1027, 1028, and 1029 are each designated TOLTA,’ but do not include the designation ‘attorney trust account,’ ‘attorney escrow account,’ or ‘clients’ funds account.’
“Harris is not a member of the Maryland Bar or the bar of any other state or the District of Columbia. Respondent was aware of this fact on February 1, 2002.”
The hearing court concluded that the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a), 8.1((b) and 8.4(d)
of the Rules of Professional Responsibility. It rejected the charges and petitioner’s argument with regard to Rules 5.4 and 5.5.
With respect to the Rule 1.15 violation, the hearing judge determined that the respondent did not maintain his attorney trust account in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-606. Pointing to that rule’s requirement that an attorney or law firm “maintain each attorney trust account with a title that includes the name of the attorney or law firm and that clearly designates the account as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow Account,’ or ‘Clients’ Funds Account’ on all checks and deposit slips,” the court concluded:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BELL, Chief Judge.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751,
approved the filing by Bar Counsel of a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Shuan Rose, the respondent. In the petition, Bar Counsel charged that the respondent engaged in misconduct, as defined by Maryland Rules 16 — 701(i),
and 16-812, and consisting of violations of various of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by the latter Maryland Rule. Specifically, he alleged that the respondent violated
Rules 1.15, Safekeeping Property,
5.4, Professional Independence of a Lawyer,
5.5, Unauthorized Practice of Law,
8.1,
Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters,
and 8.4, Misconduct.
We referred the case to the Honorable Evelyn Omega Cannon, of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, for hearing pursuant to Rules 16-752(a)
and 16-757(c).
Despite being served, the respondent did not respond to the petition or file an answer to the petitioner’s request for discovery. Conse
quently, an Order of Default was entered and served on him. Nevertheless, the respondent did not move to vacate the order and, although he appeared at the hearing, he arrived late and offered no evidence. Following the hearing, the hearing court made findings of fact, by clear and convincing evidence, and drew conclusions of law, as follows.
“The Respondent was admitted to practice law in the State of Maryland on March 4, 1985. The Respondent is not admitted to practice law in any other jurisdiction. During times relevant to the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, Respondent maintained a law office in Baltimore City, Maryland.
“Bar Counsel sent a letter to Respondent dated February 20, 2002 asking Respondent to explain an overdraft on his trust account and requested that Respondent provide financial records relating to his attorney trust account. Bar Counsel asked that Respondent send a written response within ten (10) days of the receipt of the letter. On February 21, 2002, Respondent received the letter and on or about that date, telephoned Bar Counsel’s office, and spoke with Bar Counsel’s Assistant. Respondent represented that he would send a written response to the letter. He did not. On or about April 25, 2002, Bar Counsel’s Assistant contacted Respondent by telephone and reminded the Respondent of Bar Counsel’s request. During the telephone call of April 25, 2002, Respondent once again represented that he would send a written response. He did not.
“On or about May 14, 2002, an Assistant Bar Counsel sent Respondent a letter requesting that he provide the financial records relating to the attorney trust account and a written response explaining the overdraft. On or about May 28, 2002, Attorney Grievance Commission Investigator, Dennis Biennas, served the Respondent with a copy of a subpoena to the Bank of America for records on Respondent’s attorney trust account. That same day, Respondent gave Biennas a letter addressed to Assistant Bar Counsel dated May 28, 2002. In this letter, Respondent states, T was contacted by Mary
Harris, of the Paralegal Network, a company that performs paralegal services’ and she ‘told me that she had a client that needed legal representation that she could not provide.’ The letter explained that Respondent served as the attorney for the client, James King, and that Ms. Harris performed paralegal services as an independent contractor with his law firm. Describing the fee arrangement, the letter stated that ‘[Mr. King] agreed to pay $2500 dollars by February 13, 2002’ and that upon receipt of the check, ‘Ms. Harris asked for an advance of $1250 dollars on the check for work that she had done as well as for ongoing efforts on the case.’
Also, the letter noted that Harris ‘had done the bulk of the consultations with the client and the document preparation.’ “
In, an apparent effort to address the overdraft on his Attorney Trust Account, Respondent explained, “I had intended to deposit the check in the bank the following day, but unfortunately did not get to the bank until two days later. Ms. Harris [in the] meantime had deposited the check in her account without checking with me first to see whether I had deposited Mr. King’s check ... Mr. King has passed two bad checks.”
“The bank records obtained by Bar Counsel show that, on February 12, 2002, Respondent wrote check number 1027 payable to Mary Harris in the amount of $1,250.00. Check number 1027 was posted to the account on February 12, 2002. As of February 12, 2002, the balance in the attorney trust account was less than $10.00. This Court finds that on February 12, 2002, when Respondent wrote the check, he knew that he did not have $1,250.00 in his attorney trust account.
“The bank records also indicated that, on February 14, 2002, Respondent deposited two checks from James King to his attorney trust account. The deposit slip for these two checks does not include the designation ‘attorney trust account,’ ‘attorney escrow account,’ or ‘clients’ funds account’ On or about February 14, 2002, Respondent wrote check number 1028 payable to Paralegal Network in the amount of $1,250.00.
Check number 1028 cleared the attorney trust account on February 15, 2002. On or about March 7, 2002, Respondent wrote check 1029 payable to the Paralegal Network, Inc., in the amount of $1,435.00.
“Checks 1027, 1028, and 1029 are each designated TOLTA,’ but do not include the designation ‘attorney trust account,’ ‘attorney escrow account,’ or ‘clients’ funds account.’
“Harris is not a member of the Maryland Bar or the bar of any other state or the District of Columbia. Respondent was aware of this fact on February 1, 2002.”
The hearing court concluded that the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a), 8.1((b) and 8.4(d)
of the Rules of Professional Responsibility. It rejected the charges and petitioner’s argument with regard to Rules 5.4 and 5.5.
With respect to the Rule 1.15 violation, the hearing judge determined that the respondent did not maintain his attorney trust account in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-606. Pointing to that rule’s requirement that an attorney or law firm “maintain each attorney trust account with a title that includes the name of the attorney or law firm and that clearly designates the account as ‘Attorney Trust Account,’ ‘Attorney Escrow Account,’ or ‘Clients’ Funds Account’ on all checks and deposit slips,” the court concluded:
“Here, although the bank account statements appear to be titled properly, checks 1027, 1028, and 1029, and the deposit slip for the checks from James King do not include the designation ‘attorney trust account,’ ‘attorney escrow account,’ or ‘clients’ funds account’ as required under Rule 16-606.”
For its finding of a violation of Rule 8.1(b), the hearing court relied on the facts that the respondent did not respond in writing pursuant to the petitioner’s letters of February 20 and May 14, 2002, and he did not timely supply the documents those letters requested. It also noted that when the respondent did send a response, it was only a partial one; it was untimely, being approximately three months after the initial request, and it did not provide the requested records. This incomplete and tardy response to the petitioner’s requests for information provided the basis for the hearing court’s conclusion with respect to the 8.4(d) violation: “the Court concludes that Respondent’s failure to promptly and sufficiently respond to Bar Counsel’s requests for information is ‘conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
The petitioner has taken no exceptions to the hearing court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law of. It has, however, filed
Petitioner’s Recommendation for Sanctions,
in which it recommends the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months. Referring to the respondent’s failure to respond to the petition and to the fact that there is no mitigating evidence in the record, the petitioner relies on
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Harrington,
367 Md. 36, 50, 785 A.2d 1260, 1268 (2001).
Like the petitioner, the respondent has not taken exceptions. He did appear at oral argument. He informed the Court that he was, and had been, suffering from depression and that he was not then practicing law; he was living with his brother. The respondent requested a postponement of the hearing, which the Court denied. The respondent acknowledged that he had not provided the petitioner with the records it had requested.
We adopt the recommendation of the petitioner and order the respondent indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, with the right to apply for reinstatement after six months. In so doing, we are mindful that there is no allegation of dishonesty or misappropriation. On the other hand, as the petitioner points out, there are, in this record, no mitigating
factors. A word of caution is in order. The respondent is reminded that, having introduced the subject of depression, admitting to suffering from it, any petition for reinstatement will have to address the respondent’s then present mental condition, as well as his overall fitness to resume the practice of law.
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 SHUAN ROSE.