Attorney Grievance v. Hensley ( 2020 )

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Samuel Edward Hensley, Misc. Docket
AG No. 65, September Term 2018. Opinion by Raker, J. (Senior Judge, Specially
Assigned)
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT – DISCIPLINE – DISBARMENT – Respondent Samuel
Edward Hensley violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-
301.1, 19-301.3, 19-301.4, 19-301.5(a), 19-301.15(a) and (d), 19-301.16(d), 19-308.1(b),
and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d), and Section 10-306 of the Maryland Business Occupations
and Professions Article. These violations arose from respondent’s misconduct in two
separate client matters, in which respondent failed to appear at a meeting with a client and
at the client’s court hearing; failed to inform the client about his absences; failed to respond
to the two clients’ numerous attempts to contact him; failed to return his collected fee to a
client after performing no legal service; failed to deposit a client’s retainer fee into an
attorney trust account; failed to notify a client’s medical provider about settlement funds
received and to distribute its portion; abandoned a client’s case without notice and without
returning unearned fees; failed to respond to the Bar Counsel’s requests for information
and documentation; and misrepresented to a client that he was licensed to practice law in a
state where he was not. The proper sanction for these violations is disbarment.
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
Case No. CAE19-07923
Argued: February 6, 2020
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket AG No. 65
September Term, 2018
______________________________________
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISION OF
MARYLAND
v.
SAMUEL EDWARD HENSLEY
______________________________________
McDonald,
Watts,
Hotten,
Getty,
Booth,
Biran,
Raker, Irma S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
Opinion by Raker, J.
______________________________________
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act
(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document
Filed: March 27, 2020
is authentic.
Suzanne Johnson
2020-03-27 13:14-04:00
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk
On February 21, 2019, the Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar
Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against
respondent Samuel Edward Hensley. On February 6, 2020, we held oral argument in this
matter and disbarred respondent by per curiam order dated that day. In this opinion, we
explain the reasons for that Order.
The Commission charged respondent with violating the Maryland Business
Occupations and Professions Article, Section 10-306 (Trust Money Restrictions) and the
Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) 19-301.1 (Competence),
19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-301.5(a) and (b) (Fees),1 19-
301.15(a) and (d) (Safekeeping Property), 19-301.16(d) (Declining or Terminating
Representation), 19-308.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4(a),
(c), and (d) (Misconduct). On March 6, 2019, pursuant to Md. Rule 19-727, we referred
the matter to Judge Cathy H. Serrette in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to
make findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law. Respondent failed to participate
in the proceedings in any manner.2 On September 6, 2019, Judge Serrette held an
1
The Commission subsequently withdrew its 19-301.5(b) charge.
2
On May 2, 2019, pursuant to Md. Rule 19-723(b), respondent was served with the
Writ of Summons by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Order of the Court of
Appeals, Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, Petitioner’s Interrogatories,
Petitioner’s Request for Production of Documents, and Petitioner’s Request for
Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documents. On June 10, 2019, after receiving
nothing from respondent, the Commission filed a Motion for Order of Default. By Order
entered on July 8, 2019, Judge Serrette granted the Commission’s motion and set an
evidentiary hearing date for September 6, 2019. Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-613, the court
entered a notice of default, to which respondent did not respond.
evidentiary hearing, which respondent failed to attend,3 and found that respondent had
violated MARPC 19-301.1, 19-301.3, 19-301.4, 19-301.5(a), 19-301.15(a) and (d), 19-
301.16(d), 19-308.1(b), and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d), and Section 10-306 of the Maryland
Business Occupations and Professions Article.4 On February 6, 2020, this Court held oral
argument in this matter, which respondent again failed to attend, and disbarred respondent
by per curiam order.
I.
Judge Serrette made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
“FINDINGS OF FACT[5]
“The Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State
of Maryland on December 17, 2014. At all times relevant
3
Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-424(b), Judge Serrette admitted and received as evidence
each matter for which an admission was requested in Petitioner’s Request for Admissions
of Facts and Genuineness of Documents.
4
Judge Serrette found that respondent violated MARPC 19-301.2 (Scope of
Representation). The Commission, however, had not brought this charge in its Petition for
Disciplinary or Remedial Action, despite later including it in its Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law.
5
“October 20, 2017, was the last contact with Respondent noted in the Request for
Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documents. Respondent was served through the
Client Protection Fund when he could not be located otherwise. These findings presume,
in part, that Respondent is alive and was able to respond to Bar Counsel and the Request
for Admissions of Fact and Genuineness of Documents.”
2
hereto, he maintained an office for the practice of law in Prince
George’s County . . . and another . . . [in] Baltimore, Maryland.
The Yemane Behere Matter
“On July 14, 2016, Yemane Behere, a resident of
Maryland, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in
Oklahoma in which he sustained injuries. Upon his return to
Maryland, Mr. Behere retained the Respondent to represent
him in the matter. Mr. Behere and the Respondent agreed to a
contingency fee whereby the Respondent would receive one
third of any funds recovered. The Respondent is not now, nor
has he ever been, admitted to the bar of the state of Oklahoma.
The Respondent misrepresented to Mr. Behere that he was
licensed to practice law in Oklahoma.
“During the pendency of the matter, Mr. Behere
received medical treatment from several different healthcare
providers, including Omni Healthcare (“Omni”). Mr. Behere
and the Respondent signed a lien agreement to ‘deduct
immediately from the proceeds of any settlement and/or
judgment, any and all amounts due to and owing to OMNI[.]’
On or about September 1, 2017, the Respondent, on behalf of
Mr. Behere, settled the matter and received a settlement check
3
in the amount of $200,000. In September 2017, Mr. Behere
met with the Respondent and signed a settlement statement.
The settlement statement provided that the Respondent would
receive $56,636 for attorney’s fees, $73,364 would be paid to
medical providers, and $70,000 remained for Mr. Behere.
“On or about October 20, 2017, the Respondent
provided Mr. Behere with a check in the amount of $70,000.
The Respondent failed to advise Omni or any of the other
healthcare providers that he was in receipt of the settlement
funds. The Respondent failed to disburse any funds to any
healthcare providers. Beginning in the fall of 2017, the
healthcare providers began contacting the Respondent for
payment of the outstanding debts. Beginning in the fall of
2017, Mr. Behere made several unsuccessful attempts to
contact the Respondent. Omni attempted to contact the
Respondent several times but was unsuccessful. The
Respondent misappropriated the funds owed to Omni.
Representation of John Mbawe
“On March 5, 2017, John Mbawe was arrested and
charged with second degree assault in the District Court of
Maryland for Prince George’s County, State v. Mbawe, Case
4
No. 3E00600337. The victim of the alleged assault also filed
a petition in the District Court for a peace order against Mr.
Mbawe. A final peace order hearing was scheduled for March
13, 2017.
“On March 9, 2017, Mr. Mbawe retained the
Respondent to represent him in both the criminal case and the
peace order hearing. Mr. Mbawe executed a retainer
agreement and paid the Respondent $1,000 toward the $2,500
retainer fee. The retainer agreement provided that the
remainder of the fee was to be paid on or before April 7, 2017.
The Respondent failed to deposit and maintain Mr. Mbawe’s
funds in an attorney trust account until earned.
“Mr. Mbawe and the Respondent agreed to meet at the
Respondent’s office in Upper Marlboro on March 12, 2017, to
prepare for the peace order hearing. On March 12, 2017, Mr.
Mbawe arrived at the Respondent’s office at the designated
time but the Respondent failed to appear for the meeting. On
March 12, 2017, Mr. Mbawe attempted to contact the
Respondent, leaving several voicemail messages and text
messages. The Respondent failed to respond to Mr. Mbawe in
any manner.
5
“On March 13, 2017, Mr. Mbawe appeared pro se in the
District Court for the peace order hearing. The Respondent
failed to appear at the hearing. The Respondent failed to advise
Mr. Mbawe of his whereabouts on March 13, 2017. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a final peace order
against Mr. Mbawe.
“After the hearing, Mr. Mbawe made several attempts
to contact the Respondent to request a refund of the retainer
fee. The Respondent failed to respond to Mr. Mbawe’s phone
calls and text messages and failed to provide Mr. Mbawe a
refund. On April 11, 2017, Mr. Mbawe retained successor
counsel to represent him in the pending criminal case.
Bar Counsel Investigation
“On November 7, 2017, Rich Resigno filed a complaint
with Bar Counsel on behalf of Omni Healthcare. On
November 17, 2017, Bar Counsel sent a letter to the
Respondent’s Prince George’s County office with a copy of
Mr. Resigno’s complaint and requested a written response no
later than December 11, 2017. The November 17, 2017 letter
was returned to Bar Counsel as undelivered on December 1,
2017.
6
“On December 14, 2017, Bar Counsel sent a letter to the
Respondent’s Baltimore City address with a copy of Mr.
Resigno’s complaint and requested a written response no later
than January 8, 2018. The Respondent failed to respond to Bar
Counsel’s December 14, 2017 letter.
“On December 11, 2017, Mr. Behere filed a complaint
with Bar Counsel. On January 2, 2018, Bar Counsel sent letters
to the Respondent’s Prince George’s County and Baltimore
City addresses with copies of Mr. Behere’s complaint and
requested a written response no later than January 24, 2018.
Both January 2, 2018 letters were returned to Bar Counsel.
“On May 31, 2018, Mr. Mbawe filed a complaint with
Bar Counsel. On July 17, 2018, Investigator Jason Bogue
attempted to make contact with the Respondent at his
Baltimore City address, but no one answered the door. On July
17, 2018, Investigator Bogue left a note at the Respondent’s
Baltimore City office requesting that the Respondent contact
Bar Counsel. That same day, Investigator Bogue also called
the telephone number that the Respondent has listed with the
Client Protection Fund and left a voicemail message asking the
7
Respondent to contact him. The Respondent failed to respond
to Bar Counsel.
Mitigating Factors
“No mitigating factors were presented.
Aggravating Factors
“The Court of Appeals has recognized the following
aggravating factors:
‘(1) Prior disciplinary offenses;
(2) A dishonest or selfish motive;
(3) A pattern of misconduct;
(4) Multiple offenses;
(5) Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with rules or orders of the
disciplinary agency;
(6) Submission of false evidence, false
statements, or other deceptive practices
during the disciplinary process;
(7) Refusal to acknowledge the wrongful
nature of conduct;
(8) Vulnerability of victim;
(9) Substantial experience in the practice of
law; and
(10) Whether he or she displayed indifference
to making restitution.’
See Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Sperling, 434 Md. 658, 676–77, 76
A.3d 1172, 1183 (2013) (citing Standard 9.22 of the American
Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions).
8
“The Petitioner established the following aggravating
factors: (2) dishonest or selfish motive; (3) pattern of
misconduct; (4) multiple offenses; (5) bad faith obstruction of
the disciplinary process; and (10) indifference to making
restitution.
“The Respondent demonstrated a dishonest or selfish
motive when he misappropriated settlement funds in the
Behere matter. Having violated multiple Rules in both the
Behere and Mbawe matters, Respondent has demonstrated a
pattern of misconduct. Throughout the investigation of this
disciplinary matter, the Respondent failed to comply with Bar
Counsel’s numerous requests for information. Respondent has
also shown an indifference to making restitution to Mr. Mbawe
and the healthcare providers in the Behere matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“Petitioner established, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the Respondent violated the following Maryland
Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct:
MARPC Rule 1.1. Competence [MARPC 19-301.1]
“Rule 1.1 provides:
9
‘An attorney shall provide competent
representation to a client. Competent
representation requires the legal knowledge,
skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably
necessary for the representation.’
“The Respondent violated Rule 1.1 when he failed to
attend the March 12, 2017 meeting with Mr. Mbawe and then
failed to attend the March 13, 2017 peace order hearing.
***
MARPC Rule 1.3. Diligence [MARPC 19-301.3]
“Rule 1.3 provides:
‘An attorney shall act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client.’
“Respondent violated Rule 1.3 for the same reasons
discussed in relation to Rules 1.1 and 1.4.
MARPC Rule 1.4. Communication [MARPC 19-301.4]
“Rule 1.4 provides, in part:
‘(a) An attorney shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of
any decision or circumstance with
respect to which the client’s
informed consent, as defined in
Rule 1.0(f), is required by these
Rules;
(2) keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the
matter;
10
(3) promptly comply with
reasonable requests for
information; and
(4) consult with the client about
any relevant limitation on the
attorney’s conduct when the
attorney knows that the client
expects assistance not permitted
by the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules
of Professional Conduct or other
law.
(b) An attorney shall explain a matter to the
extent reasonably necessary to permit the client
to make informed decisions regarding the
representation.’
“Respondent violated Rule 1.4(a) and (b) when he (1)
failed to attend the March 12, 2017 meeting with Mr. Mbawe;
(2) failed to inform Mr. Mbawe that he would not be attending
the meeting; and (3) failed to inform Mr. Mbawe that he would
not be attending the March 13, 2017 peace order hearing.
Additionally, the Respondent violated Rule 1.4 by failing to
respond to Mr. Mbawe’s and Mr. Behere’s numerous attempts
to contact him.
MARPC Rule 1.5[.] Fees[6] [MARPC 19-301.5]
“Rule 1.5 provides, in part:
‘(a) An attorney shall not make an agreement for,
charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an
unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors
6
“Petitioner withdrew its allegation that the Respondent violated Rule 1.5(b).”
11
to be considered in determining the
reasonableness of a fee include the following:
(1) the time and labor required, the
novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved, and the skill
requisite to perform the legal
service properly;
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to
the client, that the acceptance of
the particular employment will
preclude other employment of the
attorney;
(3) the fee customarily charged in
the locality for similar legal
services;
(4) the amount involved and the
results obtained;
(5) the time limitations imposed by
the client or by the circumstances;
(6) the nature and length of the
professional relationship with the
client;
(7) the experience, reputation, and
ability of the attorney or attorneys
performing the services; and
(8) whether the fee is fixed or
contingent.’
“While the fee collected from Mr. Mbawe was not
unreasonable at the outset of the representation, it became
unreasonable and thus violative of Rule 1.5 (a), when the
Respondent failed to perform any legal services of value for
Mr. Mbawe. See Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Monfried, 368 Md.
373 (2002) (attorney’s fee was unreasonable as a matter of law
in that he performed almost no services in return for the money
12
paid by the client’s mother); Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Guida,
391 Md. 33 (2006) (finding that while the fee was not
unreasonable on its face, it became unreasonable because the
attorney did virtually no work after he received the fee).
MARPC Rule 1.15. Safekeeping Property
[MARPC 19-301.15]
“Rule 1.15 provides, in part:
‘(a) An attorney shall hold property of clients or
third persons that is in an attorney’s possession
in connection with a representation separate
from the attorney’s own property. Funds shall be
kept in a separate account maintained pursuant to
Title 19, Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules, and
records shall be created and maintained in
accordance with the Rules in that Chapter. Other
property shall be identified specifically as such
and appropriately safeguarded, and records of its
receipt and distribution shall be created and
maintained. Complete records of the account
funds and of other property shall be kept by the
attorney and shall be preserved for a period of at
least five years after the date the record was
created.
***
(d) Upon receiving funds or other property in
which a client or third person has an interest, an
attorney shall promptly notify the client or third
person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise
permitted by law or by agreement with the client,
an attorney shall deliver promptly to the client or
third person any funds or other property that the
client or third person is entitled to receive and,
13
upon request by the client or third person, shall
render promptly a full accounting regarding such
property.’
“Respondent violated Rule 1.15(a) when he failed to
deposit Mr. Mbawe’s $1,000 retainer fee into an attorney trust
account. Respondent violated Rule 1.15(d) as per Mr. Behere
when he failed to notify the healthcare providers that he had
received the settlement funds and failed to deliver the
settlement funds owed to Omni and the other healthcare
providers.
MARPC Rule 1.16[.] Declining or Terminating
Representation [MARPC 19-301.16]
“Rule 1.16 provides, in part:
‘(d) Upon termination of representation, an
attorney shall take steps to the extent reasonably
practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as
giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing
time for employment of another attorney,
surrendering papers and property to which the
client is entitled and refunding any advance
payment of fee or expense that has not been
earned or incurred. The attorney may retain
papers relating to the client to the extent
permitted by other law.’
“Respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) when he abandoned
Mr. Mbawe’s case, in essence terminating the representation
of Mr. Mbawe without giving Mr. Mbawe notice.
14
Additionally, the Respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) when he
failed to return unearned fees as discussed in reference to Rule
1.5(a).
MARPC Rule 8.1. Bar Admission and Disciplinary
Matters [MARPC 19-308.1]
“Rule 8.1 provides, in part:
‘An applicant for admission or reinstatement to
the bar, or an attorney in connection with a bar
admission application or in connection with a
disciplinary matter, shall not:
***
(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary
to correct a misapprehension
known by the person to have arisen
in the matter, or knowingly fail to
respond to a lawful demand for
information from an admissions or
disciplinary authority, except that
this Rule does not require
disclosure of information
otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.’
“The Respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) during Bar
Counsel’s investigation by failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s
lawful requests for information and documentation.
MARPC Rule 8.4[.] Misconduct [MARPC 19-308.4]
“Rule 8.4 provides, in part:
‘It is professional misconduct for an attorney to:
15
(a) violate or attempt to violate the
Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of
Professional Conduct, knowingly
assist or induce another to do so, or
do so through the acts of another.
***
(c) engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of
justice.’
“The Respondent violated Rule 8.4(a) by having
violated several other Rules of Professional Conduct. See Att’y
Griev. Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359 (2009) (finding that
when an attorney violated several other Rules of Professional
Conduct, he necessarily violated Rule 8.4(a)).
“The Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) when he
misrepresented to Mr. Behere that he was licensed to practice
law in Oklahoma. Additionally, the Respondent’s
misappropriation of settlement funds owed to Omni in the
Behere matter is an act of dishonesty in violation of Rule
8.4(c). See Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Somerville, 379 Md. 586(2004) (concluding that misappropriation of entrusted funds is
an act infected with deceit and dishonesty).
16
“The Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d) by
misappropriating trust funds in the Behere matter and by
abandoning the representation of Mr. Mbawe. Taken as a
whole, the Respondent’s conduct in this matter brings the legal
profession into disrepute and is therefore prejudicial to the
administration of justice. See Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Landeo,
446 Md. 294, 132 A.3d 196 (2016) (attorney violated Rule
8.4(d) by failing to represent a client in an adequate manner
and failing to keep a client informed about the status of a case).
Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Article,
Section 10-306
“Section 10-306 provides: ‘A lawyer may not use trust
money for any purpose other than the purpose for which the
trust money is entrusted to the lawyer.’ The Respondent
violated Section 10-306 when he failed to distribute settlement
funds owed to the healthcare providers in the Behere matter as
described in reference to Rule 1.15. The Respondent has
demonstrated an indifference to his obligations to maintain
funds owed to third parties.”
(Footnotes in original) (internal record citations omitted).
17
II.
This Court has original and complete jurisdiction in attorney grievance matters and
conducts an independent review of the record. Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Ambe, 466 Md.
270, 286, 218 A.3d 757, 765–66 (2019). We accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact
unless we conclude that they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 286, 218 A.3d at 766. If the
hearing judge’s factual findings are based on competent material evidence, they are not
clearly erroneous, and we will not disturb them. Id. On the other hand, we review the
hearing judge’s conclusions of law de novo. Id.
Respondent did not file an exception to Judge Serrette’s findings of fact or
conclusions of law. Adopting the factual findings before her, we agree with Judge Serrette
that respondent violated MARPC 19-301.1, 19-301.3, 19-301.4, 19-301.5(a), 19-301.15(a)
and (d), 19-301.16(d), 19-308.1(b), and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d), in addition to Section 10-
306 of the Maryland Business Occupations and Professions Article.
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.1 when he failed to appear at a scheduled
meeting with his client Mr. Mbawe and at Mr. Mbawe’s court hearing. See Att’y Grievance
Comm’n v. Lang, 461 Md. 1, 44, 191 A.3d 474, 500 (2018) (a complete lack of
representation by an attorney violates the duty of competence); Att’y Grievance Comm’n
v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534, 553–54, 16 A.3d 181, 192–93 (2011) (failure to appear at a
client’s hearing, leaving the client to enter into a consent judgment without the aid of
counsel, violates the duty of competence); Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Kwarteng, 411 Md.
18652, 658, 984 A.2d 865, 868–69 (2009) (abandonment, in effect, of representation of client
without informing the client violates the duty of competence).
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.4 when he failed to inform Mr. Mbawe about
his absences at the meeting and the hearing and when he failed to respond to Mr. Mbawe’s
and Mr. Behere’s numerous attempts to contact him. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v.
Haley, 443 Md. 657, 670, 118 A.3d 816, 823 (2015).
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.3 for the same reasons that he violated
MARPC 19-301.1 and 19-301.4. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 451 Md. 55, 80,
152 A.3d 639, 653 (2017) (holding that an attorney violates the duty to provide diligent
and competent representation when he does nothing whatsoever to advance the client’s
cause or endeavor); Atty Grievance Comm’n v. Sutton, 394 Md. 311, 327–28, 906 A.2d
335, 344–45 (2006) (holding that an attorney’s conduct that included failure to
communicate with a client violates his duty of competence and diligence, among others).
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.5(a) when he failed to perform any legal
services of value for Mr. Mbawe after collecting a fee from him; the collected fee then
became unreasonable and violative of the rule. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Monfried,
368 Md. 373, 394, 794 A.2d 92, 104 (2002); Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md.
33, 52–53, 891 A.2d 1085, 1096–97 (2006).
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.15(a) when he failed to deposit Mr. Mbawe’s
$1,000 retainer fee into an attorney trust account. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Stillwell,
434 Md. 248, 267, 74 A.3d 728, 739 (2013). Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.15(d)
19
when he failed to notify Omni of Mr. Behere’s settlement funds and deliver its portion.
See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Mungin, 439 Md. 290, 308–09, 96 A.3d 122, 132 (2014).
Respondent violated MARPC 19-301.16(d) when he abandoned Mr. Mbawe’s case
without notice and failed to return unearned fees. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v.
Costanzo, 432 Md. 233, 255, 68 A.3d 808, 821 (2013).
Respondent violated MARPC 19-308.1(b) when he failed to respond to the Bar
Counsel’s requests for information and documentation. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v.
Gracey, 448 Md. 1, 27, 136 A.3d 798, 814 (2016).
Respondent violated MARPC 19-308.4(a) by violating several other provisions of
the MARPC. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359, 411, 983 A.2d 434, 465
(2009). Respondent violated MARPC 19-308(c) when he misrepresented to Mr. Behere
that he was licensed to practice law in Oklahoma when he was not and when he
misappropriated settlement funds owed to Omni. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v.
Somerville, 379 Md. 586, 593, 842 A.2d 811, 815 (2004) (holding that misappropriation of
entrusted funds is “an act infected with deceit and dishonesty”). Respondent violated
MARPC 19-308(d) when he misappropriated Mr. Behere’s settlement funds and
abandoned representation of Mr. Mbawe. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Kum, 440 Md.
372, 385, 102 A.3d 777, 784–85 (2014) (holding that misappropriation of client funds is
dishonest conduct that is also prejudicial to the administration of justice); Att’y Grievance
Comm’n v. Landeo, 446 Md. 294, 341–43, 132 A.3d 196, 224–25 (2016) (holding that
20
attorney violated MARPC 19-308(d) by failing to represent a client in an adequate
manner).
Lastly, respondent violated Section 10-306 of the Maryland Business Occupations
and Professions Article, which provides that “[a] lawyer may not use trust money for any
purpose other than the purpose for which the trust money is entrusted to the lawyer,” when
he failed to distribute Mr. Behere’s settlement funds owed to Omni. See Att’y Grievance
Comm’n v. McLaughlin, 372 Md. 467, 503–05, 813 A.2d 1145, 1166–67 (2002).
III.
We now turn to the appropriate sanction to be imposed. Bar counsel recommended
disbarment for respondent’s violations of MARPC 19-301.15 and 19-308.4(c).
The purpose of sanctioning an attorney is to protect the public rather than to punish
the errant attorney. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips, 451 Md. 653, 677, 155 A.3d
476, 490 (2017). Furthermore, it serves as deterrence against similar misconduct. Id. The
severity of the sanction depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case,
including consideration of any mitigating or aggravating factors. See Att’y Grievance
Comm’n v. Angst, 369 Md. 404, 416–18, 800 A.2d 747, 755 (2002).
Respondent’s failures to safekeep funds and acts of dishonesty and
misrepresentation each independently warrant disbarment absent compelling mitigating
circumstances. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Zimmerman, 428 Md. 119, 144, 50 A.3d
1205, 1220 (2012) (failure to safekeep funds); Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde,
21
364 Md. 376, 418–19, 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001) (intentional dishonest conduct).
Respondent did not participate in any part of this disciplinary proceeding. He
presented no evidence and no mitigating factors. Respondent acted with a dishonest and
selfish motive, exhibited a pattern of misconduct, engaged in multiple offenses of the
Maryland Rules, acted in bad faith to obstruct the disciplinary process, and showed
indifference to making restitution. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s
misconduct.
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 19-709, FOR WHICH
SUM JUDGMENT IS
ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE
COMMISSION AGAINST
SAMUEL EDWARD
HENSLEY.
22