About the Author

Robert N. McDonald

Robert N. McDonald

Judge, Court of Appeals of Maryland

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMM'N v. NDI

Issue: What is the appropriate sanction when an out-of-state attorney failed to represent two clients competently and diligently and to communicate with them adequately concerning their cases, failed to inform potential clients of the jurisdictional limitations of his law practice, engaged in the unauthorized practice of personal injury law in Maryland, mishandled the proceeds of that action, failed to respond to Bar Counsel's investigation in a timely manner, and made various dishonest and false statements to his clients and Bar Counsel?

Holding: Having failed to communicate adequately to two clients whom he failed to represent in a competent and diligent manner, failed to inform potential clients of the jurisdictional limitations of his law practice, engaged in the unauthorized practice of personal injury law in Maryland, mishandled the proceeds of that action, failed to respond to Bar Counsel's investigation in a timely manner, and made various dishonest and false statements to his clients and Bar Counsel, this attorney was sanctioned with disbarment.

Alleged Violations: Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.5 (fees), 1.15 (safekeeping property), 1.16 (declining or terminating representation), 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), 7.1 (communications concerning lawyer's services), 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4 (Misconduct); Maryland Rules 19-308.1 (bar admission and disciplinary matters) , 19-308.4 (misconduct) , 19-404 (formerly Maryland Rule 16-603 (duty to maintain trust account) and 16-604 (trust account - required deposits).

Citation 459 Md. 42 (2018)

  • Decided on .
Attorney Grievance defense attorney specializes in defending lawyers in disciplinary proceedings before the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission and the D.C. Bar's Board on Professional Responsibility involving professional misconduct, legal ethics, disbarment, suspensions of law licenses, petitions for disciplinary action, reprimands and sanctions for unethical conduct. If you receive a letter from Bar Counsel Lydia Lawless, Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton Fox, or from any attorney disciplinary board in Maryland or the District of Columbia, retain experienced attorneys with expertise in lawyer discipline and breach of ethics cases to avoid sanctions for professional misconduct. We help lawyers avoid disbarment, suspension, reprimands, censure and informal admonitions by drafting responses to client grievances and ethical complaints; representing lawyers in peer reviews, evidentiary hearings, and oral arguments before the BPR and the Court of Appeals; filing petitions to reinstate an attorney's license to practice law; conducting law firm ethical compliance audits; and drafting legal ethics opinions to protect lawyers from ethics charges. In many cases, disciplinary proceedings may be dismissed, dismissed with a warning, or result in a conditional diversion agreement with Bar Counsel to rectify misconduct. Lawyers may need help in managing their law firm attorney escrow IOLTA trust account and complying with attorney trust accounting rules to avoid charges of ethical misconduct. Do not represent yourself in responding to an attorney grievance, law firm client complaint, or other allegation of ethical impropriety. Attorney grievance defense counsel may help you comply with legal ethics rules, avoid sanctions like suspension or disbarment, and avoid future attorney grievances.

410.581.0070

By The Lawyer's Lawyers | Kramer & Connolly and  who are responsible for the content of this informational website.   This website is designed for lawyers faced with attorney grievances. As cases do differ, past performance does not guarantee future results.
 

NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
OR THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE D.C. BAR