Facts
- Norman Joseph Lee III, a Maryland attorney admitted in 1981, practiced primarily as a solo practitioner.
- A client retained Lee to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for an agreed fee plus costs, which the client paid.
- Lee failed to file the bankruptcy petition in a timely manner, causing delay in the client’s matter.
- Lee failed to keep the client reasonably informed and did not promptly respond to her requests for status information.
- After the relationship deteriorated or ended, Lee did not promptly take steps to protect the client’s interests, including returning the client’s file or other materials needed to transition the matter.
- During the disciplinary investigation, Lee did not respond promptly or adequately to bar counsel’s lawful requests for information.
- In the disciplinary case, Lee filed an untimely answer; a default was entered; he did not timely seek to vacate the default; and he did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.
- A hearing judge found violations of MRPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d), and the matter returned to the Court of Appeals of Maryland for sanction.
Issues
- Whether the admitted allegations and hearing judge’s findings established violations of MRPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d).
- What sanction was appropriate for neglect of the client matter coupled with non-cooperation in the disciplinary process.
Decision
- The Court accepted the hearing judge’s findings of fact and concluded Lee violated MRPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d).
- The Court treated the default as establishing the petition’s factual allegations, while independently determining rule violations and sanction.
- The Court imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Maryland, with the opportunity to seek reinstatement upon a showing of rehabilitation and fitness.
Legal Principles
- In attorney discipline proceedings, a default establishes the truth of well-pleaded factual allegations, but the court independently assesses whether those facts constitute professional misconduct and the proper sanction.
- MRPC 1.3 and 3.2 are violated by unreasonable delay and inaction in a client’s matter, including failure to take necessary steps to advance a straightforward proceeding.
- MRPC 1.4 is violated when an attorney fails to keep a client reasonably informed and fails to respond promptly to reasonable requests for information.
- MRPC 1.16(d) requires reasonable steps upon termination to protect a client’s interests, including surrendering papers and property needed for the client to proceed.
- MRPC 8.1(b) is violated by failure to respond to lawful demands for information from disciplinary authorities; such non-cooperation also supports MRPC 8.4(d) as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- Indefinite suspension may be warranted when client neglect is combined with significant non-responsiveness to the disciplinary process, leaving reinstatement to a later showing of fitness.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspended Lee after finding he neglected a paid Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter, failed to communicate and protect the client upon termination, and failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, including by defaulting and not participating in the evidentiary hearing.