## 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

1. 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).
2. 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.


Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 390 Md. 517 (2006)