Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kendrick
943 A.2d 1173, 403 Md. 489, 2008 Md. LEXIS 111 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney serving as a personal representative of an estate violates the rules of professional conduct by accepting fees without prior court approval or adherence to statutory consent procedures, and demonstrates a lack of competence and diligence by persistently failing to comply with probate filing requirements and court orders over an extended period.
Facts:
- On March 4, 1999, attorney Karin Marie Kendrick and Oliver Kerr, the decedent's brother, were appointed co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Judith Nina Kerr.
- On March 22, 1999, Oliver Kerr paid $3,000 from estate funds to the law office where Kendrick was an associate.
- On May 24, 1999, Oliver Kerr paid an additional $3,000 directly to Kendrick from estate funds, for a total of $6,000 in fees.
- Kendrick never filed a petition with the Orphans’ Court to authorize the payment of these fees.
- Over the next several years, Kendrick repeatedly failed to file required administrative accounts and reports for the estate in a timely and correct manner.
- After being removed as co-personal representative, Kendrick failed to turn over all estate assets to the successor, including a check for $196.80 which she lost, and failed to account for a retention amount of $2,755.58.
- Due to Kendrick's failures, the estate of Judith Nina Kerr, who died in February 1999, remained open for over eight years.
Procedural Posture:
- The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Karin Marie Kendrick in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.
- The Court of Appeals designated a judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (a trial court) to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
- The hearing judge issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, finding that Kendrick had violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.5 (Fees), and 1.15 (Safekeeping Property).
- Kendrick, the Respondent, filed written exceptions to the hearing judge's findings and conclusions with the Court of Appeals.
- Bar Counsel, representing the Attorney Grievance Commission, did not file any exceptions.
- The case is now before the Court of Appeals for a final determination of the exceptions and the imposition of a sanction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney violate the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct regarding fees, competence, diligence, and safekeeping of property by accepting unapproved fees from an estate, repeatedly failing to file required court documents over several years, and failing to turn over all estate assets to a successor representative?
Opinions:
Majority - Greene, Judge.
Yes, an attorney violates multiple rules of professional conduct through such actions. The court held that accepting payments from an estate without court approval and without complying with statutory requirements for creditor consent is a violation of MRPC 1.5 (Fees). The record shows Kendrick accepted $6,000, which exceeded the statutory maximum allowable without court approval, and failed to follow the required notice and consent procedures with the estate's creditors. The court also found Kendrick violated MRPC 1.1 (Competence) and 1.3 (Diligence) due to her persistent failure over eight years to properly administer the estate, her refusal to seek necessary guidance in an area of law unfamiliar to her, and her repeated failure to comply with court orders and filing deadlines. Finally, her failure to account for all estate funds and her loss of an estate check constituted a violation of MRPC 1.15 (Safekeeping Property). The court reasoned that an attorney's subjective belief of entitlement to fees and the consent of a co-representative do not override clear statutory probate procedures.
Analysis:
This case serves as a critical reminder of the strict procedural requirements governing the administration of estates, particularly concerning compensation for personal representatives and their attorneys. The decision establishes that an attorney's good faith belief or the consent of an heir is insufficient to justify taking fees without following the explicit statutory framework requiring either court approval or written consent from all creditors. It reinforces the principle that prolonged and repeated failure to meet procedural deadlines and manage estate assets correctly rises to the level of professional incompetence and lack of diligence, regardless of the attorney's subjective motivations. The ruling underscores that attorneys venturing into unfamiliar legal areas have an affirmative duty to gain competence through study or association with experienced counsel, and failure to do so can result in severe disciplinary sanctions.
