Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kimmel
955 A.2d 269, 2008 Md. LEXIS 499, 405 Md. 647 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Partners in a law firm must make reasonable efforts to implement supervisory measures that give reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly when supervising an inexperienced attorney in a remote office or within a high-volume, high-pressure practice. A law firm, not just the individual attorney of record, has a duty to communicate with clients about the status of their matter.
Facts:
- In 2004, the Pennsylvania-based law firm Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. (K & S), hired Robin Katz, an attorney with no civil trial experience, to establish and solely operate a new Maryland office.
- Katz received one month of training in Pennsylvania and was instructed to follow the firm's high-volume, metrics-driven model, which required her to file a set number of new cases and generate $10,000 in settlements per week.
- As the only employee in the Maryland office, Katz was assigned over 500 legal matters and was responsible for all legal, administrative, and clerical tasks.
- Despite Katz's repeated requests for on-site paralegal support, the firm did not provide it, instead linking the possibility of future support to her meeting revenue targets.
- Overwhelmed by the workload and pressure, Katz failed to respond to discovery motions in 47 client cases, resulting in their dismissal with prejudice, and she actively concealed these failures from the firm's partners.
- In August 2005, Katz resigned abruptly from the firm.
- Following Katz's resignation, client Charles Carter sent multiple letters and emails to the K & S home office in Pennsylvania over a six-month period seeking an update on his case.
- The firm did not respond to Carter until February 2006, when it finally informed him that his case had been dismissed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, through Bar Counsel, filed charges against partners Robert Silverman and Craig Kimmel for violating Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) 5.1 and 1.4.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland assigned the matter to Judge Kathleen Gallogly Cox of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
- Following the hearing, Judge Cox issued findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law, determining that the partners had violated both rules.
- The partners filed exceptions to several of the hearing judge's findings of fact and all of her conclusions of law with the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the highest court in the state.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do law firm partners violate their duties of supervision (MRPC 5.1) and communication (MRPC 1.4) by employing a lone, inexperienced associate in a remote, high-volume office without adequate on-site support or failsafe oversight, and by failing to respond to a client's inquiries after the associate abruptly resigns?
Opinions:
Majority - Harrell, Judge.
Yes. The partners' supervisory methods were unreasonable under the circumstances, violating their duty of supervision under MRPC 5.1, and the firm's failure to respond to a client's inquiries violated its duty of communication under MRPC 1.4. The court reasoned that numerous indicators, including Katz's inexperience, her physical isolation in a remote office, the unique aspects of Maryland practice, and the high-pressure, numbers-driven firm culture, should have alerted the partners to the need for heightened supervision. The firm's reliance on a self-reporting computerized case management system was an insufficient safeguard because it could be easily defeated if the employee failed to enter the data. The partners had an affirmative duty to verify the associate's work rather than merely assume competence and compliance. Regarding the communication violation, the duty belonged to the firm (K & S), not just the departed attorney; when Katz resigned, the partners became responsible for responding to client inquiries, and their six-month delay was an actionable breach.
Dissenting - Battaglia, Judge.
The dissent agrees that the partners violated MRPC 5.1 and 1.4 but argues that the sanction imposed by the majority—an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement in 90 days—is far too lenient. The dissent contends that the harm caused by the partners' supervisory failures, which resulted in the dismissal of 47 client cases, was more egregious than that in prior cases where this Court imposed harsher sanctions. Aggravating factors, such as the partners' substantial experience, their dismissal of the associate's requests for help, and a firm culture that prioritized revenue over diligence, outweigh any mitigating factors. Furthermore, the majority's characterization of the firm's recovery efforts as 'intense, immediate, and largely effective' is inaccurate, as evidenced by the six-month delay in responding to client Charles Carter.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent for law firm management, particularly for firms operating satellite offices or employing remote attorneys. It clarifies that supervisory responsibility under MRPC 5.1 is not passive; partners must proactively design oversight systems tailored to the risks presented by an attorney's inexperience, physical isolation, and the firm's practice model. The ruling emphasizes that reliance on automated or self-reporting systems is insufficient without a 'trust, but verify' mechanism to ensure compliance. It also reinforces that the duty to communicate with clients is a firm-wide obligation that does not cease when the assigned attorney departs.
Unlock the full brief for Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kimmel