Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lee
890 A.2d 273, 390 Md. 517 (2006)
Rule of Law:
An attorney violates the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to act with reasonable diligence in a client's matter and by neglecting to keep the client reasonably informed, which includes responding to reasonable requests for information channeled through an established intermediary when direct client communication is impeded.
Facts:
- Norman Joseph Lee, III, was admitted to the Maryland Bar on March 31, 1981.
- Bobby D. Coleman retained Mr. Lee on July 8, 2002, to seek post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Washington County, and Mr. Coleman’s mother paid a $3,500 retainer on his behalf.
- On August 2, 2002, Mr. Lee entered his appearance in the Circuit Court for Washington County for Mr. Coleman.
- Mr. Coleman, who was incarcerated, experienced difficulties obtaining Mr. Lee's phone number on the prison's institutional phone list, leading his mother to act as a conduit for communication.
- Mr. Coleman’s mother wrote to Mr. Lee on August 21, 2002, requesting a status report on research and legal preparation for her son’s case, raising specific legal questions, and copying the letter to Mr. Coleman.
- On October 16, 2002, Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Coleman, acknowledging his mother’s August 21st letter and promising to review referenced cases, but there is no evidence he ever followed up on this promise.
- Mr. Lee did not meet with Mr. Coleman until August 23, 2003, more than a year after being retained.
- Mr. Lee performed no substantive legal services, such as filing pleadings or making an accounting of the retainer, for a significant period after being retained.
Procedural Posture:
- The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, by Bar Counsel, filed a Petition For Disciplinary Or Remedial Action against Norman Joseph Lee, III, in the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
- The Court of Appeals referred the case to the Honorable Lawrence R. Daniels, of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, to conduct a hearing and make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
- Mr. Lee did not file a timely answer to the petition, leading to an order of default being entered against him on April 14, 2005.
- Prior to the scheduled hearing, Mr. Lee filed a motion to vacate the Order of Default and an answer to the Petition for Disciplinary Action.
- The Circuit Court denied Mr. Lee's motion to vacate, noting it was not filed within thirty days of the default order and did not provide reasons for failure to plead or a legal/factual basis for defense.
- At the hearing on June 30, 2005, Mr. Lee re-argued the motion to vacate, which the Circuit Court again denied.
- The Circuit Court found facts by the clear and convincing standard and concluded that Mr. Lee violated Rule 1.3 (Diligence) but did not violate Rule 1.4 (Communication).
- The Attorney Grievance Commission (petitioner) filed exceptions to the hearing court's failure to find a violation of Rule 1.4.
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 Rules 1.3 (Diligence) and 1.4 (Communication) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to promptly pursue a client's post-conviction relief and neglecting to adequately respond to inquiries from the client's mother, who acts as an intermediary due to the client's incarceration?
Opinions:
Majority - Greene, Judge
Yes, Norman Joseph Lee, III, violated Rule 1.3 (Diligence) and Rule 1.4 (Communication) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court of Appeals sustained the hearing court's finding of a Rule 1.3 violation, noting Mr. Lee's nearly year-long neglect in visiting his client and performing substantive legal services. The court disagreed with the hearing judge's conclusion regarding Rule 1.4, finding that Mr. Lee's previous responses to Mr. Coleman's mother established a 'course of dealings' implying acceptance of her as a communication channel. Given Mr. Coleman's incarceration and difficulty communicating directly, inquiries from his mother, which were copied to him and acknowledged by Mr. Lee, constituted reasonable requests for information under Rule 1.4 that Mr. Lee failed to address substantively. The court emphasized that by default, the averments in the disciplinary petition were admitted and should have been considered established facts for the Rule 1.4 violation. The appropriate sanction for both violations was a public reprimand.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies an attorney's duty of communication, especially regarding clients with limited direct access, such as those who are incarcerated. It establishes that a 'course of dealings' can create an expectation that an attorney will communicate through an intermediary, and failure to do so, without explicit client consent to discontinue, constitutes a violation of ethical duties. The ruling also underscores the importance of promptly pursuing a client's case, as extended periods of inactivity, even without explicit client complaints, can trigger diligence violations. This precedent can impact future cases by broadening the definition of 'reasonable requests for information' to include those made by proxies in specific circumstances, compelling attorneys to be more proactive in establishing clear communication protocols.
