Attorney Grievance Commission Of Maryland v. Fram

Facts

D was admitted to the Bar in 1981. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, through their respective counsel, had negotiated the terms of a settlement agreement in the divorce case. Mr. Wilson would pay Mrs. Wilson $55,000 plus interest over the next five years or $50,000 within sixty days. The agreement was accepted, and a judgment of absolute divorce was entered. Mr. Wilson came to D to vacate the divorce judgment because he did not understand the settlement agreement and was dissatisfied with its terms. He retained D and provided an initial retainer of $10,000, and Dt would bill at an hourly rate of $425. Mr. Wilson paid D $10,125. D admitted that she failed to create and maintain records of the payments and consequently conceded that she violated Maryland Rule 16-606.1(a). Mr. Wilson had mental difficulties and used his friend, Sandra, and his cousin, Kevin, in understanding complex information, including legal documents. D concluded that Mr. Wilson had significant claims to a portion of Mrs. Wilson's marital property. D recognized that Mr. Wilson had a diminished capacity to understand information. D's strategy was to prove that incapacity to annul the agreement. Dr. Lasson concluded in a written report that Mr. Wilson had a neuro-cognitive disorder that impaired his ability to comprehend complex information. Dr. Lasson noted that Mr. Wilson suffered a stroke around 1964 that affected his speech and memory. With reasonable psychological certainty, Wilson had a neuro-cognitive disorder and cannot be held responsible to fully understand complex information and details. D filed a motion to vacate the divorce judgment and attached Dr.  Lasson's report. D also motioned to determine whether Wilson required a guardian. Dr. Lasson concluded that Wilson should have a legal guardian. He should be counseled constantly not to sign any documents and, even in a verbal encounter, he should have guidance and direction to be absolutely certain that he understands to the best of his ability. The Circuit Court rejected the first petition for guardianship because it did not comply with Maryland Rule 10-301 and the certificates did not comply with Maryland Rule 10-202. D drafted a new petition but did not file until November 2011. Mrs. Wilson filed a motion to vacate the judgment of divorce. The Circuit Court issued a Show Cause Order. D mailed Wilson a copy of the Order with a demand to pay $7,500 to answer the petition and defend him at the hearing. Wilson paid and D filed a motion to strike the petition for contempt. No further action was taken. D filed the second petition for guardianship. It was rejected because  the physicians' certificates failed to comply with the applicable rules. D filed amended certificates. The court thereafter accepted that petition. The court appointed Katherine Linzer, Esq. to represent Wilson in the guardianship proceeding. Wilson denied that he was disabled and requested that the petition be dismissed. Attached to the answer was a certificate from Mr. Wilson's treating physician, Dr. Marcus, attesting to his capacity to understand certain legal documents. D filed an opposition to the answer arguing that Wilson is incapable of making decisions on his own and requires a guardian to act on his behalf. During the back and forth and conflicting information Keven faxed D a hand- written letter notifying her that he wanted to withdraw the guardianship petition immediately. Upon receiving Kevin's letter, on June 19, 2012, D filed a motion to withdraw the guardianship petition, which was granted. D never told Kevin or Wilson that there was a potential for a conflict of interest. The court ordered Wilson to pay Ms. Linzer $1,120.06 in attorney's fees. A dispute occurred over the admission of Dr. Lasson's report. D gave depositions dates which Denrich, Mrs. Wilson's attorney, could not attend and eventually D took Dr. Lasson's de bene esse deposition in Denrich's absence. The judge granted a protective order, prohibiting D from using Dr. Lasson's deposition and postponing the matter to allow the parties to retake the deposition. D did not reschedule Dr. Lasson's deposition. The judge prohibited the use of Dr. Lasson's deposition, ordered Dr. Lasson to be deposed within sixty days at Ms. Denrich's convenience, required Mr. Wilson to pay the costs of the deposition, and ordered that the failure to comply with the order would result in Dr. Lasson's being precluded from testifying at trial. Even after further wrangling, the judge granted a motion to strike, ordered that Wilson was prohibited from using Dr. Lasson's deposition or calling Dr. Lasson at trial, and awarded Mrs. Wilson $600 in attorney's fees, for which d and Wilson were jointly and severally liable. On August 2, 2012, Respondent filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the court's order prohibiting Dr. Lasson's testimony and issuing sanctions. Wilson discharged D. ON a motion before the court to withdraw D made the point that Wilson lacks capacity. The judge stayed ruling on the motion to withdraw and ordered Wilson to be evaluated by a court psychiatrist within the Office of the Court Psychiatrist, Stephen W. Siebert, M.D., M.P.H. Dr. Siebert reported that Wilson was not competent to enter into the settlement agreement. The judge found Wilson incompetent to enter into a legal agreement, a contractual agreement, or to enter into a settlement agreement or to even file a petition for divorce. D's motion to withdraw was granted, and the judgment of divorce was vacated. The judge vacated her earlier award of sanctions against Wilson. D filed suit against  Wilson for attorney's fees. D alleged that Wilson owed her $30,000 plus pre-judgment interest-an amount reduced by $10,261.27. D had billed a total of $58,748.77 in attorney's fees.  Wilson paid $19,125. Amazingly, a Judge Russell entered judgment in favor of D for $30,000 with prejudgment interest of $5,029.93. D garnished Wilson's accounts. D misrepresented that she 'was aware that not only does Wilson have a fairly good capacity to understand agreements . . . but he has people who have resources.' D failed to testify specifically that Judge Bailey had found Wilson incompetent. P filed a petition against D and the hearing judge found that 'D intentionally misrepresented to Judge Russell that she filed various 'motions in supporting the fairness of a court psychiatrist' and motions and pleadings regarding the records to be produced to Dr. Siebert in the Divorce Case,' because, in fact, no  such documents had been filed. Further, 'D intentionally misrepresented to Judge Russell that 'there was a hearing scheduled October 19, 2012, which was canceled the day before the hearing, so we had to prepare for that and get everyone geared up for that.'' D admitted to the hearing judge that her statement to Judge Russell was false. The hearing judge concluded that d violated MLRPC 1.4; 1.7; 1.15; 3.3; and 8.4(a), (c), and (d); and Maryland Rule 16-606.1(a), but did not violate MLRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, or 1.5. Both parties appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.