Dow v. Jones

311 F.Supp.2d 461 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was charged with various criminal offenses from an alleged sexual assault of a minor. P was a radio disc jockey and a candidate for mayor of Berlin, Maryland. P had been appointed counsel from the Office of the Public Defender for Wicomico County, he also sought private counsel to represent him. P and his wife met at the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm Seals Jones Wilson Garrow & Evans, L.L.P. (“SJWGE”) with two partners, James Benny Jones (D) and Robert Wilson. P states that D agreed at that meeting to represent P, on behalf of himself and the firm SJWGE. P paid a $1,000.00 retainer to D and executed a criminal retainer agreement, agreeing to pay a flat fee of $12,500.00 for the representation. The retainer agreement is printed on SJWGE letterhead, and states that P agrees “to retain the legal services of Attorney James Benny Jones to provide representation” in his pending criminal case. SJWGE believes that P paid the retainer by a check made out to D, rather than to the firm SJWGE. At some time between January 15 and March 26, 1997, P also retained attorney Edwin H. Harvey (“Harvey”) to assist D as co-counsel in the case. On March 11, JD sent a letter to the Assistant State's Attorney, copied to the Office of the Public Defender, stating that he represented Pin the pending criminal case and that he would be entering his appearance. The letter is printed on SJWGE letterhead, but refers only to “my representation” of P. On March 26, Harvey sent a notice entering the appearances of D and Edwin H. Harvey as attorneys of record for P in the pending criminal case. This notice does not reference the firm of SJWGE, but lists Jones's business address as 1010 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., which is the address for SJWGE. According to P, D advised him that he would leave the investigation of the case to the Office of the Public Defender, explaining to P that this was standard criminal defense practice. P claims that D conducted only a cursory, one-day investigation” and failed to interview key defense witnesses. D and Harvey also failed to move for a change of venue despite substantial pretrial publicity, did not question potential jurors about this pretrial publicity, did not object to the presentation of inadmissible testimony at his trial, and failed to call available defense witnesses, including alibi witnesses. P was tried before a jury and was found guilty of second-degree sex offense, third-degree sex offense, and perverted sexual practice. P was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment, all but seven years suspended, and 36 months of supervised probation. The trial court denied a motion for new trial, and P's direct appeal was dismissed by the Office of Public Defender. P filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his criminal trial. On March 6, 2000, the Circuit Court for Wicomico County vacated P's convictions and granted a new trial. On November 26, 2001 the Circuit Court for Wicomico County entered a nolle prosequi in the pending criminal case against P. SJWGE was a registered limited liability partnership (“LLP”) in the District of Columbia in May 1994. P states that the five named partners of SJWGE held themselves out to the public generally, and to P specifically, as partners operating a law firm under the name of Seals Jones Wilson Garrow & Evans, L.L.P. Approximately one month before P's criminal trial, SJWGE received a certificate from the District of Columbia government formally canceling the firm's status as a limited liability partnership. The firm states that SJWGE actually had dissolved as of May 1, 1997. P states that he was not notified and was not aware of SJWGE's dissolution, or that D might not have the authority to act for SJWGE, or that D might not be a partner of SJWGE. SJWGE denied a statement that D was a partner in SJWGE as of January 15, 1997 and as of March 11, 1997. This motion for summary judgment was pending before the court.