Maryland: Attorney Suspended Indefinitely in Reciprocal Discipline Action

Link for opinion: http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2010/18a09ag.pdf

In Attorney Grievance v. Haas, 412 Md. 536, 988 A.2d 1033 (2010), the Court of Appeals of Maryland upheld the indefinite suspension imposed by the Attorney Grievance Commission as reciprocal discipline for professional misconduct which occurred in New York.

Haas had received a three-year suspension in New York as a result of his representation of a defendant in the appeal of a murder conviction in which Haas accepted a retainer of $15,000 but provided little or no legal services and converted the fee to his own personal use.

Upon receiving information of the New York disciplinary action, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed a petition for disciplinary action against Haas pursuant to Maryland rule 16-773 (b). The Attorney Grievance Commission alleged that Haas had violated Rules 1.1, Competence; 1.2, Scope of Representation and Allocation of authority Between Client and Lawyer; 1.3, Diligence; 1.4, Communications; 1.5, Fees; 1.15, Safekeeping Property; 1.16, Declining or Terminating Representation; Rule 8.4, Misconduct, of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct.

Haas appealed the indefinite suspension in Maryland arguing that Maryland rule 16-773 permits, but does not mandate reciprocal discipline. Haas also felt that there are exceptional circumstances that demonstrate that the imposition of the suspension would be a “grave injustice.” He argued that “the proceedings in New York denied Respondent the opportunity to fairly present his case” due to the proceedings taking place during his “decline into end stage liver failure” and as a result of “debilitating effects of treatments.” Haas was also “suffering from great adversity from the loss of all of the office records and equipment that would have enabled more effective responses to the requests for information.”

The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the indefinite suspension as an equivalent sanction to the suspension in New York. Haas can only be reinstated to practice law in New York only by order by the state’s court. Thus, reinstatement to practice in Maryland is conditioned on the respondent’s reinstatement in New York.

This case teaches the importance of competently representing all clients for which an attorney accepts a retainer fee and enters into an attorney-client relationship, even when facing exceptional circumstances personally.