Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Muhammad12/14/2005
Bell, C.J., Raker, Wilner, Cathell, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, JJ.
Having received complaints from seven complainants, charging Patrick J. Muhammad, the respondent, with misconduct, consisting of violations of various of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812, acting at the direction of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Maryland Rule 16-751, Bar Counsel filed against the respondent a Petition For Disciplinary Or Remedial Action. The Petition alleged multiple violations of Rules 1.3, Diligence, 1.4, Communication, 1.5, Fees, 1.16, Declining or Terminating Representation, 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters, and 8.4, Misconduct. Also alleged was one violation each of Rule 1.1, Competence, and Rule 1.2, Scope of Representation.
We referred the case, pursuant to Rule 16-752 (a), to the Honorable Edward R. K. Hargadon, of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757 (c). Although he was served, the respondent did not file a response, resulting in the entry of an order of default. Following a hearing, the hearing court made findings of facts, as follows:
Complaint of Katrina Frisby
"In September 2001, Katrina Frisby (hereinafter `Ms. Frisby') retained Respondent's services with respect to any and all claims she may have arising from an automobile accident that occurred on or about September 22, 2001. Respondent and Ms. Frisby signed a contingent fee retainer agreement on or about September 25, 2001. At the time she retained Respondent, Ms. Frisby gave Respondent her original medical bills and documents relating to her automobile accident.
"In 2001, Respondent sent letters to Ms. Frisby's medical care providers requesting Ms. Frisby's medical records. On or about January 9, 2002, Respondent sent a letter to the opposing party's insurance company, State Farm Insurance Company, with copies of Ms. Frisby's medical records and bills, requesting to discuss settlement. After January 2002, Respondent ceased communication with Ms. Frisby. Respondent did not return Ms. Frisby's phone calls to his office or his cellular phone. Upon the request of Ms. Frisby, meetings were scheduled between Respondent and Ms. Frisby. Respondent cancelled or failed to appear for these appointments.
"In March 2003, Ms. Frisby went to James L. Rhodes, Esquire, Respondent's former law partner, to assist her in obtaining her file. On March 31, 2003, Mr. Rhodes sent a letter to Respondent requesting the return of Ms. Frisby's file. However, Respondent did not respond to that letter. Accordingly, on or about May 21, 2003, Mr. Rhodes sent another letter to Respondent, via certified mail, requesting the return of Ms. Frisby's file. On or about June 6, 2003, Respondent sent a letter to Mr. Rhodes refusing to return Ms. Frisby her file until she paid him $2000, which he claimed was an `earned fee in the event of termination before the completion of the representation.' Ms. Frisby requested that Respondent provide her with his statement of services and accounting for his claim of $2000 in fees. Respondent, however, did not respond to her request.
"On November 13, 2003, Ms. Frisby discharged Respondent and retained a new attorney, Phillip L. Potts. Esquire, who also requested that Respondent return Ms. Frisby's file. Respondent still did not return Ms. Frisby's original documents. Approximately four (4) months later, on or about March 9, 2004, Respondent filed a one page complaint in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City on behalf of Ms. Frisby. The complaint was hand-written on a form Statement of Claim. Respondent did not advise Ms. Frisby or her new attorney that he
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|