Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ashworth6/9/2004
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, the petitioner, by Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751, filed a Petition For Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Joseph C. Ashworth, the respondent. The petition charged that the respondent violated Rules 1.4, Communication, 1.5, Fees, 1.15, Safekeeping property, 8.1, Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters, and 8.4, Misconduct, of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by Maryland Rule 16-812.
We referred the case, pursuant to Rule 16-752 (a), to the Honorable Sean D. Wallace, of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, for hearing pursuant to Rule 16-757 (c). Following a hearing, at which the respondent appeared and participated, the hearing court found facts by the clear and convincing standard and drew conclusions of law, as follows.
Roger Seltz, the complainant, on July 18, 2001, consulted the respondent in connection with a contract dispute he had with his former employer, ManTech International ("ManTech"). The written retainer agreement he entered into with the respondent provided that the respondent would provide the required legal services "for an agreed initial retainer of $2000.00," and that those services would commence "when Attorneys receive the complete payment of $2000.00 which will be billed at $150.00 per hour." The retainer agreement also provided:
"If this matter requires litigation, we will obtain another retainer agreement. ... If and when it becomes apparent that the above amount for fees and expenses will be exceeded under this agreement, an additional sum will be set by attorneys."
The complainant paid the respondent the retainer and an initial consultation fee of $150.00. Rather than placing the retainer in his escrow account, where the respondent concedes it should have gone, the respondent placed it in his operating account.
After reviewing the documentation he had received from the complainant and receiving from the complainant approval of a draft that he had been asked to review, the respondent sent a demand letter to ManTech on or about August 17, 2001. Accepting the invitation contained in the ManTech response, the respondent and the complainant met with ManTech representatives on October 23, 2001 to discuss the claims. The meeting lasted three to four hours and, although, according to the complainant, the respondent "did a very good job" of advocating his position, no settlement was reached. The complainant's demand of $150,000.00 was met with a counter-offer of only $40,000.00.
Following the meeting, the complainant advised the respondent that "I would like to give ManTech my final demand for $150,000, or we will sue. If we sue, we should depose the minimum following people ... lets call their bluff." Thereafter, in early December, 2001, the respondent prepared a draft complaint that he asked the complainant to review. When they met a few days later to discuss the draft, they also considered in more detail what would be involved in the litigation process and a new fee arrangement. As to the latter, the respondent indicated that he wanted a thirty three percent share should the case go to litigation, which, at that time, the complainant thought was fair. At the conclusion of the meeting, the complainant expected the complaint to be filed and to be presented with a "new" contingency fee agreement.
The day after that meeting, presumably because the complainant had "flashed the complaint" to a ManTech official he "ran into," ManTech's attorney telephoned the respondent, leaving a message, followed up by a fax, indicating that "ManTech would like to revise its offer to resolve this dispute with your client,"
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|