|
|
|
Unlawful Practice Of Law Leads To Disbarment
(February 2011) By Lydia S. Hu, Associate
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sirina Sucklal,
Misc. Docket AG No. 26 (Md. 2011) (September Term, 2009) |
View pdf
The Court of Appeals held that disbarment was an
appropriate sanction for the unlawful practice of law. While the Respondent had
been a member of the New York bar since 1989, she was never admitted to the
Maryland bar. The Respondent was found to have established a law firm in
Rockville, Maryland, having made false and misleading communications about her
services, had engaged in acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and committed a
criminal act that reflected adversely on her honesty.
On July l6, 2009, the Attorney Grievance Commission of
Maryland filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against the
Respondent. Four days later, the Court of Appeals ordered that Judge C. Philip
Nichols, Jr. hear and determine the charges levied against the Respondent.
The record showed that after the Respondent established
a law firm in Rockville, Maryland, she filed a Complaint in the District
Court of Maryland for Baltimore City on behalf of a client. The Complaint
sought $1,150.00. She signed the Complaint and represented herself as an
attorney for the Plaintiff. The Complaint was eventually dismissed for lack
of prosecution pursuant to Md. Rule 3-507.
The Respondent made false representations to two other
clients that she was admitted to practice in Maryland. To one client, the
Respondent convinced that they could purchase a piece of real estate and own
it as tenants in common, only to ruin the client’s credit when Respondent
failed to make mortgage payments. To the other client, the Respondent
provided legal services in connection with renovation of an investment
property in Baltimore City, but never provided her hourly rate. The client
could not afford the steep fees, forcing the Respondent to file an action in
the District Court of Maryland for Howard County seeking payment of the fees
amounting to $17,788.75. The Respondent’s claim was eventually dismissed
with prejudice when she failed to appear for trial. However, the client
incurred legal fees as a result of Respondent’s lawsuit.
Judge Nichols found that these actions amounted to
violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically,
Respondent committed the unauthorized practice of law, she charged an
unreasonable fee, she failed to communicate her fee to her client, she
failed to explain the matter to an extent that would be reasonably necessary
for the client to make an informed decision. The appropriate sanction was
determined to be disbarment. The Court explained that it was of no
consequence that Respondent had never been barred in Maryland. The Order of
Disbarment will require Respondent to notify the disciplinary authority in
every jurisdiction in which she is admitted to practice, such as New York.
Thus, Respondent’s conduct and the disposition of the Grievance Commission’s
findings, will have a reciprocal impact in jurisdictions where the
Respondent is barred.
|
|
|
Top
