Atty. Griev. Comm'n v. Kendrick - 403 Md. 489, 943 A.2d 1173 (2008)

Rule:

Violations of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct stemming from the taking of fees without prior court approval and the mishandling of accounts warrant both suspensions and disbarments.

Facts:

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751 (a), filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent Karin Marie Kendrick on August 30, 2006. The Petition alleged that Kendrick, who was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 13, 1994, violated Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence),  1.5 (Fees), 1.15 (Safekeeping Property),  and 8.4 (Misconduct) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC") in her representation as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Judith Nina Kerr, deceased ("Estate"). Kendrick accepted fees that exceeded a statutory amount permitted to be taken without court approval and failed to return the fees after approval was denied. She also failed to pay the required inheritance tax before making distributions to the decedent's heirs or account for and turn over estate funds and assets to her successor personal representative. The Commission recommended an indefinite suspension until the attorney had made full restitution to the estate and had proven that she was capable of competently practicing law. Kendrick filed written exceptions to the decision of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Maryland) that she had violated Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 (a) and 1.15(a), (d) and (e).

Issue:

Did the Commission provide the proper sanction to Kendrick?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court of appeals agreed that Kendrick’s misconduct was not due to greed or dishonesty, but rather due to obstinateness and incompetence in probate matters. Her inability to accept responsibility in the mishandling of the estate left much to be desired. Kendrick had not been previously sanctioned for professional misconduct. Under the totality of the circumstances and in light of relevant prior cases, the court concluded that the appropriate sanction was an indefinite suspension. Re-application for admission should abide until, at a minimum, Kendrick provided full restitution to the estate.