Att'y Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Donnelly

310 A.3d 1110

486 Md. 454

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.Vernon Charles DONNELLY

AG No. 53, September Term, 2022

Supreme Court of Maryland.

February 27, 2024

Circuit Court for Calvert County, Case No. C-04-CV-23-000066, Kathy P. Smith, Judge

Argued by Leonard H. Addison, IV, Asst. Bar Counsel (Thomas M. DeGonia, II, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Com- mission of Maryland, Annapolis, MD), for Petitioner

Argued by Carlton M. Green (Law Offices of Carlton M. Green, College Park, MD), for Respondent

Submitted to: Fader, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ.

Hotten, J.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland ("Petitioner"), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Vernon Charles Donnelly ("Respondent") pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-721(a)(1).¹ In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-722(a),² we referred the matter to Judge Andrew S. Rappaport of the Circuit Court for Calvert County ("hearing judge").

On August 16, 2023, an evidentiary hearing was held, following which the hearing judge issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC") 19-301.4 (Communication), 19-301.8(a) (Conflict of Interest; Current Clients; Specific Rules), 19-303.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 19-303.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-308.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and l9-308.4(a)-(d) (Misconduct). Respondent took several exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

For the following reasons, disbarment is warranted.

THE HEARING JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT

We summarize and, whore indicated, quote the hearing Judge’s findings of fact, which have been established by clear and convincing evidence. We begin with Respondent’s background and note "Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on May 25, 1982[ ]" and "[a]t all times relevant to this matter, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Calvert County, Maryland." On February 15, 2018, this Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law for thirty days with the right to apply for reinstatement. Att’y Grievance Comm'n v. Donnlly, 458 Md. 237, 182 A.3d 743 (2018). Respondent was reinstated on May 8, 2018.

Respondent’s 2013 Loan From Mr. Kenneth Langley

In 2011, a legal dispute arose between Mr. Kenneth Langley ("Mr. Langley") and his siblings regarding the administration of their deceased mother’s estate. Langley, et al., v. Langley ("Langley v. Langley"), Case No. 04-C-l1-001414. Mr. Langley retained Respondent in the matter and Respondent entered his appearance on April 9, 2012. In September 2012, the circuit court appointed Mark S. Davis as trustee to sell real property retained by the estate and to equally disburse the proceeds between the Langley children. Following the March 2013 sale, Mr. Langley received a disbursement of approximately $50,000. That same month, in an unrelated matter, a judgment was entered against Respondent for $540,793.59.

In April 2013, cognizant his client was going to receive approximately $50,000, Respondent requested Mr. Langley loan him $40,000. "Respondent did not advise Mr. Langley to seek independent counsel, nor did [Respondent] advise [Mr. Langley] of the recent [judgment] entered against him." Respondent drafted a promissory note for the loan, which required monthly interest payments of $167 and repayment by September 30, 2013. On April 5, 2013, Mr. Langley signed the agreement and loaned Respondent $40,000.

"From April 5, 2013, until September 30, 2013, Mr. Langley made repeated requests that Respondent honor the, promissory note and make his monthly payments. Despite these entreaties, Respondent claimed he had no money and made no monthly payments on the loan." Respondent failed to meet the September 30, 2013 deadline for repayment. In the ensuing years, Respondent made "sporadic payments" upon the insistence of Mr. Langley. As of 2019, Respondent had repaid $24,000 on the loan, but still owed $16,000 in principal and $8,000 in interest.³

Respondent’s Representation of Mr. Langley over "Pier Rights"

In 2012, Respondent initiated litigation on behalf of himself and others who owned property in Solomon’s Island, Maryland, against Calvert County and the State regarding contractual rights to develop commercial piers ("Pier Rights" litigation). In 2014, Respondent discussed the, case with Mr. Langley and convinced him to purchase commercial pier rights. Following the purchase, on September 16, 2014, Mr. Langley signed a retainer and contingency fee agreement ("2014 retainer") with Respondent for representation in the ongoing suit. The 2014 retainer made no reference to the personal loan between Mr. Langley and Respondent. In April of 2015, Respondent added Mr. Langley as a plaintiff to the Pier Rights litigation. Between 2015 and 2019, Respondent regularly communicated with Mr. Langley regarding the Pier Rights litigation, but did not indicate the 2014 retainer modified or affected the 2013 loan, or that Mr. Langley would owe money in the litigation prior to success in the suit. In February of 2019, Respondent contacted Mr. Langley concerning his proportionate costs of the litigation. "Ostensibly referring to Respondent’s outstanding debt to Mr. Langley, Respondent stated[:] ‘Therefore, I am not about to go borrow money to in effect refund [ ] your costs. I encourage you to get off the horse named stupid and [let’s] work together to solve your immediate needs.’ "

Bar Counsel’s Investigation

In April 2019, Mr. Langley demanded full repayment via notarized letter, but Respondent did not repay the balance of the loan. Following this, Mr. Langley filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner. Upon receipt of the complaint, Petitioner notified Respondent that a complaint had been filed against him. In a May 2019 written response to Bar Counsel, Respondent asserted the following:

On or about April 1, 2013, [Mr. Langley] came into my office with no appointment carrying a bag with $40,000 in cash apparently from his share of the proceeds from the sale of his mother’s house, which was sold by a Trustee, Mark S. Davis, Esquire, pursuant to Court Order. He announced that he wanted me to keep it as safekeeping for him. I suggested he put it in a bank. He said he didn’t trust banks. I suggested he keepit at his place. He ventured that he was moving to a new location, the Locust Inn, Solomons, Maryland and it was not a secure place. He wanted me to put it in my office safe and he really did not need a note.

***

When the Promissory Note matured in September 2013, [Mr. Langley] and I agreed orally to an extension of the Note and at one point I encouraged him to begin withdrawing principal amounts for the loan which he did beginning on January 14, 2014. He would call and request a sum of money and I would give it to him. By September 2014, he had requested and received $9,000.00.

In November 2019, Bar Counsel took Respondent’s statement under oath.⁴ Respondent testified:

[Mr. Langley] walked in the office with a bag of money … But he wanted to give the money to me. And he wanted to give it to me because I had always been good to his family, is what he said. I told him I couldn’t do that.

***

I know [Mr. Langley] was -- [Mr. Langley] was primarily interested in my holding the money after we got through the initial stage, holding it for him.

***

So, I took it. I. think, given the date of the note, I believe it is -- and I’m just talking straight out here. I’m not saying I know exactly the moment. But as I recall, [the note] was something for him to take home and think about whether or not he wanted to invest it or leave it with me or find use or whatever.

***

I mean, it’s basically a standard, if there’s such a thing, of a promissory note. Sets the amount. Sets the date. Sets the terms. Kept very short for six months for reason. That’s all that I saw was an opportunity for him. He wanted me to invest it in what we call a commercial pier project that was around. He wanted to be a part of the commercial pier project.

We had talked about all this before this happened, months or two months before. And I think it sets forth the fact that it is a confessed judgment note, acknowledges it’s for a business investment[.]

The hearing judge found Respondent’s "version of facts in his statement under oath differed from the version of facts he provided" in his prior written, response.

Mr. Langley’s Suit Against Respondent

On January 13, 2020, Mr. Langley filed suit in the Circuit Court for Calvert County. Langley v. Donnelly, Case No. C-04- CV-20-000060. This suit prompted Bar Counsel to place the investigation of Respondent on their deferred docket.⁵ At trial in April 2021, Respondent testified, under oath, to the following:

[Mr. Langley] walks into the office carrying a bag of money and wants me to take the bag of money. And we joked about it afterwards, he wanted to give it to me.

What happened [were] no requests for any money, no requests for any Interest, When we came together at that September period of time to talk about it, my recollection is that [Mr. Langley] said something to the equivalent == It wouldn’t have been this, but == lot it ride, And I said, no, you’ve got to start getting this money out of here. And that's why all of a sudden the payments began in January of 2014.

Now, with that said I’m worried about my safe being broken into, because I don’t know who I’m dealing with and what I’m dealing with. He was to get it out of there, because I told him I couldn’t find any investments.

He didn’t want to get it out of there. So we just -- I said, well, start taking the money out. And you’ll notice the list of payments that are made all begin in January 2014 and they move right along.

The hearing judge found these statements were knowingly false as Respondent was shown checks he provided to Mr....