Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Ekekwe

478 Md. 688

276 A.3d 558

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.Olekanma Arnnette EKEKWE

Misc. Docket AG No. 53, Sept. Term, 2020

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 1, 2022

Submitted by Erin A. Risch, Deputy Bar Counsel (Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner

No submission on behalf of the Respondent

Submitted to:^* Getty, C.J., *McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, JJ.

Gould, J.

On December 1, 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission ("AGC"), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Olekanma Arnnette Ekekwe, alleging violations of various provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC").¹ Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722(a), this Court designated the Honorable C. Carey Deeley, Jr. ("hearing judge") to conduct an evidentiary hearing and provide findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The hearing was held on June 21, 2021. Bar Counsel appeared and presented its case with 14 exhibits and a videotaped deposition of Ms. Ekekwe's former client, Vini Sloan. Ms. Ekekwe failed to appear. The hearing judge issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ("findings") on July 28, 2021. The hearing judge found that Bar Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ekekwe violated Rules 19-301.4 (Communication),² 19-303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-305.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law), 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 19-308.4 (Misconduct), and 19-742 (Order of Disbarment or Suspension).³ Neither Bar Counsel nor Ms. Ekekwe excepted to the hearing judge's findings. Bar Counsel recommends that we disbar Ms. Ekekwe.

On October 5, 2021, pursuant to Rule 19-740(a), Bar Counsel filed a request to waive oral argument. On October 22, 2021, this Court entered an order requiring Ms. Ekekwe to show cause on or before November 12, 2021 "why oral argument should be held." Ms. Ekekwe failed to respond. On November 18, 2021, this Court granted Bar Counsel's request to waive oral argument.

As explained below, with one minor exception, we adopt the hearing judge's findings and determine that disbarment is the appropriate sanction under the facts and circumstances of this case.

IHEARING JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACTS

Bar Counsel has the burden of proving its allegations of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Md. Rule 19-727(c). Because neither Ms. Ekekwe nor Bar Counsel filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings, Rule 19-740(b)(2)(A) permits us to "treat the findings of facts as established." See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Colton-Bell , 434 Md. 553, 572, 76 A.3d 1096 (2013). Our inclination is to do so here, but we nevertheless have reviewed the record and are satisfied that the hearing judge's factual findings are, indeed, supported by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the facts that follow derive from the hearing judge's uncontested findings and the undisputed evidence that supports such findings.

Professional Background

On December 2, 2002, Ms. Ekekwe was admitted to the bar of the District of Columbia (the "D.C. bar"), where she later opened a solo law practice. On December 17, 2010, Ms. Ekekwe was admitted to the Maryland bar.

On June 27, 2019, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended Ms. Ekekwe from the practice of law for three years for violating Rules 1.1(a) and (b) (Competence), 1.3(a) and (b) (Diligence and Zeal), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.5(a) (Fees), 1.15(e) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(c) (Misconduct) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. As a condition of her reinstatement, Ms. Ekekwe was required to prove her fitness to practice law pursuant to Rule XI § 16 of the District of Columbia Bar Rules.

Representation of Vini Sloan and Suspension from the Maryland Bar

In July 2019, the Women's Law Center of Maryland appointed Ms. Ekekwe to represent Vini Sloan on a pro bono basis, in connection with Ms. Sloan's complaint for custody in Sloan v. Armstrong , pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Ms. Sloan had already been represented by counsel in that matter, but discharged that counsel when she was notified of Ms. Ekekwe's pro bono appointment. Ms. Sloan then made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Ms. Ekekwe. It was only after Ms. Sloan asked the Women's Law Center to intervene on her behalf that Ms. Ekekwe finally responded and met with her.

On August 2, 2019, the AGC filed a petition in this Court for disciplinary or remedial action against Ms. Ekekwe, seeking an interim suspension and reciprocal discipline for the misconduct found in the District of Columbia matter. Several days later, this Court issued a Show Cause Order directing the AGC and Ms. Ekekwe to show cause why corresponding discipline should or should not be imposed in Maryland.

On September 24, 2019, Ms. Ekekwe filed a motion to stay the AGC's petition pending the outcome of a request for a rehearing in the District of Columbia matter. In response, the AGC pointed out that the request for rehearing had been made by disciplinary counsel to, among other things, seek a more severe sanction, and that Ms. Ekekwe had opposed the rehearing request.

On October 4, 2019, this Court denied Ms. Ekekwe's motion and entered an order temporarily suspending Ms. Ekekwe's license to practice law in Maryland. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ekekwe , 466 Md. 213, 217 A.3d 736 (2019). On October 18, 2019, the AGC responded to the Show Cause Order, requesting that Ms. Ekekwe be indefinitely suspended due to the findings in the District of Columbia matter.

Meanwhile, on October 2, 2019—just two days before her temporary suspension in Maryland—Ms. Ekekwe appeared with Ms. Sloan for a settlement conference in the circuit court. Although Ms. Ekekwe had not entered her appearance in the case, she participated in the conference. The child's father, Romeo Armstrong, and his attorney, Walter Ty, appeared as well. The case was not resolved at the conference, so the court scheduled a merits trial for January 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.

Within a few days after the settlement conference, Ms. Sloan took the child to Georgia, where she resided, without the knowledge or permission of the father. In response, the father moved for emergency relief on October 10, 2019. Because Ms. Ekekwe had still not entered her appearance, his counsel served the motion on Ms. Sloan, with a courtesy copy to Ms. Ekekwe. In the transmittal email, the father's counsel asked Ms. Ekekwe to confirm her representation of Ms. Sloan and asked her to formally enter her appearance in the case. The court scheduled an emergency hearing for November 4, 2019.

The emergency hearing was held before the Honorable H. Patrick Stringer. Before the hearing, Ms. Ekekwe and Ms. Sloan discussed the matter and agreed that Ms. Ekekwe would attend the hearing without Ms. Sloan. Ms. Ekekwe did not inform Ms. Sloan that she had been suspended from practicing law, and as planned, Ms. Ekekwe appeared at the hearing on Ms. Sloan's behalf. Ms. Ekekwe introduced herself by saying "Good morning, Your Honor. Olekanma Ekekwe on behalf of Vini Sloan." Ms. Ekekwe made an opening statement, cross-examined the father, and made a closing argument. After denying the father's emergency motion, Judge Stringer noted that Ms. Ekekwe had not yet entered her appearance in writing. But Judge Stringer made sure there was no ambiguity about Ms. Ekekwe's role:

THE COURT: You understand that you are in the case now?

MS. EKEKWE: Yes, sir.

Ms. Ekekwe failed to inform Ms. Sloan, Judge Stringer, or the father's counsel that she had been suspended from practicing law in Maryland.

After the hearing, Ms. Ekekwe informed Ms. Sloan that the court denied the emergency motion and confirmed that the merits trial would be on January 30, 2020.

On November 20, 2019, this Court entered an order suspending indefinitely Ms. Ekekwe from the practice of law in Maryland, effective immediately. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Ekekwe , 466 Md. 379, 220 A.3d 302 (2019). Thus, Ms. Ekekwe has been suspended from practicing law in Maryland since October 4, 2019, when she was temporarily suspended from practicing law.

Meanwhile, after the November emergency hearing, Ms. Sloan and Mr. Armstrong began direct settlement discussions. Ms. Sloan kept Ms. Ekekwe in the loop and consulted with her during that time. Ms. Sloan and Mr. Armstrong reached an agreement, which they put in writing. Ms. Ekekwe reviewed and edited the written agreement. On January 29, 2020, Ms. Ekekwe sent the final draft of the agreement to Ms. Sloan, asking her to sign the document and to have Mr. Armstrong sign it.

On the morning of January 30, 2020, Ms. Sloan confirmed with Ms. Ekekwe that Ms. Ekekwe would attend the hearing on her behalf to submit the settlement agreement, and that Ms. Sloan would not attend. At 9:55 a.m., the Honorable Paul J. Hanley called the case. Neither Ms. Ekekwe nor Ms. Sloan was present. At 10:16 a.m., Judge Hanley took a recess and called Ms. Sloan. Ms. Sloan told Judge Hanley that Ms. Ekekwe had confirmed that she would be appearing on her behalf. Judge Hanley then informed Ms. Sloan that Ms. Ekekwe had been suspended from practicing law, which was news to Ms. Sloan. After her call with Judge Hanley, Ms. Sloan unsuccessfully attempted to contact Ms. Ekekwe.

At 10:42 a.m., Judge Hanley resumed the hearing. Ms. Ekekwe arrived shortly thereafter. Judge Hanley pointedly asked Ms. Ekekwe about her involvement in the case, and in response Ms. Ekekwe said she was only "supposed to bring the settlement agreement[.]" When Judge Hanley asked Ms. Ekekwe if she was an attorney, Ms. Ekekwe dodged the question by responding that she was "assisting" and that she was "from the Women's Law Center." Judge Hanley pressed the issue by asking Ms. Ekekwe if she was "representing anybody in this case[,]" and Ms. Ekekwe responded that "[i]t's just a...