Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Daley

1

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. THEREEN DIAN DALEY

Misc. AG No. 69-2019

Court of Appeals of Maryland

October 22, 2021

Argued: September 14, 2021

Circuit Court for Howard County Case No. C-13-CV-20-000208 Getty C.J. McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Adkins, (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

OPINION

GETTY, C.J.

Invariably, this Court has emphasized the importance of an attorney's timely answer to a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and active participation with Bar Counsel during the discovery process in an attorney discipline proceeding. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Dailey, 474 Md. 679, 690 (2021) (highlighting the attorney's failure to comply with Bar Counsel's investigation and the discovery process and stating, "[h]ad [the attorney] been responsive, she may have avoided the most significant rule violations" the Court found); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523, 550 (2014) (demonstrating an attorney's failure to respond to a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action resulted in a default judgment against the attorney, allowing this Court to treat the averments therein as admitted); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Young, 473 Md. 94, 107- 08 (2021). Failure to timely answer a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action may result in an order of default against the attorney. Additionally, without active participation with Bar Counsel during the discovery process, for example by failing to respond to a request for admissions and failing to attend the hearing before the hearing judge, an attorney may be disadvantaged when he or she comes before this Court.

This disadvantage is highlighted in this attorney discipline case that involves an attorney, Thereen Dian Daley, who represented her husband in a dispute with his condominium association. During the course of her representation, Ms. Daley made knowingly false statements to opposing counsel and communicated directly with the opposing party without the consent of that party's counsel. Ms. Daley failed to timely file an answer to the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, respond to Bar Counsel's request for admissions, and attend the disciplinary hearing. Ms. Daley submitted false information and made knowingly false statements in her communications with Bar Counsel.

Based upon these violations found by the hearing judge, which are supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Maryland is the appropriate sanction for Ms. Daley.

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Context

On February 21, 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the "Commission"), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action ("Petition") in this Court alleging that Ms. Daley violated the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC")^[1]. The Petition alleged that Ms. Daley violated the following Rules: 19-304.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others); 19-304.2 (Communications with Persons Represented by an Attorney); 19-304.4 (Respect for Rights of Third Persons);^[2] 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); and 19-308.4 (Misconduct).

By Order dated February 25, 2020, Ms. Daley's matter was transmitted to the Circuit Court for Howard County, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722(a) for a hearing before Judge Timothy J. McCrone (the "hearing judge") to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ms. Daley was served with the Petition, Writ of Summons issued by the circuit court on May 18, 2020, and this Court's Order dated February 25, 2020. Ms. Daley submitted a Motion to Postpone her matter, which the hearing judge denied on August 12, 2020. Ms. Daley was then served with Bar Counsel's First Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents on August 19, 2020. Ms. Daley did not file an answer to Bar Counsel's request.

On September 8, 2020, with no answer to the Petition having been filed, Bar Counsel filed a Motion for Order of Default, to which Ms. Daley did not file an opposition. The hearing judge entered an Order of Default against Ms. Daley on September 18, 2020, and she was issued a notice of the order the same day. Through counsel, Ms. Daley filed an answer to the Petition on September 21, 2020, but she did not file a motion to vacate the Order of Default within the thirty-day period allowed under Rule 2-613(d).

Bar Counsel filed a request for a hearing in the circuit court. Ms. Daley filed an opposition to Bar Counsel's request and moved to dismiss the claims and default judgment against her. The hearing judge granted Bar Counsel's request on January 19, 2021 and scheduled a hearing for March 3, 2021. Bar Counsel opposed Ms. Daley's motion to dismiss and to vacate default judgment, and Ms. Daley filed a reply to Bar Counsel's opposition. Ms. Daley also filed a "Supplemental (Merit) Opposition to AGC's 'Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action'" on February 27, 2021.

On March 3, 2021, the hearing judge heard arguments from Ms. Daley's attorney regarding her motion to dismiss and to vacate the default judgment. The hearing judge denied the motion and continued with the hearing as scheduled. Ms. Daley did not attend the hearing or present mitigating evidence. Under Rule 2-424(b), the matters for which Bar Counsel's requested admissions were deemed admitted, and those admissions were received into evidence.

On March 4, 2021, Ms. Daley filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the hearing judge's March 3, 2021 decisions, and Bar Counsel filed an opposition on March 18. On March 19, the hearing judge denied Ms. Daley's motion. Bar Counsel filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on March 25, and the hearing judge issued a judgment adopting those findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 30. On April 8, Ms. Daley, through counsel, filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Court heard oral argument in this matter on September 14, 2021.

B. Factual Findings

We summarize the hearing judge's factual findings below.^[3]

Ms. Daley was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 17, 2002. At all times relevant to this matter, Ms. Daley maintained a post office box address in Howard County that she used in connection with her law practice.

1. Waterford Landing

In 2008, Austin Valentine purchased a condominium located in Waterford Landing Condominium, Inc. ("Waterford Landing"), a condominium community located in Essex, Maryland. Ms. Daley lived with Mr. Valentine in his condominium from 2011 until 2014. The pair married in 2014.^[4] Waterford Landing has a governing body called the Council of Unit Owners of Waterford Landing (the "Council"). Wallace H. Campbell & Company, Inc. ("Campbell"), a property management company, served as managing agent for Waterford Landing at all times relevant to this case. Susan G. Saltsman, Management Supervisor for Campbell, oversaw the management of Waterford Landing. The law firm of Oliveri & Associates, LLC, and attorneys John Oliveri and Timothy Larsen, represented both the Council and Campbell.

The Council elects a Board of Directors (the "Board") to implement Waterford Landing's declaration, bylaws, and rules and regulations (collectively, the "governing documents"). Waterford Landing's leasing policy required owners who leased their units to pay a $500.00 move-in fee and provide Campbell with (1) proof of a criminal background check, (2) proof of the tenant's liability insurance, (3) a copy of the lease agreement, and (4) an addendum to the lease agreement showing the tenant read and understood Waterford Landing's rules and regulations. The bylaws permit the Board to impose charges and fines for late payment of the assessments and for violations of the governing documents. A unit owner may be assessed a $50.00 fine for an initial violation of the governing documents, a $100.00 fine for a repeated violation, and a $20.00 per day fine until the unit owner cures the violation.

2. Mr. Valentine's Violations

In December 2015, the Board discovered Mr. Valentine did not comply with the leasing policy before allowing tenants to occupy his unit, and his neighbors filed several noise complaints against his unit. Ms. Saltsman, on behalf of the Council, wrote to Mr. Valentine on three occasions between December 29, 2015 and February 23, 2016 concerning complaints about Mr. Valentine's tenants and his failure to comply with Waterford Landing's leasing policy. Mr. Valentine did not address his violations within the timeframe provided in Ms. Saltsman's correspondence.

The Board then scheduled a hearing for May 25, 2016 to determine whether Mr. Valentine violated the governing documents. Mr. Valentine received written notice of the hearing on March 22, 2016 and April 26, 2016. Mr. Valentine did not attend the hearing. In his absence, the Board found he violated provisions of the governing documents and directed him to address the noise complaints and comply with the leasing policy within ten days. For the noise violation, he was charged a $50.00 fee and a $20.00 per day fee for ongoing violations. For the failure to comply with the leasing policy, he received an additional fine of $10.00 per day for the ongoing violations. The Board noted that the fines would stop accruing upon confirmation that Mr. Valentine cured the violations.

Mr Valentine failed to remedy the violations, and on July 19, 2016, Campbell informed Mr. Valentine in writing that his fines were delinquent in the amount of $420.00. Campbell further advised that, if the amount was not paid within fifteen days, Mr. Valentine's account would be referred to an attorney for collection. In August 2016, Waterford Landing...