Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court N.D. v. Baird (In re Baird)

977 N.W.2d 702

In the MATTER OF the Application for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Stephen J. BAIRD, a Member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Petitioner

v.Stephen J. Baird, Respondent

Nos. 20210239

20210329 & 20210330

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

FILED JULY 21, 2022

Kara J. Erickson, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner.

Stephen J. Baird, Fargo, ND, self-represented.

DISBARMENT ORDERED.

Per Curiam.

[¶1] The Supreme Court has before it a report from a hearing panel of the disciplinary board recommending Stephen J. Baird be disbarred from the practice of law in North Dakota, refund three clients advance fees they paid, and pay the costs and expenses of disciplinary proceedings. We adopt the hearing panel's findings and recommended sanctions as explained below, and order disbarment.

I

[¶2] The North Dakota Constitution vests this Court with authority to develop and administer a system for lawyer disability and discipline. N.D. Const. art. VI, § 3 ; N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 1.1(A). This Court exercises that authority in part through inquiry committees and a disciplinary board. The inquiry committees screen lawyer disciplinary complaints for initial action. Id. at Rule 2.4(F); Rule 3.1(A) and (D). Inquiry committees can, among other things, direct disciplinary counsel to file formal proceedings before the disciplinary board. Id. at Rule 2.4(F)(2)(e). Upon receipt of formal charges of misconduct, the board must conduct a hearing through a hearing panel. Id. at Rule 2.1(H)(2). The hearing panel is required to conduct the hearing and provide this Court with a report containing findings and recommendations for discipline. Id. at Rule 2.3(B).

[¶3] Upon receipt of findings and recommendations from the disciplinary board, this Court reviews the proceeding de novo on the record. In re Discipl. Action Against McDonald, 2000 ND 87, ¶ 13, 609 N.W.2d 418. The nature of this Court's review is well established:

"Disciplinary counsel has the burden to prove each alleged violation by clear and convincing evidence. In re Discipl. Action Against Lee, 2013 ND 151, ¶ 9, 835 N.W.2d 836. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that leads to a firm belief or conviction the allegations are true. Id. ‘We give due weight to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the hearing panel, but we do not act as a "rubber stamp" for those findings and recommendations.’

McDonald , at ¶ 13. We give deference to the hearing panel's findings on matters of conflicting evidence when the panel has heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor. Id. We also give deference to the hearing panel's findings on the witnesses’ credibility because the hearing panel has the opportunity to hear the witnesses testify and observe their demeanor. Lee, at ¶ 9. We consider each case on its own facts to determine what discipline is warranted. McDonald, at ¶ 13."

In re Discipl. Action Against Overboe , 2014 ND 62, ¶ 9, 844 N.W.2d 851.

II

[¶4] Baird was admitted to practice law in North Dakota in 2013. He is not currently licensed in this state. In August 2020, Maurice Mensah filed a disciplinary complaint against Baird. On April 27, 2021, disciplinary counsel filed formal charges against Baird alleging Baird failed to act with reasonable diligence, failed to adequately communicate with him about the representation, and failed to take reasonable steps to protect Mensah's interests for a period when Baird abandoned his representation of Mensah.

[¶5] On August 2, 2021, the hearing panel issued default findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for discipline. On October 6, 2021, this Court remanded the matter for additional findings. On remand, the disciplinary board consolidated Mensah's complaint with complaints against Baird by Christopher Gbagir and Daniel P. Odoi. On March 9, 2022, the hearing panel conducted a hearing at which the complainants testified but Baird did not appear or participate in the proceedings.

[¶6] On May 11, 2022, the hearing panel issued a report containing amended findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations in the consolidated cases. The hearing panel recommended that Baird be disbarred, be assessed costs and expenses of disciplinary proceedings totaling $5,528.78, ordered to refund to Mensah, Gbagir and Odoi advance fees paid to Baird in the amounts of $750, $2,000 and $1,800 respectively, and be ordered to comply with N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 6.3, regarding notice.

[¶7] The hearing panel's report was served on Baird and disciplinary counsel on May 24, 2022, and forwarded to the Supreme Court. Objections to the report were due within 20 days of service of the report. N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(F)(2). No objections were received and the matter was submitted to this Court for consideration.

III

[¶8] Under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 3.1(F)(2) the hearing panel's report contained findings of fact in each matter, which we adopt as summarized below.

A

File No. 6567-SE-2009 (Mensah)

[¶9] In February 2020, Maurice Mensah contacted Baird for representation in an immigration matter focusing on Mensah obtaining citizenship and immigration status. Baird accepted the representation and received $750 as half of his fee. In March 2020, Baird informed Mensah that he would be closing his office for the month due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but that he would reopen in April 2020. Baird also advised that he was not taking phone calls, and instead Mensah should text or email him.

[¶10] Mensah attempted to communicate with Baird from April to August 2020 by leaving telephone voice messages, sending emails and text messages, and leaving written notes under Baird's office door. Baird did not respond to any of Mensah's attempted communications. The hearing panel found Baird abandoned his representation of Mensah during that time.

[¶11] In August 2020, Mensah demanded a refund of money he paid Baird, and filed the disciplinary complaint leading to this proceeding. Baird thereafter resumed communicating with Mensah. In December 2020, Baird filed Mensah's papers with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Baird did not tell Mensah about the filing; however, Mensah found out through his own efforts that his application was accepted, and he obtained a receipt number allowing him to track the progress of the filing. At about this same time, Baird withdrew from the representation by telling Mensah he no longer wanted to represent Mensah and suggesting he hire another lawyer. Upon withdrawal, Baird did not provide Mensah with his file or return any funds to him.

B

File No. 6604-SE-2101 (Gbagir)

[¶12] In the spring of 2020, Baird agreed to represent Christopher Gbagir on an application for asylum, with his wife and children as riders. Gbagir completed all of the necessary documentation, submitted their original passports to Baird with the application, signed a retainer agreement and paid $2,000 as a partial fee.

[¶13] In September 2020, Baird informed Gbagir that he filed an application for him with the USCIS. Thereafter Gbagir attempted to communicate with Baird regarding his case and its status. When Gbagir visited Baird's office during working hours, it was locked and did not appear that anyone was there. Gbagir called Baird's office, left voicemails, sent emails and text messages, and left written messages slipped under Baird's office door on several occasions. Baird failed to respond to any of these attempted communications for two months. In November and December 2020, Baird told Gbagir that they were waiting for action from USCIS, and that he had no additional information.

[¶14] By chance meeting, Gbagir saw Baird in person in January 2021 when Baird was moving offices. At that meeting, Baird returned Gbagir's and his family's passports. Baird said he had no status updates and could not provide Gbagir with confirmation of USCIS's receipt of his application. Gbagir later contacted USCIS himself and confirmed using his passport number that no application had been received by USCIS on Gbagir's behalf. Gbagir later learned a United States Postal Service tracking number provided to him by Baird had been obtained online, but that the tracking number did not indicate a document was ever mailed by Baird.

[¶15] Prior to a one-year deadline to seek asylum, which expired in March 2021, Gbagir asked Baird to "refile" the application. Gbagir mailed that application himself in February 2021. Baird included a cover letter asking that, if two matters were received by USCIS on behalf of Gbagir, the matters should be merged and treated as one file. Gbagir never received a receipt number for the filing Baird claimed he made. From these facts we conclude Baird withdrew from the representation before completing his agreed upon work for Gbagir. From these facts the hearing panel concluded, and we agree, Baird did not complete and submit the asylum application in September 2020 as he told Gbagir.

C

File No. 6605-SE-2101 (Odoi)

[¶16] In August 2020, Daniel P. Odoi retained Baird for an adjustment of status with USCIS to obtain a green card, get a work authorization, and travel permit. Baird accepted a partial payment of $1,800 for the work and $1,760 for the USCIS filing fee, totaling $3,560.

[¶17] In September 2020, Baird told Odoi he submitted the application for an adjustment of status. Odoi did not receive a subsequent communication from Baird about an application receipt from USCIS. After six months, Odoi attempted to communicate with Baird regarding his case and its status. Odoi visited Baird's office during working hours and found it was locked. Odoi called Baird's office, left voicemails, sent emails and text messages, and left written messages under Baird's office door. Baird did not respond to any of the communications for approximately four months.

[¶18] Baird never provided Odoi with a verification of the mailing to confirm the matter was submitted to USCIS, or a receipt from USCIS showing...