44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

modification. It is the nature of the foreclosure and loan
modification practice that even diligent efforts are thwarted at
times by a lack of response from a lending institution, or by their
failure to negotiate a modification, even in the face of a
persuasive request. Again, lack of diligence is not adequately
demonstrated on this record.
C. MRPC 1.4
MRPC 1.4 provides:
(a) A lawyer shall: . . .
(2) keep the client
reasonably informed about
the status of the matter;
(3) promptly comply with
reasonable requests for
information; and
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter
to the extent reasonably necessary
to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the
representation.
The Commission contends that Mr. Chapman violated
MRPC 1.4 in that he failed to respond to requests for
information, and to return calls from clients. In the Bogarosh
matter, the Commission argues she was not timely advised that
the foreclosure sale in August 2010 remained pending, or given
sufficient time to pursue bankruptcy. In the Butler matter, the
Commission argues he was not timely advised of the difficulties
posed by his consumer debt.
In the Butler matter, the Court does not find clear and
convincing evidence of a failure to respond to requests for
information or to return calls. In fact, Mr. Butler acknowledged
that he spoke repeatedly with Mr. Weiskerger. While Mr. Butler
denies he was advised that his consumer debt was an
impediment to the modification, that recollection seems
inconsistent with the strategy he acknowledges that the Firm
advised him to employ, which included a bankruptcy petition to
eliminate some of the debt. It also seems inconsistent with the
acknowledged recommendation to pursue a sale of one or more
of his properties.
26