44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

In the Bogarosh matter, the records clearly document key
lapses in timely communication in late July and August 2010.
As detailed above, as the August 2010 foreclosure date
approached, Ms. Bogarosh clearly and repeatedly requested a
meeting to discuss the status of her case and the strategy. She
also clearly communicated her new telephone number which
was never recorded in the firm’s system. During the most
critical time frame, on a day when Katie Ricketts acknowledged
in an email that she may be in frequent communication, and later
acknowledged that she tried repeatedly to call, the inability to
communicate was caused by the consultants acting for the Firm.
Of greater concern, despite repeated requests to schedule a
meeting, there was no response by the Firm. Throughout the
critical time frame, Ms. Bogarosh’s only substantive
communications were with the support staff for the Firm’s
consultant.
Mr. Chapman argues Ms. Bogarosh should have been
well aware of the possibility of a bankruptcy filing at the last
minute, based upon her prior experience. Clearly her financial
circumstances were different in 2010 than at the time of her
prior bankruptcy, as she had an inheritance and an ability to pay
the deficiency on the property. It is not at all clear that a
bankruptcy petition could have been filed in good faith in 2010.
Clearly there was no communication concerning the possibility
of filing bankruptcy in a timely manner so it could have been
pursued by the client. Thus the Court finds that Mr. Chapman
violated MRPC 1.4 in his representation in the Bogarosh matter
based upon the failure to timely communicate with the client and
the failure to respond to requests to meet in the late July and
August 2010 time frame.
D. MRPC 1.5
MRPC 1.5 provides:
(a) A lawyer shall not make an
agreement for, charge, or collect an
unreasonable fee or an
unreasonable amount for expenses.
The factors to be considered in
determining the reasonableness of a
fee include the following:
27