44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

services, the operation in this instance is not that model. It is
more akin to payment of a fee by a business for use of the cache
of the law firm. The law firm is not much more than a prop to
attract business that does not require special legal acumen or
skill. Of particular concern in this case, the affiliation with the
law firm enabled those non-legal loan modification services to
be done by non-lawyers not affiliated with the firm in a manner
that would not otherwise be permitted.
While I find that Mr. Chapman researched and attempted
to structure an arrangement that complied with statutory and
ethical requirements, I believe his judgment was in error. For
that reason, and for those detailed above, I find clear and
convincing evidence of violations of MRPC 1.4, 5.3, and 8.4.
(internal footnotes omitted).
“This Court has original and complete jurisdiction over attorney discipline
proceedings in Maryland.” Attorney Grievance v. Seltzer, 424 Md. 94, 112, 34 A.3d 498, 509
(2011), quoting Attorney Grievance v. Stern, 419 Md. 525, 556, 19 A.3d 904, 925 (2011).
“In our independent review of the record, we accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact as
prima facie correct unless shown to be clearly erroneous.” Attorney Grievance v. Lara, 418
Md. 355, 364, 14 A.3d 650, 656 (2011). We conduct an independent review of the hearing
judge’s conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 16-759(b)(1). 15
Chapman did not file any exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact or
conclusions of law, while Bar Counsel excepted to the hearing judge’s failure to find
15
Rule 16-759(b)(1) provides:
Review by Court of Appeals. (1) Conclusions of law. The
Court of Appeals shall review de novo the circuit court judge’s
conclusions of law.
36