44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

violations of Rules 1.5(a) and 1.15(c). Because neither party filed any exceptions to the
findings of fact, we accept those findings as proven by clear and convincing evidence under
Rule 16-759(b)(2)(A). Attorney Grievance v. Nelson, 425 Md. 344, 358, 40 A.3d 1039, 1047
(2012).
Bar Counsel’s exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion that Chapman did not
violate Rule 1.5(a) is premised on Chapman’s representation of Ms. Bogarosh, wherein she
entered into a retainer agreement with the Chapman Law Group, LLC, that stated that its
purpose was for the “advising and counseling [of Ms. Bogarosh] as to appropriate or
alternative courses of action as well as attempting to negotiate with any lenders with secured
interests in the Premises.” Bar Counsel argues that Chapman, however, testified that he
never provided Ms. Bogarosh with any legal services, never discussed alternative courses of
action, and never negotiated on her behalf. Moreover, Bar Counsel asserts that while the
retainer agreement does state that “the firm [would] be securing the services of one or more
consultants[,]” Ms. Bogarosh was not informed that the loan modification services “would
be provided exclusively by the consultants or that the consultants would receive all but $200
of the $1,500 fee.” According to Bar Counsel, these facts, taken together, inexorably lead
to the conclusion that Chapman did not provide any legal services, yet received a fee, in
violation of Rule 1.5(a), which requires that fees charged by attorneys be reasonable. The
hearing judge disagreed, determining that Chapman did not violate Rule 1.5(a) because,
while no legal services were rendered by the firm, non-legal services were provided to the
clients that were commensurate with the fees charged.
37