44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

makes clear that an attorney must communicate the risks associated with a fee arrangement
that varies from the standard escrow arrangement. As the hearing judge noted, the retainer
agreement only contained a small section informing the client that the fee was earned upon
receipt. Neither the retainer agreement, nor Chapman personally, explained the material risks
associated with entering into an “earned upon receipt” fee agreement, in violation of Rule
1.15(c).
The only matter that remains is to determine the appropriate sanction for Chapman’s
conduct. As mitigating facts, the hearing judge found that Chapman “wound down” his loan
modification services as soon as he was informed about the complaints, that he refunded the
fees paid to him by Ms. Bogarosh and Mr. Butler and that Chapman had no prior disciplinary
record.
We have often stated that the purpose of sanctioning attorneys is, principally, to
protect the public, not to punish the errant attorney. E.g., Attorney Grievance v. Khandpur,
421 Md. 1, 17, 25 A.3d 165, 175 (2011). Bar Counsel recommends an indefinite suspension
with the right to reapply in 180 days, directing our attention to Attorney Grievance v. Kimmel
and Silverman, 405 Md. 647, 955 A.2d 269 (2008) and Attorney Grievance v. Brennan, 350
Md. 489, 714 A.2d 157 (1998). In Kimmel and Silverman, we disciplined two attorneys for
violating Rules 5.1 and 1.4, noting that the attorneys had failed to supervise attorneys within
their own firm, by imposing an indefinite suspension with the right to reapply in 90 days. In
Brennan, we imposed a 90 day suspension for an attorney who had violated Rules 1.3, 1.4,
5.4, 5.5, 8.1, and 8.4 by sharing fees with an attorney who was suspended and misleading his
41