44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

I have no quarrel with the judgment rendered by the Court. I do differ, however, with
the Court’s ruling on one of the exceptions, which does not affect the disposition of the case.
Many homeowners caught up in the recent foreclosure crisis have sought assistance
in negotiating a modification of their mortgage to avoid foreclosure for the ultimate benefit
of both the homeowner and the lender. Attorneys may provide such assistance. Examples
can be found in the Foreclosure Prevention Project endorsed by this Court, which provides
instruction to attorneys in loan modification, among other things. See
http://probonomd.org/about-us/104-foreclosure-prevention-pro-bono-project. But attorneys
are not the exclusive providers of such assistance. 1
Many homeowners who could benefit from such assistance cannot afford to pay the
typical fees charged by attorneys but also do not qualify for free legal services; not all can
be accommodated by the Foreclosure Prevention Project. According to the findings of the
hearing judge, Mr. Chapman was apparently trying to develop a practice that would meet this
need in a way that he apparently believed would comply with the relevant law. Although he
was able to achieve favorable outcomes for many clients, he failed to comply with certain
provisions of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
One of the alleged violations was based on Rule 1.5(a), which concerns the
reasonableness of fees and expenses charged by an attorney. In the case of Ms. Bogarosh,
the client agreement revealed that Mr. Chapman would be retaining a consultant to assist
1 Less scrupulous providers have engaged in abuses that prompted the Legislature to
enact various protections for homeowners. See Chapters 5,6, Laws of Maryland 2008;
Chapter 509, Laws of Maryland 2005.