44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

with the loan modification efforts, and that a portion of the client’s payment would be used
to pay that expense. And it was undisputed that loan modification efforts were actually
undertaken on behalf of Ms. Bogarosh, although they proved unsuccessful, in part due to
miscommunication. The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Chapman did not violate Rule
1.5(a) because “[t]he fees charged are not unreasonable, based upon the nature of the work
that was anticipated at the time the fee was set. Similarly, they were not unreasonable in
light of the efforts undertaken ...” Although this was one of the hearing judge’s conclusions
of law, it was very much bound up in the particular facts of the case. In this context, I would
defer to the judgment of the hearing judge and overrule the exception.
2