Maryland Legal Ethics

I. CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP

1.1 Rule 1.1 Competence

1.1:100 Comparative Analysis of Maryland Rule

¥ Primary Maryland References: MD Rule 1.1
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.1, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary:

1.1:101 Model Rule Comparison

Maryland Rule 1.1 is substantively identical to MR 1.1. The comments accompanying Maryland Rule 1.1 and MR 1.1 are also identical.

1.1:102 Model Code Comparison

Maryland Rule 1.1 is substantially similar to DR 6-101(A), except that the Code expressly permits a non-competent lawyer to "associate himself with a lawyer who is competent to handle [the matter]."

DR 6-101(A)(2) requires "preparation adequate in the circumstances"; Maryland Rule 1.1 more fully particularizes the elements of competence.

1.1:200 Disciplinary Standard of Competence

¥ Primary Maryland References: MD Rule 1.1
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.1, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 31:201, ALI-LGL ¤ 28, Wolfram ¤ 5.1

Representation that is careless, indifferent and fails to fulfill the necessities and objectives of a client is a breach of the standard of competency outlined in Maryland Rule 1.1. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kemp, 335 Md. 1, 17 (1994). Accordingly, whether an attorney competently represents a client is decided based on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. Id. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Brown, 308 Md. 219, 232 (1986) (holding that seven errors or omissions in handling a particular matter, when taken together, illustrate "collective incompetence").

In some cases, Maryland Rule 1.1 may not be violated where the allegation of incompetence stems from an attorney's use of alcohol and controlled dangerous substances, rather than misconduct in a particular case. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Keister, 327 Md. 56, 59 (1992). In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kenney, 339 Md. 578, 594 (1995), however, the Court of Appeals held that, where an attorney's misconduct would ordinarily lead to disbarment, alcoholism, absent compelling circumstances, would not prevent finding of a violation or disbarment. See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sachse, 345 Md. 578 (1997); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Williams, 335 Md. 458 (1994), and Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. White, 328 Md. 412 (1992).

In Kemp, 335 Md. at 17, the Court of Appeals held that the attorney's behavior in failing to file a military affidavit or to comply with the rules in a default judgment proceeding, was not incompetent under Rule 1.1, but did raise questions of the attorney's skill, knowledge, thoroughness and preparation. Respondent had been retained to obtain an order of default. Kemp, 335 Md. at 2. Yet, he failed to take some of the basic steps necessary to obtain an order of default. During the course of his representation, the attorney failed to file a military affidavit, include within the body of the order the name of one of the parties, and include within the order the address of another party in the default. Id. at 9. Despite these failures, the Court of Appeals held that, at worst, the attorney's behavior was indicative of carelessness or negligence, id. at 17, which the Court refused to treat as a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

1.1:300 Malpractice Liability

¥ Primary Maryland References: MD Rule 1.1
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.1, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 301:101, ALI-LGL ¤ 71-76 , Wolfram ¤ 5.6