Attorney Grievance Commission v. Lee

Norman Lee (defendant) was licensed to practice law in Maryland. Bobby Coleman was incarcerated in a Maryland prison. On Coleman’s behalf, Coleman’s mother paid Lee a $3,500 retainer to represent Coleman in seeking postconviction relief. A month later, Lee entered an appearance in state court, identifying himself as Coleman’s attorney. Around that time, Coleman wrote Lee asking for an update and stating he was having trouble getting Lee’s phone number. Lee did not respond. Weeks later, Coleman’s mother wrote Lee, asking about a timeline and raising several legal issues, including concerns about Coleman’s trial and false statements in Coleman’s presentencing report. Lee responded two months later, stating only that he would look into the matters. Lee sent this response to Coleman and his mother. Lee did nothing else for nine months. Eventually, the Maryland bar’s Attorney Grievance Commission (commission) (plaintiff) contacted Lee. Following this contact, about 13 months after accepting the retainer, Lee visited Coleman in prison for the first time. The commission filed a petition with Maryland’s highest court, the Maryland Court of Appeals, seeking disciplinary action against Lee for violating his duty of diligence under Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 and his duty of communication under Rule 1.4. The court of appeals referred the matter to the circuit court. Lee did not respond to the commission’s petition, and the circuit court entered a default against him, deeming the allegations true. After the time had expired for Lee to move to vacate the default, Lee appeared in the case for the first time. Lee moved to vacate the default but gave no reasons. The circuit court denied the untimely, unsupported motion, noting that the evidence supported the allegations anyway. Based on the defaulted allegations, the circuit court found Lee had violated Rule 1.3’s duty of diligence. However, the circuit court held that (1) Lee’s only duty of communication was to Coleman, not his mother, and (2) the allegations did not establish a violation of Rule 1.4’s duty of communication. The commission filed exceptions with the court of appeals, challenging the finding that Lee had not violated his duty to communicate.