Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Anna G. Aita, Misc. Docket No. 90, September Term 2016. Opinion by Hotten, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE — SANCTIONS — DISBARMENT The Court of Appeals disbarred Respondent, Anna G. Aita, from the practice of law in Maryland. Respondent violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5, 1.15(a), (c), and (d), 1.16(d), 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d). Additionally, Respondent violated former Maryland Rules 16-604 and 16-606.1. These violations stemmed from Respondent’s representation of two former clients in immigration matters. Respondent failed to represent these clients competently and diligently, failed to communicate with them about the status of their cases, failed to appear in court with them, failed to safeguard their funds, charged the client an unreasonable fee, and failed to refund unused immigration filing fees to the client. Respondent misrepresented material facts to an immigration judge, failed to ascertain the status of the client’s case, and failed to advise clients of the status of their cases. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct. Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV-17-564 Argued: January 8, 2018 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 90 September Term, 2016 __________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. ANNA G. AITA __________________________________ Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ. __________________________________ Opinion by Hotten, J. __________________________________ Filed: March 27, 2018 On or about November 18, 2016, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”), directed that charges be filed against Anna G. Aita (“Respondent”). On February 16, 2017, Petitioner, acting through Bar Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Respondent. The misconduct stemmed from Respondent’s representation of two former clients in immigration matters. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that Respondent failed to represent these clients competently and diligently, failed to communicate with them regarding the status of their cases, failed to appear in court on their behalf, failed to safeguard their funds, charged the clients an unreasonable fee, failed to refund unused immigration filing fees to the client, misrepresented material facts to an immigration judge, failed to ascertain the status of the clients’ cases, and failed to advise the clients of the status of their cases. Based on the misconduct, Petitioner alleged violations of Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.15 (Safekeeping property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.3(a)(1) (Candor Towards the Tribunal), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). Petitioner further averred violations of former Maryland Rules 16-604 (Trust Account–Required Deposits) and 16-606.1 (Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping). 1 1 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and re-codified, without substantive change, in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules. Rules governing attorney discipline were also recodified in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules. Respondent’s misconduct occurred prior to the recodification and renaming of the relevant rules. Therefore, we refer to the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals