Md. high court indefinitely suspends Greenbelt lawyer

Maryland’s top court has indefinitely suspended a Greenbelt attorney who did not attend the trial of a client accused of causing a car crash, then lied to the client about trying to get the default judgment against him overturned, ignored discovery requests, failed to refund any of the client’s money and did not respond to bar counsel’s request for information.

In its 7-0 decision Friday, the Court of Appeals said Ferdinand Ibebuchi’s ethical violations were made more egregious in that his client was a Guatemalan immigrant with little understanding of English, making him especially dependent on counsel’s advice.

Indefinite suspension is the most severe professional sanction besides disbarment and is lifted only if an attorney convinces the Court of Appeals that he or she can practice law in conformity with the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, despite strong evidence to the contrary.

A telephone message seeking comment Monday from Ibebuchi was not immediately returned.

Bar Counsel Lydia E. Lawless, whose office sought Ibebuchi’s indefinite suspension, declined to comment on the high court’s decision.

Carlos Morales sought Ibebuchi’s representation in October 2017 after State Farm lodged a third-party complaint against Morales in a lawsuit filed against the insurance company by a client who was involved in the car crash, according to the Court of Appeals’ opinion.

State Farm sought to recoup its potential losses from Morales by having him deemed to have been at fault in the June 2015 collision in Prince George’s County.

Ibebuchi agreed to the representation through an interpreter, accepted the payment of his $1,000 up-front fee and noted his appearance with the District Court in Prince George’s County. However, he then declined to respond to State Farm’s request for Morales’ answers to the company’s pretrial questions, even after the insurance company moved for sanctions for the lack of response, the high court stated.

“As the attorney of record in Mr. Morales’ case, Mr. Ibebuchi knew or should have known that it was important to deliver answers to interrogatories as soon as possible, particularly considering the pending motion for sanctions,” Judge Brynja M. Booth wrote for the high court.

“There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Ibebuchi explained to Mr. Morales the urgency of responding to the overdue discovery requests,” Booth added. “It is counsel’s role to explain the importance of responding to discovery and the effect of a motion for sanctions to his or her client, and even more so when the client speaks no English and is unfamiliar with the legal system.”

Despite the language barrier, Morales was able to tell Ibebuchi on Nov. 28, 2017, that they were due in court the following day based on a notice Morales had received. Ibebuchi insisted they were not scheduled for court and accepted another $650 from Morales, as called for under the retainer agreement, the high court stated.

In fact, Morales and Ibebuchi were due in court Nov. 29 and their absence led to a $15,000 default judgment against Morales. As counsel of record, Ibebuchi received notice of the default judgment but did not tell Morales, who asked the unresponsive attorney in December and January when their court date would be, according to the high court.

Morales discovered the default judgment in February 2018 when the Motor Vehicle Administration notified him that his driver’s license and car registration would be suspended if he did not satisfy the judgment by March 15, 2018.

Ibebuchi assured Morales he would try to get the case reopened but the attorney “failed to file a motion for reconsideration or a motion to vacate the default judgment or take any other action in connection with the default judgment that had been entered against his client,” Booth wrote.

Ibebuchi also failed to refund any portion of the $1,650 Morales had paid him for his flawed representation, the high court stated.

Morales hired another attorney and filed a complaint against Ibebuchi with the Attorney Grievance Commission in April 2018, according to the opinion.

Bar counsel, the AGC’s chief enforcer of the ethical rules, sent letters to Ibebuchi in April, May and June seeking a response to Morales’ complaint but heard nothing until Aug. 1, when the attorney stated he was working on a response.

Having not received the promised response, bar counsel sent a fourth letter on Aug. 21, stating that the matter was being docketed for further investigation, according to the high court.

Morales responded on Oct. 5 by providing a copy of Morales’ client file but declined to file a written response to bar counsel’s other requests for information, the court stated.

In handing down an indefinite suspension, the Court of Appeals found that Ibebuchi had violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct pertaining to competence, diligence, communication, fees, fairness to opposing party and responsiveness to bar counsel.

The Court of Appeals issued its decision following factual findings made by Prince George’s County Circuit Judge Michael R. Pearson, whom the high court had assigned to hold a hearing in the disciplinary case.

The Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ferdinand Uchechukwu Ibebuchi, Misc. Docket AG No. 19, September Term 2019.