Unlicensed Lawyer Breached Almost Every Rule of Professional Conduct

By Barry Zalma on April 9, 2021

Attorney Who Mishandled Insurance Claim while Unlicensed was Disbarred

Celio Warren Young violated Maryland’s Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.15, 1.16, 5.5, 7.3, 8.1, and 8.4. These violations principally arose from Respondent’s unauthorized practice of law in Maryland without a license; intentional misrepresentations to his client about the status of his case; failure to properly maintain client funds in an attorney trust account; failure to advise his client to seek independent advice before settling a legal malpractice claim against him; failure to use funds to negotiate lower medical expenses for his client as agreed upon in a settlement agreement; and failure to respond to numerous requests for information from Bar Counsel. In Attorney Grievance Commission Of Maryland v. Celio Warren Young, Misc. Docket AG No. 23, Court Of Appeals Of Maryland (March 31, 2021) a Maryland Court Explained why it had no choice but to disbar Young.

FACTS

Celio Warren Young, an attorney working in the District but not licensed in Maryland faced discipline by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding that he was not then, nor is now, licensed to practice law in this state, Mr. Young solicited and undertook representation of Mr. Joseph E. O’Pharrow, III, in a personal injury action and related matters arising from an automobile accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland, in which Mr. O’Pharrow was seriously injured. The representation spanned several years. Eventually, Mr. O’Pharrow filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission.

Based on the record the Court of Appeals concluded that Young committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Young was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar on December 6, 1989. He is not, and has never been, a member of the Maryland Bar. At all times relevant to this attorney grievance matter, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in the District of Columbia.

The violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct with which Respondent was charged originate from his representation of Joseph E. O’Pharrow, III, a Maryland resident. On April 29, 2014, Mr. O’Pharrow was seriously injured in an automobile accident in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Mr. O’Pharrow was determined not to be at fault in the accident.

Mr. O’Pharrow suffered extensive injuries resulting from the accident, requiring that he undergo several surgeries. His medical expenses exceeded $100,000. Mr. O’Pharrow spent some time recuperating in the hospital. During that time, his parents, Joseph and Earnestine O’Pharrow (“the O’Pharrows”), stayed with him at the hospital as needed.

Mr. O’Pharrow’s mother retained Respondent on behalf of her son to represent him on a contingency fee basis. The hearing judge found that Respondent intentionally misled Mr. O’Pharrow to believe that Respondent was licensed to practice law in Maryland when he was not.

In the summer of 2014, Respondent, evidently with the agreement of at least the O’Pharrows, if not also their son, filed a claim with Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), the insurance carrier of the driver who was determined to be at-fault in the automobile accident. In or about August 2014, the O’Pharrows accepted the GEICO policy limit of $30,000 as a settlement on behalf of Mr. O’Pharrow. Respondent received the $30,000 settlement check from GEICO in August 2014 but did not deposit and maintain the settlement funds in an attorney trust account. Of the $30,000, Respondent retained $6,400 for his attorney fees and remitted $23,600 to Mr. O’Pharrow.

Also in the summer of 2014, Respondent filed an underinsured motorist claim with Mr. O’Pharrow’s insurance carrier, Erie Insurance Company (“Erie”). In that filing, Respondent failed to provide to Erie the requisite written notice and a copy of GEICO’s prior settlement offer. As a result, Erie denied Mr. O’Pharrow’s underinsured motorist claim. The hearing judge found that Erie’s denial of the claim was the “result of [Respondent’s] legal malpractice.”

In May 2016, Respondent offered to settle a malpractice claim that, at the time of the offer, Mr. O’Pharrow either was contemplating filing or had filed. As part of the Settlement Agreement, Respondent agreed to execute a confessed judgment promissory note for the entire settlement amount, to be reduced by any of his payments.

DISCUSSION

On September 8, 2020, the hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.8(a) and (h), 1.15(a), 1.16(a), 5.5(a) and (b), 7.3(a), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d).

Among other violations found by the hearing judge Respondent failed to advance Mr. O’Pharrow’s cause by doing almost nothing in connection with the personal injury matter beyond obtaining a $30,000 settlement with GEICO, the at-fault driver’s insurer. Respondent did not investigate the assets of the at-fault driver, nor did he determine the scope of Mr. O’Pharrow’s underinsured motorist coverage. When Erie denied Mr. O’Pharrow’s claim—the result of Respondent’s failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Ins. Art. § 19-511—Respondent failed to notify Mr. O’Pharrow in a timely manner that the Erie claim had been denied. He further misled Mr. O’Pharrow to believe that Erie’s adverse determination was not final.

Respondent, not a member of the Maryland bar, solicited the O’Pharrows to represent their son in his personal injury matter in Maryland. Before and during his representation of Mr. O’Pharrow, Respondent knowingly and intentionally misled Mr. O’Pharrow to believe Respondent was authorized to practice law in Maryland.

Respondent knew of Erie’s denial of the underinsured motorist claim but concealed that material fact from Mr. O’Pharrow for about nine months. Then, when finally he told Mr. O’Pharrow about the denial of the claim, Respondent intentionally misrepresented to his client that the decision was not final.

THE SANCTION

In setting a sanction the Supreme Court recognized that the purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, not punish the attorney. In determining the appropriate sanction, we also weigh the attorney’s misconduct against any existing mitigating and aggravating factors.

Respondent demonstrated a dishonest and selfish motive; he engaged in a pattern of misconduct; he committed multiple rule violations; he demonstrated bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings; he had substantial experience in the practice of law; and he showed indifference to making restitution. Based on the established facts set forth in the record, the Supreme Court concluded that all of Bar Counsel’s proposed aggravating factors are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Respondent intentionally misrepresented to Mr. O’Pharrow that he had a license to practice law in Maryland. Further, he showed a lack of the basic attorney skills of competence, diligence, and communication while representing his client: he did not hold settlement funds in an attorney trust account; he concealed the denial of the Erie claim from Mr. O’Pharrow for approximately nine months and lied about its status; and he did not advise Mr. O’Pharrow to secure independent legal advice before entering into a settlement agreement on the legal malpractice claim, all while practicing law in Maryland without a license.

Respondent’s misconduct necessitated that he be disbarred. Respondent violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court of Appeals did not overlook that the misconduct in this case stems from the representation of one client. It did not ignore that Respondent has been practicing law for more than 31 years, albeit not always lawfully, as this matter demonstrates.

Respondent claimed, but did not establish that the illness and stress stemming from the surgery he underwent in 2018 and the death of his mother in 2017, which he raised for the first time in his late-filed “Show Cause Order Response” to this Court, constitute mitigation or contributed to his misconduct towards Mr. O’Pharrow, the majority of which occurred before 2016. Disbarment was ordered as the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct.

ZALMA OPINION

It takes a great deal of wrong doing to be disbarred by a state where the lawyer is not licensed to practice law. Hopefully, the bar in the District of Columbia will take notice and disbar him from practicing law there since his actions in mishandling simple tort claims and a simple, easy to prove, underinsured motorist claim requires that government of all jurisdictions to protect the public from a dishonest lawyer who violated almost every possible rule of professional conduct.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost

equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com.

Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award.

Over the last 53 years Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to make it possible for insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims professionals.

Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/posts; and the last two issues of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/