1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION ) Misc. AG No. 58, OF MARYLAND ) Sept. Term 2016 Petitioner ) v. ) ) Cir. Ct. Prince George’s Co. ANDREW NDUBISI UCHEOMUMU ) Case No. CAE17-07944 Respondent ) SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE MERITS Respondent, pro se, files this Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration on the Merits and respectfully states as follows: 1. On November 16, 2018, this Court entered an Opinion and Order disbarring the Respondent from the practice of law in Maryland (the “November 16 th Opinion”). 2. On December 17, 2018, the Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the Merits (the “Motion to Reconsider”) requesting that this Court reconsider certain points in the November 16th Opinion. 3. Respondent files this Supplement to provide additional information that is pertinent to the Court’s consideration of the Motion to Reconsider. 4. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1 is a Report of Telephone Contacts between the Respondent and Shannan Martin (“Martin”) between October 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015 (the “Teleconferences Summary Report”). 1 The Teleconferences 1 The Teleconferences Summary Report reflects telephone contacts between the Respondent’s cellular phone (202-351-1761) and two of Martin’s numbers (301-975-
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION ) Misc. AG No. 58,
OF MARYLAND ) Sept. Term 2016
Petitioner )
v. )
) Cir. Ct. Prince George’s Co.
ANDREW NDUBISI UCHEOMUMU ) Case No. CAE17-07944
Respondent )
SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE MERITS
Respondent, pro se, files this Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration on the
Merits and respectfully states as follows:
1. On November 16, 2018, this Court entered an Opinion and Order
disbarring the Respondent from the practice of law in Maryland (the “November 16th
Opinion”).
2. On December 17, 2018, the Respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on the Merits (the “Motion to Reconsider”) requesting that this Court
reconsider certain points in the November 16th Opinion.
3. Respondent files this Supplement to provide additional information that
is pertinent to the Court’s consideration of the Motion to Reconsider.
4. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1 is a Report of Telephone Contacts
between the Respondent and Shannan Martin (“Martin”) between October 1, 2014 and
March 31, 2015 (the “Teleconferences Summary Report”).1 The Teleconferences
1 The Teleconferences Summary Report reflects telephone contacts between the
Respondent’s cellular phone (202-351-1761) and two of Martin’s numbers (301-975-
2
Summary Report is based upon original phone records, which the Respondent
subpoenaed prior to the trial, but which he did not obtain from AT&T Mobility until
after the trial was already over. Copies of the pertinent portions of the original
records, as received from AT&T Mobility, are provided in EXHIBIT 2.2 Attached
hereto as EXHIBIT 3 is a key from AT&T Mobility explaining how to interpret the
phone records.
5. In the trial court’s opinion and subsequently in the Opinion issued by
this Court, the Court concluded that the Respondent violated Rules 3.3(a) and 8.4(c)
on the basis that he made a misrepresentation to COSA in a February 2015 Motion for
Extension of Time when he stated that one of the reasons for the delay in ordering the
transcript was his inability to obtain Martin’s file from her former counsel, Ayo
Stevens. Specifically, citing the trial court’s finding, this Court noted in relevant part:
By requesting from Martin on December 8, 2014 a payment
for the cost of obtaining transcripts, Ucheomumu indicated
that, as of that date, he was no longer waiting for Martin’s
previous counsel to provide the transcripts, and instead
planned to use a payment from Martin to order the
transcripts himself. Ucheomumu misled the Court of
Special Appeals in an attempt to explain his failure to order
the transcripts.
Slip Op. at 8 (internal brackets, ellipsis and quotation marks omitted). The problem
7004 and 301-744-7455). As of this writing, the Respondent has not had success
retrieving the original phone records for his office phone, which may reflect even
additional contacts.
2 All entries that are unrelated to contacts between the Respondent and Martin have been
redacted in Exhibit 2.
3
with the finding above is that it presumes that, after December 8, 2014, the
Respondent could no longer have been waiting on Ms. Martin’s former counsel for
anything having to do with the transcripts even though there is no evidence in the
record as to when the Respondent learned from Martin that she believed her former
counsel had the transcripts. In sum, whether the Court’s finding could be correct
depends on when Martin told the Respondent that she believed her former
counsel had the transcripts.3 If it was after December 8, 2014 that Martin told
the Respondent that her former counsel had the transcripts, then he could have
still been waiting on her former counsel’s file before ordering the transcripts, and
there is not clear and convincing evidence that his statement to COSA was an
intentional misrepresentation. Thus, additional findings are necessary by the trial
court as to when Martin told the Respondent that her former counsel had the
transcripts.
6. The phone records provide a source of evidence that should be
considered on the subject. First, the phone records establish that on December 10,
2014 at 7:14 pm ET, Martin telephoned the Respondent and a short call transpired.
3 Recall that Martin testified that she told the Respondent her former counsel had the
transcripts and that she believed he would obtain them from him. T-627:5-11 ("Yes. Mr.
Ucheomumu communicated with me, I believe, it was in a phone conversation…I do
recall mentioning to him that I believed that the transcript was ordered already by
my prior attorney") (emphasis added); T-627:21-25 (Martin testimony that she was
under the impression that the Respondent would work with Stevens to get what he had
and then order anything else); T-866:11-25 (Martin testimony that she believed the
Respondent would obtain all records related to her case, including transcripts, from
Stevens).
4
Ex. 1 at Line No. 17. If, for example, this was the call during which Martin relayed to
the Respondent for the first time that Stevens had the transcripts, then the Court’s
conclusion that the Respondent was no longer waiting on Stevens’ file after December
8, 2014 would not be correct. Second, the phone records, when viewed together with
Respondent’s Trial Exhibits 23 and 24 strongly suggest that, as of January 14-15,
2015, there was still a nexus between obtaining the file from Stevens and ordering the
transcripts.4 The timeline below depicts the key events from January 14-15, 2015
showing the nexus between obtaining Martins’ file from Stevens and the ordering of
the transcripts.5
4 Copies of Respondent’s Trial Exhibits 23 and 24 are attached hereto as EXHIBIT 4 and
EXHIBIT 5, respectively.
5 A full-sized copy of the diagram is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 6.
5
As seen on the timeline, on the afternoon of January 14, 2015, there were four
calls between Martin and the Respondent. Between the third and fourth of these calls,
at 4:41 pm, the Respondent forwarded to Martin a copy of the letter he had sent to her
former counsel Ayo Stevens on November 4, 2014 requesting her file.6 Also on the
afternoon of January 14, 2015, the Respondent had a contact with Tara Newman at the
Court Reporter’s Office of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in an attempt
to obtain the information necessary to order the transcripts anew. See Ex. 5. These
events show that as of mid-January 2015, there was clearly still a nexus between
obtaining a copy of Martin’s file from Stevens and the ordering of the transcripts.
These events, along with the portion of Martin’s testimony cited supra, clearly
corroborate the statement made by the Respondent in the Motion for Extension filed in
February 2015 that the delay in ordering the transcripts was, at least in part,
attributable to his inability to obtain Martin’s file from Stevens. At the same time, the
January 14-15, 2015 events undermine the Court’s conclusion that the Respondent
could no longer have been waiting to obtain Martin’s file from Stevens after
December 8, 2014.7
6 The Respondent believes it is highly likely that an examination of Martin’s phone
records for the afternoon of January 14, 2015 would reveal that, at some time between
3:34pm and 5:36pm, she called Stevens in an attempt to obtain the file.
7 While these events occurred after the November 30, 2014 deadline for ordering the
transcripts (as set forth by the Order to Proceed), this is of relatively little significance
because the failure to order the transcripts by the 10-day deadline is not fatal to an appeal
where, as in the case at issue, there is no prejudice to the other side. See e.g., Moshyedi v.
Council of Unit Owners of Annapolis Road Med. Ctr. Condo., 132 Md. App. 184, 190
(2000) (declining to dismiss appeal where appellant's late filing of transcripts
6
7. In sum, consideration of the phone records and the events above is
crucial because they have the strong potential to undermine the Court’s conclusions
that the Respondent violated Rules 3.3(a) and 8.4(c) by making false statements to
COSA in the Motion for Extension.
8. The phone records when considered along with Martin’s testimony and
additional findings that are necessary regarding the reasons for the selection of $3,000
as the amount of the December 10th Payment further have the strong potential to
undermine the Court’s conclusions that the Respondent made false statements to
Martin and Bar Counsel regarding the reason the appeal was dismissed. 8 Recall that
the Court’s conclusion that the Respondent had made false statements to Martin and
Bar Counsel regarding the reason for the dismissal of the appeal was based upon the
notion that Martin had paid the Respondent $3,000 on December 10, 2014 for the
specific purpose of ordering the transcripts and nothing else. This was problematic
because Martin testified that the Respondent never specifically requested money for
causes no prejudice). In Martin’s case, the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s
County did not even transmit the record until January 28, 2015. See Pet. Tr. Ex. 11. Had
the transcripts been obtained prior to the time the record was transmitted, there clearly
would not have been a problem.
8 Recall that Martin testified the Respondent never requested money for the transcript,
and that all her payments to the Respondent, including the December 10, 2014 payment,
were for his legal services to write the appeal. See T-671:24 - 672:1 (“Q. Did Mr.
Ucheomumu ever ask you to, quote, deposit money to order the transcripts? A. No,
he did not.”) (emphasis added); T-676:25 - 677:5 (Martin testimony that she had
understood all the monies paid were for the Respondent’s legal services to write the
appeal). Also, very importantly, Martin never testified that the December 10th Payment
was to be specifically allocated for the transcripts as the Court found.
7
the transcripts and never gave her any amount to pay. She further testified that under
the retainer agreement, as of December 10, 2014, she owed the Respondent $3,300 for
his legal services. Thus, the key question that follows is, why did Martin choose the
amount of $3,000 to pay on December 10, 2014?9 If the answer is that it was based
upon the amount she owed him under the engagement agreement as of that date, it
would be more evidence that the parties intended the December 10th Payment to be
allocated to payment of the legal services and not the transcripts, thereby further
corroborating the statements that the Respondent later made to Martin and Bar
Counsel that all of the monies paid had been for legal services and that she had never
specifically paid him for the transcripts.
9. Very simply, as in In re Nave, 2018 D.C. App. LEXIS 469 (Nov. 29,
2018) and Matter of Luciano, 227 N.J. 157 (2016), both of which were cited by the
9 Recall that the Respondent was not charged with misconduct on the basis that he
requested money from Martin to pay for the transcripts and that she paid him for the
transcripts. As such, he never had an opportunity to defend any charges for which the
“character of the offense” included these alleged facts. See Resp. Oct. 2nd Reply at 12-16.
Rather, Respondent was charged with misconduct on the basis that he never requested
money from Martin to order the transcripts. See Resp. Tr. Ex. 37 at 8 (Ans. to Int. No.
15) (Petitioner answered, “Respondent never communicated with Ms. Martin about
ordering the transcripts or requested from her funds so that he could obtain the
transcripts”) (emphasis added). It is because the Petitioner constructively amended the
charges after the trial was over and the evidence was already in that the Respondent never
had a chance to inquire of Martin about such key facts as – what was the basis for
selecting $3,000 as the amount of the December 10th Payment? It is also for this reason
that it was a violation of the Respondent’s due process rights to find violations of any
MLRPC on the basis of the December 8th Text Message and the December 10th Payment.
See Resp. Oct. 2nd Reply at 12-16. In the Opinion, the Court overlooked the
Respondent’s points and arguments regarding this issue entirely.
List of Exhibits to
Supplement to Respondent’s
Motion for Reconsideration on the Merits
Exhibit No. Description
1 Report of Telephone Contacts between Respondent and Martin
(10/01/2014 – 3/30/2015)
2 Excerpted Pages from AT&T Mobility Phone Records for
202-351-1761
3 AT&T Records Key
4
Email fr. Respondent to Shannan Martin, dated Jan. 14, 2015 at
4:41pm, attaching Nov. 4, 2014 Letter to Stevens (Resp. Trial Ex.
"Handling and litigating a range oflegal matters, tenaciously and zenlously."
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This comm•Jnication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact me by reply email and delete all copies of this message. To contact me directly, send an email to: [email protected]
From: S Martin <[email protected]> Date: Friday, January 9, 2015 at 5:58PM To: Andrew Ucheomumu <[email protected]> r .. l..t-_.. • .,. ..... ,_ ___ ........... •- •k ..... ----... :-- --........:-4"10-, -- .... :1,.
Page 1of2
.;tUUJ.:\.1.; I t:)IJUll)t:) 1.U LI rt: UIJIJU:>111~ IJdl ut:::. £ t:11 ldll)
Andrew,
0 Ways to spend more time with the kids:
1. Bring the twins back in Tuesday, instead of Monday. 2. Sit and do homework with the twins at lest 3 days a week. (Pick them up from day care and drop them off at 7pm) 3. Drop them off to go to church with me on Sundays. 4. 1 day per week to go to dinner with them and drop them back off home. 5. Enroll them into an extra curricular activity that meets once a week that they can participate.
0
0
Page 2of 2
THE UCHEOMUMU
-LAW G~OUP LLC
November 4, 2014
Mr. Ayo M. Stevens, Esq.
Reply to: 4938 Hampden Lane, #133, Bethesda, MD 20814
LAW OFFICES OF A YO M. STEVENS,_LLC. 5407 Waters~ #105 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
Re: Mc~RIDE v. MARTIN, CAP 09~19
Dear Mr. Stevens:
This offi£:_e has beea 1!.,taj_n~ ~Y ~ s.: S~ ~ ll!jin to _handl_e he~ appe~tQn this matter. IJl!SO noticed ~that you fil~-a.mo~on U>.withJtra.w I?uH..,~d ~9.l see where it was ~ted or denied by the Circuit Court; thus I was not sure if-you·are still on1he case. Ne-vertheless, our rela~onship with Ms. Martin at this point is limited .. - l": ~ - _,. _,.., .. to handlihg,the apP,Cal,;onjy. . . • . 'f J - ~
Hence, ,I ~ ll liighlr a~ iaie it-it ~ou wiU be kind <;:nough to ~ d me a copy of~ c~ient's.file as~ as possible;;;tiffl.e,beiIJi of~ ·esse€ce· ~ you· CoJristl-f~r Y,Qur wun~~·~ntion top.is matter. ff you have anfij\1eition. pleaseJ'eelTteo _t!) CQ!l~ me. "" i 4
Per our conversation yesterday afternoon, please find attached information regarding "Hunt Reporting" transcription company. Below are hearing times needed when contacting them to receive their cost estimate.
CAP09-00919 McBride vs. Martin Judge Woodard Hearing Date: 02/12/14 Tape# CS-02019 Times: 9:27 to 4:37
Court Reporter's Administrative Office Circuit Court for Prince George's County Courthouse, Room D3002 14735 Main Street Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 301-952-3461 (phone) 301-952-2984 (fax)
"circuit Court For Prince George's County Welcomes All- A Fair Forum For Justice"
Page 1 of 1
0
0
0
FACSIMILE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF MARYLAND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COURT REPORTERS I 301-952-3461 301-952-2984 (i) [email protected]
AUDIOTAPE/VIDEOTAPE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE
AFTER PLACEMENT OF YOUR ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPTION OF ANY
AUDIOTAPE/VIDEOTAPE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COURT REPORTERS, CONTACT
THE BELOW TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE. THE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE WILL
CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE COURT REPORTERS FOR THE UPLOAD ONCE ALL
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN YOU AND THE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE