TonyeBarcanista:
This guy is a bastard. did he say 40% or 4%? It is better for the money to idle away than to give in to the legal thief.


Money wey Abacha "suffer" thief Na this man wan take 40%. Ole

ISpiksDaTroof:
Ok, so something is definitely wrong here. This man was decertified and disbarred as a Lawyer years ago, so how was he representing Nigeria in court?



Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. 03-C-09-000726 OC

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Misc. Docket AG No. 52 September Term, 2008

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v. GODSON M. NNAKA

Bell, C.J., Harrell Battaglia Greene *Murphy Adkins Barbera,

JJ.

Per Curiam

Filed: August 21, 2012

*Murphy, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court, but did not participate in the
decision or adoption of this opinion.

Petitioner Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“AGC”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Respondent Godson M. Nnaka. Bar Counsel charged Nnaka with violating the Maryland Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) in his capacity as representative of two couples, the Dowuonas and the Shupes, in two matters. Specifically, Bar Counsel alleged that Nnaka violated the following rules: (1) Rule 1.1 (Competence);1 (2) Rule 1.3 (Diligence);2 (3) Rule 1.4 (Communication);3 (4) Rule 8.1 (Bar

Admission and Disciplinary

1Rule 1.1 provides:

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

2Rule 1.3 provides:

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

3Rule 1.4 provides:

(a) A lawyer shall:

(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(f), is

required by these Rules;

(2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;

(3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and

(4) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not
permitted by the Maryland Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Matters);4 and (5) Rule 8.4(c)–(d) (Misconduct).5

Following a hearing before the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Judge Robert N.Dugan issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which he found by clear and convincing evidence that Nnaka violated MLRPC Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

Findings of Fact

The AGC’s investigation of Nnaka was triggered by the complaint of Fred and Elizabeth Dowuona and the complaint of Jerry and Jacqueline Shupe.

After the hearing, Judge Dugan made a number of findings of fact, by clear and convincing evidence, which we summarize as follows:
Nnaka was originally admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1995. He was decertified in

4Rule 8.1 provides:

An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not:

(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or (b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

5Rule 8.4 provides, in relevant part:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
***
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.]
2
2009 for nonpayment of his assessment to the Client Protection Fund.

In November 2006, Fred and Elizabeth Dowuona retained Respondent to handle claims arising from a March 2006 automobile accident involving

Mrs. Dowuona. Respondent prepared a retainer agreement, signed by both parties, under which he was paid $5000, in two installments, in

November 2006 and January 2007. After the agreement was executed, Respondent traveled to Nigeria, his home country, for an extended period without informing the Dowuonas.

The Dowuonas were unable to communicate with Respondent, despite making several attempts to contact him about their case between December 2006 and the beginning of 2007. Furthermore, Respondent did not notify the Dowuonas when he relocated his office within Baltimore in the summer of 2007. The Dowuonas did not hear from Respondent until June 2007, when he called from Nigeria and left them a telephone message saying that the Dowuonas had four years to settle any matters arising from the accident.

On November 8, 2007, Respondent met with the Dowuonas, who requested that Respondent provide them with documents relating to any work Respondent had performed. He was unable to do so. Respondent instead demanded an additional $15,000 to continue his representation. After the Dowuonas declined, Respondent did not return their documents so that the Dowuonas could retain new counsel.

The next day, Respondent wrote the Dowuonas and said that he did not believe they had a cause of action stemming from the March 2006 accident, and that he would not be providing any additional legal representation. Respondent also provided an invoice accounting for the $5000 fee and detailing services rendered from July 2006 to November 3 2007. The time billed “appears suspect,” but Bar Counsel did not pursue the issues of theft or misappropriation of funds.

A letter from Respondent to Bar Counsel in the Dowuonas’ case asserted that Respondent agreed only to review the case and determine if there was a basis for a lawsuit. The Dowuonas disputed this, claiming that Respondent was hired to represent them and that the retainer was also to be used to hire an accident reconstruction expert. The Dowuonas did not testify or submit affidavits to this effect, however, and the Court was unable to judge their credibility. Based on the evidence submitted at the hearing, it is unclear whether Respondent was hired merely to investigate or to also provide further legal services. The Court did not make a specific finding of fact on this issue.

Respondent was also retained by Jacqueline and Jerry Shupe in February 2004, to represent them in claims arising from dental work performed by Vivencio R. Reyes in February 2003. Mrs. Shupe alleged medical malpractice against Reyes, and Mr. Shupe sought a loss of consortium claim. In June 2005, the Shupes paid Respondent an initial retainer of $3000.

Shortly before the statute of limitations was to run, on February 10, 2006, Respondent filed a complaint against Reyes on behalf of the Shupes in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. In the complaint, Respondent attached a document captioned “Certificate of Merit and Report of Expert Witness,” signed by Richard M. Rosenthal, D.M.D. The Certificate failed to comply with the statutory requirement that a report of the expert be attached. On July 16, 2006, Respondent served a designation of experts upon the defendant, in which he identified Rosenthal as the plaintiffs’ expert, but he again did not provide an expert report.

4

While the Shupes’ case was pending, Respondent did not cooperate with discovery, causing defense counsel to file a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel discovery. The motion was granted on January 24, 2007, and the Shupes had to comply with all outstanding discovery requests or suffer a dismissal of their case. Respondent failed to comply with the court’s order, and he did not advise his clients about the failure to file the expert report, the motion to compel, or any of the outstanding discovery in their case. Instead, in November 2006, Respondent left the United States for Nigeria, apparently to run for president of Nigeria. While Respondent was out of the country in December 2006, defense counsel filed a motion to strike plaintiffs’ certificate of qualified expert and to dismiss for failure to comply with the corresponding statutes. Respondent did not advise the Shupes of his absence from the country or of the motions to strike and dismiss.

During December 2006, Respondent shared office space and an assistant, Angela Gathogo, with another Maryland attorney, Theo I. Oguine. While Respondent was out of the country, Gathogo informed Oguine of the motions to strike and dismiss. Oguine thus filed a motion for extension of time to respond to those motions, in an effort to buy Respondent some time to return to the United States. Oguine did not seek compensation from the Shupes for his efforts, and the Shupes knew neither that Oguine had filed the motion on their behalf nor that Respondent was still out of the country.

modsfucker:
40% chaiiii what's the difference between you and the looter?

ISpiksDaTroof:


Are you a legal practitioner ? How and when the hell did 40% become the "standard fee" to an attorney ? Personal Injury cases, like you rightly said, are mostly litigated by Ambulance Chasers (the equivalent of your "charge &bail lawyers--- I think theyre called) and they usually deal with the down trodden, poor and uneducated; this is not the case here.

A hole need not be found. This man is a known crook, and if the contract (as I assume) was drawn with deceit as its intention, the fine prints don't matter. No way in hell is this crook that calls himself a Lawyer is getting that much as a fee. In fact, I think whoever Nigeria hires to to defend their position in court should not stop at just battering him in court, they should also report him to the disciplinary board.

I despise selfish people.

ghostmist:
I think you're the bastard here...those Nigerian legal aids trying to one-up him are also bastards ...its like this your Igbo hatred ish don wake up again as usual.

This is a purely business transaction. without his help the government won't be getting any money in the first place.

And coupled with the Nigerian thieves trying to shortchange him right in the middle of the deal...?

why would the Nigerian government refuse to honour the agreement? if na oyibo now dem go rush pay d money sharp sharp... but since he's a Nigerian and also from that side they all love to hate, they think they can cheat him out of his right and get away with it.

Mehn, if it were me, I'd be asking for 60%

Wadafvck!!

wheredemdey:


Yes..... I am among the 5% and trust me, I careless.... After all the money will surely be relooted by Nigerian govt officials.... The same govt officials that looted bailout funds.... See this country is a mess... A worker deserves his wage and the lawyer deserves his wage.. After all he was the one that discovered the funds... Traced and recovered it..... Yet you are here yarning dust.

May someone take away your sweat and hardwork at the verge of your glory.... Amen....

Azu Amu like you

Victorvexz:
The majority of people supporting this man here are his fellow igbos and Ipob youths. As far as any news is against Nigeria, they will support it, they don't care if it affects Them, they just want Nigeria to collapse. But they will be first to open their dirty mouths to complain about the economy. As for me, I prefer the government should just leave the money there till the man get old and die, then we choose a better lawyer to bring back the money, after all, it's not only in the U.S Abacha stores some money, we should just collect the ones from other countries, simple

modsfucker:
40% chaiiii what's the difference between you and the looter?

agabusta:


Who cares if you are among the irrelevant 5%??

May all your negative wishes for others return to you 10 folds.

The case is already before a competent court, why are you turning yourself to the judge, pronouncing who is right and who isn't?

Your resort to abuses shows how shallow and silly you are. Before the very eyes of you hateful lots, Nigeria will progress.

agabusta:


Who cares if you are among the irrelevant 5%??

May all your negative wishes for others return to you 10 folds.

The case is already before a competent court, why are you turning yourself to the judge, pronouncing who is right and who isn't?

Your resort to abuses shows how shallow and silly you are. Before the very eyes of you hateful lots, Nigeria will progress.

AreaFada2:


Maybe they think it's "charge and bail" kekerebo lawyers wey full 9ja.

Things have going rates in organised places. The FG should have done their research through the embassy beforehand.

wheredemdey:
Chaiii

See money oooo

I trust this igbo man... Nigeria must pay him for his services.... After all the dull man is being paid for being dull... Same with his senile myriad of incompetent ministers.

Show no mercy to the Nigerian govt... Thank goodness the case is in America where things work... I prefer the American government takes the entire money than for the sillllly mundane overtly incompetent Nigerian govt headed by the mega inborn factory fitted colossal dull man to deny this igboman of his rightful 40%

subzidi:

And you have no opinion on your theifing attorney general requesting for your bribe? And you have speedily forgotten saint Buhari said Abacha did not steal? Hypocrisy and hate of a tribe at its peak!!! Igbo say they want a country of their own una say no! Yet you hate them so much? So what do people like you want?

modsfucker:
40% chaiiii what's the difference between you and the looter?

Victorvexz:

I can feel how happy u are about this news, and my question to u is, what will u benefit from supporting every news as far as it is against Nigeria? U say u want ur country, but u refuse to leave other cities in Nigeria to ur landlocked south east to prove to us that u people are not playing anymore, that u re serious, until u that, we can take u serious and consider giving u freedom. U will never have ur country and still remain in Nigeria and still enjoying every right as other Nigerians. U will never eat ur cake and have. It does not happen. Leave Nigerian territory in ur millions to the south east, the we grant u freedom, until then, stop spitting all over this thread

TonyeBarcanista:
This guy is a bastard. did he say 40% or 4%? It is better for the money to idle away than to give in to the legal thief.


Money wey Abacha "suffer" thief Na this man wan take 40%. Ole

agabusta:



Take it easy oh, hate is making you lose your sense of good reasoning. So you prefer the American govt to confiscate money belonging to Nigeria in such a time where the country needs all the foreign exchange they can lay their hand on?

Where is your sense of patriotism. It's your kind that will still go about screaming that things are hard, whereas it's your wish day and night for the govt to fail.

And when American govt confiscate the money, will your Igboman get a dime?

Smh, indeed, it is the one that hates that suffers eventually.

Victorvexz:

Shut up, Ipob youth, anything against Nigeria u will support. Where the hell in this world do they may such amount of money. That is almost half of the loot. I think there is a mistake somewhere either from the FG or from the lawyer, because I believe the FG I know will never sign a document to give a lawyer almost half of that money just to extradite the looted fund.

PassingShot:
So this guy is basically asking to be paid $220 million!

No wonder we are where we are. This man is just too greedy, unpatriotic and unreasonable.

And I read that Malami is equally asking to be paid (though he denied the allegation but ....). If true, when will all this nonsense stop?

nduchucks:
40% fee is standard in the US for recovery from insurance companies and in personal injury cases. Many lawyers in the US have become ambulance chasers because of the said 40% fee.

This lawyer may have conned Nigerian officials into signing a contract which favors the lawyer. The Nigerian government needs to hire very high powered attorneys to find a hole in the contract. Holes can always be found.

modsfucker:
40% chaiiii what's the difference between you and the looter?

bingocalous:
In my opinion?, I think does at the helm of afairs of this country as at then made it 40% cause of their personal grativication, they though the money will be realeased before the expiration of their tenure then the original indoor and ofcourse unofficial agreement will be brought to the table, No reasonable government or sane/literate person will sign such an agreement..
More reason why Buhari government must not use all the power at his disposal to fight the previous government cause there's still a lot to uncover and without them they can't accomplish that...
Government should invite those in government who handled the case as at then to ascertain what trully went wrong, No way for them not to have thier own cut from such a huge money and to the said lawyer, someone should please tell him that #Changebeginwithus.... Proudly Nigeria!!