BATTAGLIA, J.

Sheron A. Barton, Respondent, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 17, 2002. On February 25, 2013, May 1, 2013 and October 23, 2013, the Attorney Grievance Commission, ("Petitioner" or "Bar Counsel"), acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751(a),1 filed three separate Petitions for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent related to her role as the supervising attorney of the Cardinal Law Firm, located in Camp Springs, Maryland.

In its initial petition, filed on February 25, 2013, in which Winifred Winston, Brent Ellis, Howard and Avon Chapman ("the Chapmans"), and Joseph and Ernestine Johnson ("the Johnsons") were complainants, collectively identified as the "Complaint of Bar Counsel," as well as Rosemary Tyner and Teresa Barnes, Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated the following Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct ("Rule"): 1.1 (Competence),2 1.3 (Diligence),3 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication),4 1.5(a) (Fees),5 1.15(a) and (b) (Safekeeping Property),6 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation),7 5.1(a), (b) and (c) (Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers),8 5.3(a), (b) and (c) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants),9 5.4(a) and (b) (Professional Independence of a Lawyer),10 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law),11 and 8.4(c) and (d) (Misconduct).12

In a second petition, filed on May 1, 2013, the complainants were Arnell Simmons, Gwendelyn Rhett and Winifred Winston, clients of the Cardinal Law Firm, and Respondent was charged with violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 5.3(a), (b) and (c) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law), and 8.4(d) (Misconduct). The Commission also charged Respondent with a violation of Rule 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation) with respect to Ms. Winston's complaint.

In a third petition, filed on October 23, 2013, the complainants were Alma Miljkovic and Christine Gray-Knight, clients of the Cardinal Law Firm, and Respondent was charged with violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.15(a) (Safekeeping Property), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 5.3(a), (b) and (c) (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law), and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct).13 The Commission also charged Respondent with a violation of Rule 1.5(a) (Fees) with respect to Ms. Miljkovic's complaint.

By Order, we referred the initial petition to Judge Marielsa A. Bernard of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a hearing, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-757.14 Respondent was personally served with the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and the Writ of Summons, to which she filed a timely response.

By Order, we referred the second petition to Judge David A. Boynton of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a hearing, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-757. Respondent was again personally served with the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, our Order, and the Writ of Summons, to which Respondent filed a timely response. We issued an Order consolidating the first two petitions and transferred the second petition from Judge Boynton to Judge Bernard.

By Order, we referred the third petition to Judge Bernard for a hearing, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-757. Respondent was served through counsel with the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, our Order and the Writ of Summons. Respondent filed a Motion to Extend Time and Consolidate Disciplinary Petitions. We issued an Order consolidating the third petition with the two other previously consolidated petitions.

Respondent was served through counsel with Interrogatories, a Request for Production of Documents and a Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, to which no response was forthcoming. Bar Counsel then filed an Emergency Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Maryland Rules 2-432 and 2-433, to which no answer was filed. On the Friday prior to the January 27, 2014 hearing date on the Consolidated Petition, Respondent responded to the discovery requests, albeit over two weeks out of time. On the hearing date, prior to taking evidence, after arguments of counsel, Judge Bernard granted Bar Counsel's motion and determined that:

During the evidentiary hearings, Bar Counsel presented testimony from Gwendelyn Rhett, Teresa Barnes, Arnell Simmons and Winifred Winston, all of whom had been complainants included in the first and second petitions, as well as relied on the deemed admissions. Bar Counsel introduced various documents, which were admitted into evidence, including a Post-Trial Memorandum from the United States Trustee for Region 4 ("Trustee Memo"), as well as a Memorandum of Decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland ("Bankruptcy Court Memo") to which was appended an Order directing Respondent to refund fees in the Winston case. Bar Counsel also introduced emails and letters between Respondent and Ms. Rhett, as well as the complaints to Bar Counsel from Ms. Rhett, Ms. Barnes, Ms. Simmons and Ms. Winston, and Barton's response to Bar Counsel about each complaint, which were admitted into evidence. Finally, a letter from Barton to Richard Tolbert, the former office manager of the Cardinal Law Firm, as well as an email exchange between the two, were admitted into evidence.

Barton testified on her own behalf; she was precluded from calling Leon Sutton, an individual who had served as a paralegal at her Washington D.C. office, as a witness, because of her failure to respond to the Request for Admissions. Respondent did introduce various documents, which were admitted into evidence, including correspondence between Respondent and M & T Bank, a case list from the Cardinal Law Firm, two emails between Barton and Mr. Tolbert, an email from Barton to a document courier service, the federal Form 1099 for each of her employees from 2011, an application for statement of charges and a civil complaint filed by Barton against Mr. Tolbert, which were filed in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County and the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, respectively, as well as a case information document showing pending criminal charges against Mr. Tolbert.15

Judge Bernard issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in which she ultimately determined that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 5.3(a), (b) and (c), 5.4(a) and (b), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), (c) and (d).

Judge Bernard's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law state:16

With respect to the specific allegations of Ms. Winston, the hearing judge found:

With respect to the complaints of Brent Ellis, the Chapmans and the Johnsons, the hearing judge found:

With respect to the complaint of Ms. Tyner, the hearing judge found:

With respect to the complaint of Ms. Barnes, the hearing judge found:

With respect to the complaint of Ms. Simmons, Judge Bernard found:

With respect to the complaint of Ms. Rhett, the hearing judge found:

With respect to the complaint of Ms. Miljkovic, the hearing judge found:

With respect to the complaint of Ms. Gray-Knight, Judge Bernard found:

Judge Bernard then proceeded to her Conclusions of Law:

Judge Bernard also concluded as to the mitigating factors:

"This Court has original and complete jurisdiction over attorney discipline proceedings in Maryland." Attorney Grievance v. O'Leary, 433 Md. 2, 28, 69 A.3d 1121, 1136 (2013), quoting Attorney Grievance v. Chapman, 430 Md. 238, 273, 60 A.3d 25, 46 (2013). We conduct an independent review of the record and we accept the hearing judge's findings of fact unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Attorney Grievance v. Law, 418 Md. 355, 14 A.3d 650 (2011). "Under our independent review of the record, we must determine whether the findings of the hearing judge are based on clear and convincing evidence." Attorney Grievance v. Mooney, 359 Md. 56, 73, 753 A.2d 17, 26 (2000). With respect to exceptions, upon our review of the record, "the hearing judge's findings of fact generally will be accepted unless they are clearly erroneous." Maryland Rule 16-759(b)(2); Attorney Grievance v. Whitehead, 405 Md. 240, 253, 950 A.2d 798, 806 (2008). "A hearing judge's factual finding is not clearly erroneous if there is any competent material evidence to support it." Attorney Grievance v. McDonald, 437 Md. 1, 16, 85 A.3d 117, 125 (2014) (internal quotation omitted). As to the hearing judge's conclusions of law, such as whether provisions of the MLRPC were violated, our consideration is essentially de novo. Maryland Rule 16-759(b)(1). Finally, as to the hearing judge's mitigation findings, Maryland Rule 16-757(b) provides that "A respondent who asserts ... a matter of mitigation ... has the burden of proving the ... matter by a preponderance of the evidence."

Bar Counsel did not file any exceptions to Judge Bernard's findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommends disbarment. Respondent has filed multiple exceptions in which she challenges various findings of fact, numerous conclusions of law and Judge Bernard's mitigation findings; at argument Barton's counsel suggested a reprimand, or at worst, a suspension for 90 to 120 days as a sanction.

Respondent initially challenges the use of the deemed admissions to establish the violations of the Rules alleged. She argues that the deemed admissions should not have been relied upon by the hearing judge as bases for the findings of fact and conclusions of law and that Bar Counsel was not prejudiced by her failure to answer within 30 days, because she eventually did answer the request for admissions, albeit on the eve of the hearing.

We recognize that the hearing judge, generally, "is entrusted with the role of administering the discovery rules and, as such, is vested with broad discretion in imposing sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules." Attorney Grievance v. O'Leary, 433 Md. at 28-29, 69 A.3d at 1137, quoting Attorney Grievance v. Kreamer, 404 Md. 282, 342, 946 A.2d 500, 535 (2008). With respect to the sanctions for failing to respond to the requests for admissions, Maryland Rule 2-424(b)18 provides that any matter for which an admission is requested is deemed admitted if a party fails to respond to the request within 30 days. Maryland Rule 2-424(d)19 provides that deemed admissions are conclusively established, unless the court permits their withdrawal or amendment, which the court may do if it will assist in the presentation of the merits of the action and if the party who obtained the admissions fails to satisfy the court that it will be prejudiced by the withdrawal or amendment of the admissions.

Judge Bernard was within her discretion in deeming each Request for Admission admitted and not permitting their withdrawal on the eve of the hearing, as she rejected as inadequate the proffer by Barton's counsel that, prior to the hearing, Barton was unavailable to him and that he was in another trial.

Respondent also appears to take broad exception to the hearing judge's credibility findings. In developing her factual findings, Judge Bernard discredited much of Respondent's testimony regarding the authority that she gave Mr. Tolbert in managing the Cardinal Law Firm in Camp Springs, as well as his access to the firm's bank accounts and Barton's recollection of specific interactions she had with clients.

We, generally, "defer to the credibility findings of the hearing judge." Attorney Grievance v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 695, 722, 93 A.3d 262, 277 (2014). "The hearing judge is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and to decide which one to believe and, as we have said, to pick and choose which evidence to rely upon." Attorney Grievance v. Monfried, 368 Md. 373, 390, 794 A.2d 92, 101 (2002); see also Attorney Grievance v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 17, 741 A.2d 1143, 1152 (1999) (stating that the hearing judge is "in the best position to assess first hand a witness's credibility."). As we have stated, a hearing judge is "free to disregard the testimony of respondent if the judge believed the evidence was not credible." Monfried, 368 Md. at 390, 794 A.2d at 101.

Respondent excepts to Judge Bernard's finding that "Respondent permitted Mr. Tolbert to meet with prospective clients, to accept cases and set fees, and was aware that Mr. Tolbert was doing so on behalf of the Cardinal Law Firm", based on her own testimony during the hearing that she did not leave Mr. Tolbert in charge of the firm and he did not have the authority to accept clients, give legal advice, charge client fees or negotiate checks because he was not a lawyer; he was only to take the names and contact information of potential clients. Respondent also testified that she had no supervisory authority over Mr. Tolbert after March, 2011, because she had closed the firm.

The hearing judge specifically stated that Respondent's testimony in regard to her supervision of and authority over Mr. Tolbert was incredible. In a letter from Barton to Mr. Tolbert, which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit R, Barton writes, "we entered into an arrangement around September/October of last year 2010, where you would work for me as an accountant, office manager, book[k]eeper, and sometimes intake person, you collected the money for the firm", and that, "I gave you the Maryland rules to read and told you what the legal fees for bankruptcy cases in Maryland were supposed to be". Respondent also testified that she had told Mr. Tolbert about fee structures in bankruptcy cases, after Mr. Tolbert suggested that the firm charge higher fees. In terms of the amount of time during which Mr. Tolbert was employed, Judge Bernard had before her Exhibit 11 — federal Form 1099, which was accepted into evidence at the hearing and, paired with Barton's testimony, shows that Mr. Tolbert was paid by the Cardinal Law Firm up until July of 2011. Thus, we overrule this exception.

Barton also excepts to the hearing judge's findings that, "Respondent permitted Mr. Tolbert to deposit funds in her `A. Barton Law Firm' operating account", and, "Respondent was aware that Mr. Tolbert deposited client retainers in the `A. Barton Law Firm' operating account", based upon her own testimony that client funds were not supposed to be deposited in the A. Barton Law Firm operating account and that Mr. Tolbert was not authorized to deposit any client funds into that account. Barton, however, during the hearing, testified with reference to the operating account, that "[Mr. Tolbert] could only deposit." Further, Barton testified at a November 30, 2011 hearing before the Bankruptcy Trustee, that, "clients were told to pay A. Barton Law Firm because that was the name on the IOLTA and business bank accounts"; she further testified that Mr. Tolbert "was in total control of the [IOLTA and business] bank accounts", according to the Trustee Memo, admitted into evidence as Exhibit B. We overrule this exception.

Respondent also excepts to the hearing judge's finding that:

Barton initially testified during the hearing that she gave Mr. Tolbert no authority to write checks, but later testified that he was given checks from the A. Barton Law Firm business account to pay firm expenses. She further testified that she provided Mr. Tolbert with pre-signed blank checks for the A. Barton Law Firm business account, even after she caught him stealing money from the firm in February 2011. We overrule this exception.

Barton also excepts to the hearing judge's finding that:

Respondent excepts based on her testimony that she "substantially completed" the work in Ms. Winston's case; that she would have completed Ms. Winston's bankruptcy were it not for her illness and that Ms. Winston's bankruptcy was eventually approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland ("Bankruptcy Court"). The Bankruptcy Court Order undergirding Judge Bernard's finding, however, had been admitted into evidence as Exhibit C and recited, verbatim, what Judge Bernard stated. Ms. Winston's testimony before the Bankruptcy Court, and also during the disciplinary hearing, reflects that Barton was unprepared during the bankruptcy hearing, as well as that Barton failed to appear at another hearing. Ostensibly, Barton seemingly credits the eventual approval of Ms. Winston's bankruptcy petition as obviating the finding, despite the fact that it was Ms. Winston who represented herself ultimately and successfully in the Bankruptcy Court. We, as a result, overrule this exception.

Respondent also excepts to Judge Bernard's finding that, "Respondent failed to file required papers on behalf of Ms. Simmons, resulting in the Bankruptcy Court issuing a deficiency notice." Barton argues that although Simmons did receive a "routine" deficiency notice, "it was corrected" and the case proceeded to confirmation. Respondent again, thus, argues no harm, no foul; in reality, however, her client snatched victory from the jaws of defeat because Ms. Simmons acted to correct the problem. We, therefore, overrule this exception.

Barton excepts to Judge Bernard's finding that:

Respondent testified during the hearing that she was unaware that Ms. Rhett was a client and that she never authorized Mr. Tolbert to take any legal fees from Ms. Rhett.

The emails upon which Judge Bernard relied, however, were admitted into evidence at the hearing, as Exhibit I. Exhibit I reflects that, in her email of April 13, 2011, Ms. Rhett wrote that she had retained Barton's law firm and asked Barton numerous questions pertaining to her representation, including when her bankruptcy paperwork would be filed and what she should expect from Barton as her attorney. In Barton's reply, also contained in Exhibit I, three weeks later, Barton confirmed that her firm was representing Ms. Rhett, stated that she would file Ms. Rhett's bankruptcy paperwork as soon as possible, and assured Ms. Rhett that she would answer any questions by phone, email or in person. At no point in her May 2, 2011 reply did Barton state that the Cardinal Law Firm was shuttered, despite Barton's testimony that she closed the firm after March 1, 2011; rather, Respondent confirmed her representation of Ms. Rhett, offered that the firm's paralegals would be working with Ms. Rhett, and described what Ms. Rhett should expect during the bankruptcy process. We, therefore, overrule this exception.

Respondent also makes several specific exceptions to Judge Bernard's findings concerning the allegations of individual complainants, specifically the allegations of Ms. Winston, Ms. Simmons, Ms. Rhett and Ms. Barnes.

Respondent excepts to the hearing judge's findings that, "Ms. Winston paid the Cardinal Law Firm a flat fee of $4,000.00, which Respondent disclosed on a Disclosure of Compensation filed in the Bankruptcy Court." Barton argues that she did not accept payment of Ms. Winston's $4,000.00 fee.

The issue is not, however, whether Barton had accepted payment, but whether the Cardinal Law Firm had. In making the findings, Judge Bernard relied on the deemed admissions as well as the Trustee Memo, which reflected that Barton affirmed, under the penalty of perjury, in a Disclosure of Compensation form required by the Bankruptcy Court, that Ms. Winston had paid Barton $4,000.00. We, therefore, conclude that Judge Bernard's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and overrule this exception.

Respondent next excepts to the hearing judge's findings that:

Respondent excepts, stating that she did not mention "an additional five hundred dollar[]" fee to Ms. Winston after the April 21, 2011 bankruptcy hearing. The challenged findings, however, do not rest on whether Barton mentioned an amount to Ms. Winston, but whether the $526.00 was paid and not disclosed. Judge Bernard relied upon the deemed admissions that mirrored her finding, as well as Ms. Winston's testimony that Barton knew that Ms. Winston wanted to remove the second mortgage and directed her to Mr. Tolbert, who charged her the additional $526.00. We overrule this exception.

Respondent excepts to Judge Bernard's finding that, "Ms. Barnes paid the Cardinal Law Firm a fee of $4,474.00 by a check payable to the A. Barton Law Firm." Respondent excepts that Ms. Barnes made payments to the Barton Law Firm and not the Cardinal Law Firm. Judge Bernard relied on the deemed admissions in making her finding, and, accordingly, we overrule this exception.

Barton also seems to argue that she did not accept Ms. Simmons's payments of $700.00 and $2,300.00, Mr. Tolbert did. Judge Bernard relied on the deemed admissions in making her findings, as well as Ms. Simmons's testimony that she initially made payments to the Cardinal Law Firm by checks payable to the A. Barton Law Firm in the amounts of $700.00 and $2,300.00, and that she later was instructed by Mr. Tolbert that she needed to pay an additional $1,774.00 to convert her Chapter 7 bankruptcy to a Chapter 13, which she paid. Ms. Simmons's bank statements, additionally, were accepted into evidence as Exhibit L, which showed withdrawals totaling $4,774.00, confirming Ms. Simmons's testimony. Judge Bernard's findings, thus, were supported by clear and convincing evidence, and we overrule this exception.

Barton also excepts to Judge Bernard's finding that, "Ms. Simmons attempted to contact Respondent about the status of her case, but was unable to reach her." Barton argues that despite a delay, she eventually responded to Ms. Simmons and that Ms. Simmons was ultimately satisfied with their communication, relying on a letter, accepted into evidence at the hearing as Exhibit N, in which Ms. Simmons informed the Attorney Grievance Commission that despite a prior "misunderstanding" she was now "satisfied" with her communication with Barton. Judge Bernard relied upon the deemed admissions in making her findings. Ms. Simmons also testified at the hearing that she attempted to contact Barton and that Barton did not respond. Judge Bernard's finding was based on clear and convincing evidence and we, accordingly, overrule this exception.

Respondent also excepts to the hearing judge's finding that, "On May 11, 2011 the Cardinal Law Firm responded in writing to Ms. Rhett, agreeing to refund the full amount paid." Respondent argues that she did not respond to Ms. Rhett and that she never reimbursed Ms. Rhett. Judge Bernard again relied on the deemed admissions. Ms. Rhett, additionally, testified at the hearing that Respondent stated, during a telephone conversation, that she would authorize Mr. Tolbert to refund the legal fees, and that Ms. Rhett could retrieve a check from the firm's office. Rhett further testified that Mr. Tolbert personally delivered her refund along with a gift basket, as well as also provided Ms. Rhett with a receipt, admitted as Exhibit H at the hearing, printed on Cardinal Law Firm letterhead in which Barton's name was featured. Again, there was clear and convincing evidence to support Judge Bernard's finding, and we, therefore, overrule this exception.

Respondent finally excepts to the hearing judge's failure to find facts which she offered in her post-hearing Proposed Findings of Fact, to include that Mr. Tolbert was never a signer on Respondent's bank accounts; Respondent had to continue working with Mr. Tolbert after February 2011, despite being aware that he had stolen from the firm, because he owned the office building in which the firm rented space and she had approximately 20 active clients remaining; Mr. Tolbert reacted angrily when learning Barton was closing the law firm; Mr. Tolbert accepted over 50 clients after March 2011 and stole their money plus their filing fees; Mr. Tolbert embezzled from the firm by somehow using checks that Barton had provided him; Tolbert was criminally charged with impersonating a lawyer and theft; Barton has not been criminally charged with regard to Mr. Tolbert's thefts; Barton, as the only attorney in the office who was barred in Maryland, had to attend court hearings and could not be in the office at all times; Barton only practiced law in jurisdictions in which she was authorized; Respondent's communication with her clients was "adequate[]"; and all the clients's bankruptcy petitions were eventually approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

A hearing judge, however, is not required to accept any proposed findings submitted by Bar Counsel or a Respondent:

Attorney Grievance v. Joseph, 422 Md. 670, 696, 31 A.3d 137, 153 (2011). Judge Bernard made her own findings, which were established by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the deemed admissions and her evaluation of what she heard and saw during two days of evidentiary hearings.

Having overruled all Respondent's exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and having determined that the findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, we now turn to the hearing judge's conclusions of law.

The hearing judge determined that Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 5.3(a), (b) and (c), 5.4(a) and (b), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a), (c) and (d) were violated. Bar Counsel has filed no exceptions.

Although Barton excepted to the determinations that she violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3, at oral argument, her counsel conceded the violation of those Rules and we agree that those violations are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Respondent generally excepts to a lack of evidentiary foundation for the violations of Rules 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (b), and 5.4(a) and (b), and takes the same exception, as well as other specific exceptions to the determinations that she violated Rules 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 5.3(a), (b) and (c), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a), (c) and (d).

Respondent excepts to the hearing judge's conclusion that she violated Rules 1.4(a) and (b). Judge Bernard concluded:

Respondent argues there is no evidence of any Rule 1.4 violations.

Rules 1.4(a) and (b) provide that, a lawyer shall "keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter", and that a "lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation." Rule 1.4(a) requires an attorney to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of his or her case. Attorney Grievance v. Gelb, 440 Md. 312, 321, 102 A.3d 344, 349-50 (2014) (attorney violated 1.4(a) by failing to return a client's telephone calls or respond to another client's requests for information). Rule 1.4(b) requires that an attorney explain matters to the extent necessary to allow the client to make informed decisions. Gelb, 440 Md. at 321, 102 A.3d at 349-50 (attorney's failure to communicate violated 1.4(b) when his clients's cases were dismissed due to lack of prosecution without the clients's knowledge or consent); Attorney Grievance v. Narasimhan, 438 Md. 638, 92 A.3d 512 (2014) (attorney violated 1.4(b) by failing to provide her client with accurate information that was necessary for her client to make informed decisions).

Here, the hearing judge found that Barton failed to return the phone calls of Ms. Winston and failed to keep both Ms. Tyner and Ms. Simmons informed about the status of their respective cases in violation of Rule 1.4(a). Barton's lack of communication with Ms. Simmons and the inaccurate advice she gave to Ms. Winston also violated Rule 1.4(b). Ms. Simmons testified at the disciplinary hearing that she was unable to contact Barton after the Bankruptcy Court issued a deficiency notice in her case, due to Barton's failure to file the required papers, and Ms. Simmons eventually had to act on her own to correct the problem. The hearing judge also found that Respondent gave Ms. Winston inaccurate advice concerning the sale of her condominium, advice concerning a course of action which the Bankruptcy Court opined was totally unnecessary. We overrule Respondent's exception and conclude that Barton violated Rules 1.4(a) and (b).

Respondent excepts to Judge Bernard's conclusion that:

Respondent asserts that there was no evidence in that she violated Rule 1.5(a).

Under Rule 1.5(a), an attorney may not charge an unreasonable fee. An advance fee given in anticipation of legal service that is reasonable at the time of the receipt can become unreasonable if the attorney does not perform the services expected. Attorney Grievance v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 891 A.2d 1085 (2006) (a flat fee to facilitate an adoption became unreasonable, in violation of 1.5(a), when the attorney failed to do any work); see also Attorney Grievance v. Shakir, 427 Md. 197, 46 A.3d 1162 (2012) (attorney violated 1.5(a) when he accepted flat fees to file an asylum application and represent a client regarding DUI charges and then failed to perform either task). Here, the hearing judge found that Ms. Winston paid Respondent a flat fee which became unreasonable when Barton then failed to appear at a bankruptcy hearing, failed to respond to Ms. Winston's inquiries, failed to file an amended bankruptcy petition and subsequently gave Ms. Winston inaccurate advice. The hearing judge found that the Chapmans and the Johnsons each paid Respondent a flat fee which the Bankruptcy Court ordered Barton to refund because of Respondent's inadequate work product. The hearing judge, additionally, found that Respondent accepted fees from Ms. Barnes, Ms. Miljkovic and Ms. Gray-Knight, yet Barton "did no work" and provided "no legal services" of any kind. We overrule Respondent's exception and conclude that Barton violated Rule 1.5(a).

Respondent also excepts to the hearing judge's conclusion that she violated Rules 1.15(a) and (b). Judge Bernard concluded:

Respondent asserts that there was no evidence that she violated Rules 1.15(a) and (b).

Rule 1.15(a) requires that an attorney deposit advance fees into an attorney trust account, and additionally, requires that an attorney keep records of the fees. We have noted:

Attorney Grievance v. Webster, 402 Md. 448, 463-64, 937 A.2d 161, 170 (2007), quoting Guida, 391 Md. at 53, 891 A.2d at 1097 (internal citations omitted); see also Attorney Grievance v. Nussbaum, 401 Md. 612, 934 A.2d 1 (2007) (commingling of personal funds and client funds violates Rule 1.15(a)). Here, the hearing judge found that Respondent permitted Mr. Tolbert to deposit client funds in her law firm's operating account, a practice about which Barton was aware.

Rule 1.15(b) states:

Maryland Rule 16-607 provides in relevant part:

Here, Judge Bernard found that Barton was aware and permitted Mr. Tolbert to deposit the funds and retainers received from the firm's clients into the A. Barton Law Firm operating account, which included earned fees and funds from which firm expenses were drawn, in violation of Rule 1.15(b).

Accordingly, we overrule Respondent's exception and conclude that Barton commingled funds in violation of Rules 1.15(a) and (b).

Respondent next excepts to the hearing judge's conclusion that she violated Rule 1.16(d). Judge Bernard concluded that, "Respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) in the Winston, Miljkovic, Gray-Knight, Tyner, Barnes and Bar Counsel complaints for failing to return unearned fees paid to Respondent by each client." Barton argues that there was no evidentiary foundation for the Rule 1.16(d) violation.

Rule 1.16(d) states that a lawyer shall refund to the client "any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred." See Attorney Grievance v. Pinno, 437 Md. 70, 85 A.3d 159 (2014) (attorney violated 1.16(d) by abandoning a client's case before it was completed and by failing to return the unearned fees); Attorney Grievance v. McLaughlin, 372 Md. 467, 813 A.2d 1145 (2002) (attorney violated 1.16(d) by not refunding unearned fees to his clients after performing no legal work). Judge Bernard found that: Respondent failed to refund the fees paid to her by Ms. Winston and Ms. Gray-Knight after both clients discharged Barton as their counsel; Respondent, additionally, did not refund the fees paid to her by Ms. Winston, the Chapmans or the Johnsons, despite being ordered to do so by the Bankruptcy Court; Respondent, furthermore, did not refund the fees paid to her by Ms. Barnes, Ms. Miljkovic or Ms. Gray-Knight after Barton claimed to have no knowledge of those clients's cases. We overrule Barton's exception and conclude that she violated Rule 1.16(d).

Respondent also excepts to the hearing judge's conclusion that she violated Rules 5.3(a), (b) and (c). Judge Bernard concluded:

Rules 5.3(a), (b) and (c), "Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants," provide:

Barton argues that she did not violate Rules 5.3(a), (b) and (c).

"An attorney may not escape responsibility to his clients by blithely saying that any shortcomings are solely the fault of his employee." Mooney, 359 Md. at 90, 753 A.2d at 35, quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Goldberg, 292 Md. 650, 655, 441 A.2d 338, 341 (1982). In Attorney Grievance v. Zuckerman, 386 Md. 341, 872 A.2d 693 (2005), an attorney delegated the task of balancing his trust account to a nonlawyer employee and then did not follow up to ensure that the delegated task was actually and competently performed; the employee did not balance the trust account as requested. Zuckerman's failure to supervise delayed, for a month, his discovery that another nonlawyer employee had embezzled funds from his trust account. Zuckerman's conduct violated Rules 5.3(a) and (b). "`[H]ad the respondent exercised a reasonable degree of supervision over [his employee], he might have detected [the employee's] error before any ethical proscriptions had been violated' under Rule 5.3." Id. at 374, 872 A.2d at 713, quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448, 481, 671 A.2d 463, 479 (1996). Rule 5.3(c) is violated when an attorney delegates a task to an employee, the unsuccessful or improper completion of which would result in a violation of the Rules. In Attorney Grievance v. Ward, 394 Md. 1, 904 A.2d 477 (2006), an attorney violated Rule 5.3(c) when he ordered his assistant to notarize a document without the signer present.

Attorney Grievance v. Kimmel, 405 Md. 647, 955 A.2d 269 (2008), although specifically addressing a violation of Rule 5.1 by two attorneys for failing to supervise an inexperienced associate, is helpful in understanding the duty to supervise. In Kimmel, Kimmel and Silverman were the managing partners of a Pennsylvania law firm which operated a high volume practice; neither attorney was a member of the Bar of this State. The firm hired Robin Katz, a Maryland-barred attorney, to establish a local office wherein Katz was responsible for litigation in Maryland. Kimmel and Silverman stressed that Katz meet "a weekly benchmark for complaints to be filed" and regularly "emphasized the importance of this objective." Id. at 656, 955 A.2d at 275.

Over the course of a year, Katz became increasingly overwhelmed and struggled to meet her performance benchmarks; she requested assistance on multiple occasions, but none was forthcoming. In one instance, she was reminded by the firm's office manager about the need to file fifteen complaints per week; on another occasion, Katz's supervising attorney emailed, "no excuses, don't call, no need to talk, just get on it and only call me with good positive news of settlements". Id. at 657, 955 A.2d at 275. Katz eventually resigned after becoming "totally overwhelmed". Id. at 663, 955 A.2d at 279. Silverman, shortly thereinafter, visited Katz's office for the first time, observed "stacks of documents in [the] office that were not filed" and noted that Katz, who had yet to depart, looked "like a beaten dog." Id. We emphasized that, "numerous indicators alerted [Kimmel and Silverman] to the need for a heightened level of supervision, but [they] failed to design and implement policies and procedures that reasonably would ensure compliance with the Maryland Rules", id. at 680, 955 A.2d at 289, and opined that, "[w]hether an employee's ethical breaches are due to the employee's sub-standard performance or the deliberate circumvention of standard procedures, proper supervision must include mechanisms to determine whether the delegated tasks are being performed." Id. at 682, 955 A.2d at 290.

In the present case, Judge Bernard found that Barton was the owner and only Maryland-barred attorney in the Cardinal Law Firm at the relevant time, and that she employed Mr. Tolbert, who was not licensed to practice law, as her office manager. She also not only permitted, but encouraged, Mr. Tolbert to engage in the unlicensed practice of law by allowing him to give legal advice to clients of the Cardinal Law Firm. Barton, additionally, permitted Mr. Tolbert to deposit client funds in the firm's operating account and provided him with blank checks. After Barton became aware in February of 2011 that Mr. Tolbert was stealing from the account, she continued to employ him up until July of 2011. Accordingly, we overrule Respondent's exception and conclude that Barton violated Rules 5.3(a), (b) and (c).

Respondent also excepts to the hearing judge's conclusion that she violated Rules 5.4(a) and (b). Judge Bernard concluded:

Respondent alleges that there is no evidence of her violation of Rules 5.4(a) and (b).

Rules 5.4(a) and (b) provide that a "lawyer... shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer" and that a "lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law."

There is insufficient evidence presented in the record to support the hearing judge's determination that Barton shared legal fees with Mr. Tolbert. We, thus, sustain Respondent's exception to the conclusion that she violated Rule 5.4(a).

Judge Bernard also found that Barton was aware that Mr. Tolbert gave legal advice to clients; Respondent also directed Ms. Winston to Mr. Tolbert when Ms. Winston raised a legal question regarding her condominium. Clearly, Barton treated Mr. Tolbert as a principal in the law firm and thereby violated Rule 5.4(b). We, thus, overrule her exception to Rule 5.4(b).

Respondent excepts to the hearing judge's conclusion that she violated Rule 5.5(a). Judge Bernard concluded:

Respondent argues that there is no proof of her violation of Rule 5.5(a).

Rule 5.5(a) states that, "[a] lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so." Rule 5.5(a) is violated when an attorney permits an employee to operate as a lawyer although not barred as one. Attorney Grievance v. Brennan, 350 Md. 489, 714 A.2d 157 (1998) (an attorney violated Rule 5.5 when he employed a suspended lawyer as a paralegal, yet the suspended lawyer provided legal advice to clients).

What constitutes the practice of law has been defined in Section 10-101(h) of the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Code as:

Md.Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 10-101(h) (1989, 2010 Repl. Vol, 2014 Supp.). We have also opined that:

Attorney Grievance v. Brooke, 374 Md. 155, 176, 821 A.2d 414, 426 (2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Here, Judge Bernard found that Mr. Tolbert, the office manager, led several clients to believe that he was an attorney, despite not being licensed to practice law. The hearing judge found, additionally, that Barton was aware that Mr. Tolbert gave legal advice to clients of the Cardinal Law Firm, including the Johnsons, Ms. Barnes, Ms. Simmons, Ms. Rhett and Ms. Gray-Knight, with regard to what type of bankruptcy petitions to file and advised Ms. Tyner, Ms. Simmons and Ms. Miljkovic to stop paying their respective mortgages. We overrule Respondent's exception and, therefore, conclude that Barton violated Rule 5.5(a).

Respondent, additionally, excepts to the hearing judge's conclusion that she violated Rules 8.4(a), (c) and (d). Rule 8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to engage in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. With regard to Rule 8.4(c), Judge Bernard concluded that, "Respondent's failure to disclose the receipt of an additional $526.00 payment from Winston to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court is a violation of Rule 8.4(c)." Barton argues that there was no evidence adduced to support a violation of Rule 8.4(c).

An attorney who knowingly makes a false statement to a tribunal necessarily engages in misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c). Attorney Grievance v. Dore, 433 Md. 685, 73 A.3d 161 (2013). Section 329 of Title 11 of the United States Code ("Bankruptcy Code")20 requires all attorneys who represent debtors to disclose the amount of compensation they have received, or will receive, in a bankruptcy case; if the compensation exceeds the reasonable value of the legal services received, the Bankruptcy Court may order the return of that compensation to the debtor's estate. Attorneys, pursuant to Rule 2016(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,21 must supplement the initial disclosure whenever they receive any additional compensation from debtors "within 14 days after any payment or agreement not previously disclosed."

We have found a Rule 8.4(c) violation when a misrepresentation is overt or based upon a concealment of material facts. Attorney Grievance v. Floyd, 400 Md. 236, 929 A.2d 61 (2007). In Attorney Grievance v. Robaton, 411 Md. 415, 983 A.2d 467 (2009), an attorney made an intentional misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) by failing to disclose to the Bankruptcy Court a debtor's payment to a non-attorney professional who had typed the debtor's bankruptcy petition when the attorney knew that such a payment had been made and also failed to disclose the compensation he received from the debtor to the Bankruptcy Court. In Robaton, we agreed with the hearing judge's observation that the attorney's omissions "deprived the court and creditors of the ability to find out how much of the debtor's assets has been paid to the attorney." Id. at 429, 983 A.2d at 475.

The gravamen of the Rule 8.4(c) violation in the instant case is whether Barton intentionally failed to disclose the $526.00 paid by Ms. Winston on Ms. Winston's bankruptcy petition, thereby shielding it from distribution to creditors. Barton asserts that she knew nothing about the transaction and so did not intentionally omit the amount from the bankruptcy estate. Barton, however, had directed Ms. Winston to speak to Mr. Tolbert to handle additional legal issues, and Ms. Winston had paid the additional $526.00 by check to the A. Barton Law Firm, an account to which Barton not only had access, but for which she had received statements as the responsible party. Barton's failure to disclose the $526.00 payment could only benefit her because, otherwise, the money would revert back to the bankruptcy estate. We, therefore, overrule her exception and conclude that Barton violated Rule 8.4(c).

An attorney violates subsection (d) of Rule 8.4 when he or she "engage[s] in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice". Judge Bernard concluded:

Respondent urges that there was no evidence of a Rule 8.4(d) violation.

We previously have held that an attorney violates Rule 8.4(d) when he or she willfully fails to attend a hearing on behalf of his or her client. See Shakir, 427 Md. at 206, 46 A.3d at 1168 (attorney's "egregious" behavior of failing to appear at a hearing and file an asylum application violated 8.4(d)); Attorney Grievance v. Dominguez, 427 Md. 308, 47 A.3d 975 (2012) (attorney violated 8.4(d) by failing to appear at various hearings). An attorney can also violate 8.4(d) by failing to pursue his or her client's objectives, failing to communicate with his or her client, or failing to refund unearned fees. See Attorney Grievance v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388, 946 A.2d 1009 (2008) (an attorney violated Rule 8.4(d) when a client's divorce complaint was dismissed after the attorney failed to communicate with the client, abandoned representation and failed to return the unearned fee).

Here, Judge Bernard found that Respondent failed to appear on behalf of Ms. Winston and Ms. Tyner at court hearings, and in Ms. Tyner's case, her bankruptcy petition was dismissed as a result. The hearing judge also found that the Bankruptcy Court issued Ms. Simmons a deficiency notice after Barton failed to file the required papers, and that Ms. Simmons was unable to reach Respondent thereafter. Barton's clients retained her to shepherd them through the bankruptcy process, which she failed to do. Judge Bernard also found that Barton failed to both perform any legal services of value in exchange for legal fees she charged and failed to return the unearned fees of Ms. Winston, the Chapmans, the Johnsons, Ms. Barnes, Ms. Miljkovic and Ms. Gray-Knight. We, therefore, overrule her exception and conclude that Barton violated Rule 8.4(d).

Subsection (a) of Rule 8.4 provides that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to "violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct". Rule violations, by themselves, are sufficient to support a violation of Rule 8.4(a). See Dominguez, 427 Md. at 323-24, 47 A.3d at 985, citing Attorney Grievance v. Seltzer, 424 Md. 94, 114, 34 A.3d 498, 510 (2011); see also Attorney Grievance v. Nelson, 425 Md. 344, 363, 40 A.3d 1039, 1050 (2012) ("Rule 8.4(a) is violated when other Rules of Professional Conduct are breached."). Barton has violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 5.3(a), (b) and (c), 5.4(b), 5.5(a), 8.4(c) and (d), and therefore, has violated Rule 8.4(a).

With respect to sanction, it is well settled that the purpose of attorney discipline is for the protection of the public, not punishment of the erring attorney. Attorney Grievance v. Coppola, 419 Md. 370, 19 A.3d 431 (2011), citing Attorney Grievance v. Goff, 399 Md. 1, 922 A.2d 554 (2007). "Imposing a sanction protects the public interest `because it demonstrates to members of the legal profession the type of conduct which will not be tolerated.'" Attorney Grievance v. Gallagher, 371 Md. 673, 714, 810 A.2d 996, 1020 (2002), quoting Mooney, 359 Md. at 96, 753 A.2d at 38 (citation omitted). We evaluate an attorney grievance matter on its own merits, considering the particular facts and circumstances in order to determine an appropriate sanction. Coppola, 419 Md. at 404, 19 A.3d at 451, citing Attorney Grievance v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147, 176, 994 A.2d 928, 945 (2010). We also look to the "presence or absence of mitigating factors and the prior disciplinary history of the attorney, particularly as it reveals the presence or absence of misconduct of the same, or similar, kind to that being addressed." McCulloch, 404 Md. at 402, 946 A.2d at 1018 (internal citations omitted).

In determining the appropriate sanction, we often look to the aggravating factors found in Standard 9.22 of the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. These include:

Standard 9.22 of the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992); see Attorney Grievance v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136, 206, 105 A.3d 533, 574-75 (2014).

Here, aggravating factors (b), (c), (d), (g) and (j) are implicated, because Respondent has embodied a dishonest and selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct and has shown no effort to make restitution, despite a court order to do so.

Factor (b), "dishonest or selfish motive", is present here. Respondent showed a dishonest and selfish motive when she retained unearned fees after she failed to do little, if any, work of value for her clients. Attorney Grievance v. Stinson, 428 Md. 147, 50 A.3d 1222 (2012) (applying this factor when an attorney failed to return unearned fees to two clients after being discharged).

Factor (c), "a pattern of misconduct", is also present here. Barton failed to competently represent nine clients in bankruptcy proceedings, over an almost two year period, each of whom was harmed, thereby demonstrating a pattern of misconduct. See Dominguez, 427 Md. at 326, 47 A.3d at 985 (applying this factor when an attorney neglected the welfare of at least five clients over a period of sixteen months).

Factor (d), "multiple offenses", is also implicated. An attorney commits multiple offenses when he or she committed numerous violations of the Rules, particularly against different clients. See Stinson, 428 Md. at 194, 50 A.3d at 1250 (applying this factor when an attorney committed multiple Rule violations against two clients). Here, Barton committed violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(a), 1.15(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 5.3(a), (b) and (c), 5.4(b), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), (c) and (d) against nine clients.

Factor (g), "refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct", is also relevant in the instant case. Respondent has consistently refused to admit any wrongdoing and instead has repeatedly blamed Mr. Tolbert solely for the bulk of the misconduct here. See Hodes, 441 Md. at 207-08, 105 A.3d at 575-76 (applying this factor when an attorney repeatedly blamed his former law firm for his disciplinary proceedings).

Factor (j), "indifference to making restitution", is also present here. Respondent was ordered by the Bankruptcy Court to refund the fees of Ms. Winston, the Chapmans and the Johnsons, yet has failed to do so. Barton, additionally, has not returned the fees paid by Ms. Tyner, Ms. Miljkovic or Ms. Gray-Knight. See Attorney Grievance v. Page, 430 Md. 602, 62 A.3d 163 (2013) (applying this factor when an attorney failed to refund any portion of the advanced fee paid by the client).

We also consider mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sanction, including:

O'Leary, 433 Md. at 31, 69 A.3d at 1138, quoting Attorney Grievance v. Brown, 426 Md. 298, 326, 44 A.3d 344, 361 (2012).

The hearing judge determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one mitigating factor was present in this case — that Barton undertook "interim rehabilitation." Judge Bernard credited Barton's testimony that she undertook over 50 cases pro bono in Maryland, all involving purported victims of Mr. Tolbert; that Barton had to take on a second job in order to personally pay the filing fees associated with these cases, and that Barton "spoke with creditors, mortgage companies, etc. in order to try to protect the interests of the clients that she was handling on a pro bono basis." We, additionally, note that Barton has no prior disciplinary record.

Barton, however, excepts to Judge Bernard's finding that, "The Court did not find that the Respondent's illness in any way would mitigate the previously referenced violations." Barton contends that, during the time she operated the Cardinal Law Firm, she suffered from a host of health issues, including endometriosis and uterine fibroid tumors, for which she eventually underwent surgery. Respondent, however, testified that she was still able to handle her cases despite the pain associated with her health issue. We have said that, "[w]hile an illness or a traumatic event may serve as a mitigating factor in determining sanctions, they may do so only when there is some nexus to the misconduct." O'Leary, 433 Md. at 32, 69 A.3d at 1138-39. Barton argues, on one hand, that her health situation mitigates her shortcomings, yet on the other, she argues that she was able to competently provide representation to her clients. Barton cannot have it both ways. We overrule her exception.

With the aggravating and mitigating factors in mind, we turn to determining the appropriate sanction. Bar Counsel recommends disbarment, while, at oral argument, Barton's counsel suggested a reprimand, or at worst, a suspension for 90 to 120 days.

The instant case presents a bevy of Rule violations that showcases a pattern of client neglect and a failure to properly supervise nonlawyer employees and includes an instance of misrepresentation before a court. While no other case is on all fours with the present case in terms of sanction, several cases are helpful in its fashioning.

In cases where an attorney exhibits a lack of competence and diligence when attending to client affairs, even when more than one client is involved, we have imposed an indefinite suspension. For example, in Attorney Grievance v. Mooney, 359 Md. at 97-98, 753 A.2d at 39, we indefinitely suspended Mooney, who had violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 5.1, 5.3 and 8.4(d) because of his failure to diligently pursue cases, as well as to appear at trial, and failure to supervise both another attorney and a nonlawyer assistant. He also failed to timely refund a fee and made multiple misrepresentations to the mother of a juvenile client. We noted Mooney's lack of disciplinary history, and stated "that while we have generally suspended lawyers who for the first time have been found to have violated rules relating to competency; we have disbarred subsequent offenders." Id. at 98, 753 A.2d at 39.

Client neglect, even when coupled with a finding of misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c), resulted in the imposition of an indefinite suspension in Attorney Grievance v. Harrington, 367 Md. 36, 785 A.2d 1260 (2001). We determined that Harrington made numerous ethical violations when he failed to pursue a client matter, failed to keep the client reasonably informed regarding the status of his case and terminated the client relationship without taking steps to protect the client's interest. Harrington also failed to pursue another client's claim, and when questioned by the client, he falsely led his client to believe that a lawsuit had been filed on her behalf and that he was "waiting for a court date" when no suit had actually been filed. Id. at 48, 785 A.2d at 1267. See also Attorney Grievance v. Cohen, 361 Md. 161, 760 A.2d 706 (2000) (attorney violated MRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(a) and 8.4(c) and (d) in three client matters because he demonstrated incompetence and a lack of diligence, failed to file a client's tax returns with the bankruptcy court despite indicating to the court that it had been done, misrepresented to a client and Bar Counsel that he had refunded the client's fee, and was uncooperative with Bar Counsel); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. David, 331 Md. 317, 628 A.2d 178 (1993) (indefinitely suspending an attorney who, with respect to four clients, failed to return an unearned fee for a period of nine months, failed to timely remit funds he received on behalf of a client, failed to communicate with his clients, failed to respond to Bar Counsel's requests for information and made a misrepresentation to Bar Counsel concerning whether a client was already represented when she approached the attorney about her case).

In the instant case, Barton failed to file papers to correct Ms. Simmons's deficiency notice; she failed to appear a bankruptcy hearing which resulted in the dismissal of Ms. Tyner's case; failed to appear at a hearing with respect to Ms. Winston; accepted payment from Ms. Barnes, Ms. Miljkovic and Ms. Gray-Knight to file bankruptcy petitions, yet never did any work on their cases; and, she failed to refund the unearned fees of Ms. Winston, the Chapmans, the Johnsons, Ms. Tyner, Ms. Barnes, Ms. Miljkovic and Ms. Gray-Knight. The Respondent, moreover, engaged in a misrepresentation to the Bankruptcy Court by failing to disclose the additional compensation she received from Ms. Winston. Barton's failure to supervise Mr. Tolbert would also result in her being indefinitely suspended as we did with Kimmel, 405 Md. at 689, 955 A.2d at 294, and Zuckerman, 386 Md. at 386, 872 A.2d at 716, discussed supra.

We, therefore, determine that an indefinite suspension in the present case is the appropriate sanction, especially in the absence of any finding of misappropriation. See Attorney Grievance v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 773 A.2d 463 (2001). Although Barton's counsel recommended a reprimand or a 90-120 day suspension, he cited no case law in support, and we have found none.

As a result, the Respondent, Sheron A. Barton, is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland.

IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING COSTS OF ALL TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 16-761, FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST SHERON A. BARTON.