1(b) where the attorney "failed to timely respond to the initial complaint and failed to provide copies of the client file for the [clients] and trust account records."). Recently, in Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Dailey, 474 Md. 679, 707–10, 255 A.3d 1068, 1084-85 (2021), we concluded that an attorney violated Rule 8.1(b) in two ways. As part of its investigation into the complaint filed against the attorney, Bar Counsel initially requested that the attorney schedule a statement under oath with the Office of Bar Counsel.

MARPC 1.4 can be violated if a client has made several "reasonable requests for information, which may include a general status update or for documents pertaining to the case[,]" to no avail. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v . Planta , 467 Md. 319, 349, 225 A.3d 19 (2020) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v . Dailey , 474 Md. 679, 705, 255 A.3d 1068 (2021). An attorney also violates this Rule when he misrepresents a case's status to a client.

MARPC 1.4 can be violated if a client has made several "reasonable requests for information, which may include a general status update or for documents pertaining to the case[,]" to no avail. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v . Planta , 467 Md. 319, 349, 225 A.3d 19 (2020) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v . Dailey , 474 Md. 679, 705, 255 A.3d 1068 (2021). A violation may also occur if an attorney makes misrepresentations to her client concerning the status of their case.

On this basis alone, "there is competent evidence in the record to support the hearing judge's findings of fact[.]" Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Dailey , 474 Md. 679, 700, 255 A.3d 1068, 1080 (2021) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Johnson , 450 Md. 621, 640, 150 A.3d 338, 349 (2016) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Steinberg , 395 Md. 337, 351–52, 910 A.2d 429, 437–38 (2006). We reject Respondent's blanket contention that the findings of fact were erroneous.

Getty, C.J. Invariably, this Court has emphasized the importance of an attorney's timely answer to a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and active participation with Bar Counsel during the discovery process in an attorney discipline proceeding. See, e.g. , Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Dailey , 474 Md. 679, 690, 255 A.3d 1068 (2021) (highlighting the attorney's failure to comply with Bar Counsel's investigation and the discovery process and stating, "[h]ad [the attorney] been responsive, she may have avoided the most significant rule violations" the Court found); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Thomas , 440 Md. 523, 550, 103 A.3d 629 (2014) (demonstrating an attorney's failure to respond to a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action resulted in a default judgment against the attorney, allowing this Court to treat the averments therein as admitted); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Young , 473 Md. 94, 107–08, 248 A.3d 996 (2021). Failure to timely answer a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action may result in an order of default against the attorney.

This duty of diligence can be violated, among other ways, "by failing to advance a client's cause or endeavor; failing to investigate a client's matter; and repeatedly failing to return phone calls, respond to letters, or provide an accounting for earned fees." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Dailey , 474 Md. 679, 703, 255 A.3d 1068 (2021) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bah , 468 Md. 179, 208, 226 A.3d 912 (2020) ).

See id. at 475, 257 A.3d at 641. See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Dailey, 474 Md. 679, 692-94, 706, 255 A.3d 1068, 1075-76, 1089 (2021) (This Court upheld a conclusion that the attorney charged unreasonable fees when she received a retainer from a client for assistance with his mother's estate, prepared the required documents, but failed to file them, and did not refund the retainer.).