198 A.3d 821
Md.2018Background
- Respondent Neil W. Steinhorn, a Maryland attorney reinstated in 2007 after prior disbarment, represented Kingswood Commons HOA in debt-collection matters.
- In two District Court complaints (2014) he sought $9,120 each for delinquent condominium fees; those totals combined principal ($6,912) and a 30% attorney fee ($2,208) but listed only the aggregate on the damages line and left the attorney-fee line blank.
- New counsel discovered late remittances and the aggregated complaint figures; Bar Counsel investigated and charged violations of MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4.
- The hearing judge found Respondent credible, remorseful, and without intent to deceive, and concluded Petitioner failed to prove violations.
- This Court reviewed de novo, adopted the hearing judge’s factual findings but reversed the legal conclusions, holding Respondent knowingly submitted false information and violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(a), (c), (d).
- Court imposed an indefinite suspension (eligible to seek reinstatement after six months), citing prior discipline, experience, the seriousness of misconduct, and mitigating factors (no client harm, no personal profit, remorse, corrective procedures).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Steinhorn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing complaints that combined principal and attorney fees without listing fees separately violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) (candor to tribunal) | The aggregated figures knowingly misrepresented the debt amount and concealed attorney fees, so Respondent knowingly made a false statement to the court | The omission was an honest mistake; Respondent lacked intent to deceive and benefitted no one | Court held Respondent knowingly submitted false information and violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) |
| Whether the same conduct violated MLRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) | Knowing false statements and concealment of material fact (intent to collect fees) amount to misrepresentation/dishonesty under 8.4(c) | No judge objected; no disruption or harm, and no intent to deceive | Court held the conduct violated 8.4(c); intent to deceive not required for misrepresentation/dishonesty findings |
| Whether conduct was prejudicial to administration of justice under MLRPC 8.4(d) | Concealing intent to collect fees deprived court of ability to assess reasonableness and oversight, prejudicing administration of justice | No actual disruption occurred; judges were simply unaware | Court held omission was prejudicial to administration of justice and violated 8.4(d) |
| Appropriate sanction | Petitioner urged severe discipline (disbarment or suspension) given knowing misrepresentations and prior discipline | Respondent emphasized lack of intent, no harm or profit, remorse, and corrective measures; argued for dismissal | Court imposed indefinite suspension with right to apply for reinstatement after six months (30-day start), balancing seriousness, prior disbarment, and mitigating factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 442 Md. 14 (2015) (candor to tribunal requires attorneys to assist court in ascertaining truth)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dore, 433 Md. 685 (2013) (knowing false statement supports 8.4(c) misrepresentation without separate intent-to-deceive requirement)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Robaton, 411 Md. 415 (2009) (failure to disclose material facts on court forms can violate 8.4(c) and 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Poverman, 440 Md. 588 (2014) (indefinite suspension appropriate where attorney knowingly misrepresented material facts to an authoritative body, even absent client harm)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, 456 Md. 227 (2017) (appellate standard in attorney-discipline: independent review of facts and de novo review of legal conclusions)