Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Clevenger, 187 A.3d 81

Ty Clevenger, a Texas attorney, sent complaints to Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission alleging misconduct by three Maryland‑bar attorneys based on publicly available sources.
Deputy Bar Counsel declined to open an investigation, stating Clevenger lacked personal knowledge and was not an aggrieved party; Bar Counsel cited Rule 19‑707(b) confidentiality.
Clevenger filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to compel Bar Counsel to investigate, asserting Rule 19‑711 required investigation of non‑frivolous complaints.
The circuit court denied the Commission’s motion to dismiss, held it had jurisdiction, and granted mandamus ordering an investigation.
The Attorney Grievance Commission appealed to the Court of Appeals, which granted certiorari, stayed the circuit court’s order, and considered whether the circuit court had subject‑matter jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals reversed: it held Bar Counsel’s decision to investigate (or decline) is part of attorney disciplinary proceedings, over which the Court of Appeals has original and exclusive jurisdiction; the mandamus petition therefore had to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bar Counsel’s decision to investigate (or decline) a complaint is part of an "attorney disciplinary proceeding"	Clevenger: No; because Bar Counsel declined, no disciplinary proceeding began — mandamus is proper to compel compliance with procedural Rule 19‑711	Commission: Yes; investigation (or decision not to investigate) is a necessary part of attorney disciplinary process, which is exclusively vested in the Court of Appeals	Held: Yes. The decision to investigate is within the scope of attorney disciplinary proceedings; circuit court lacked jurisdiction to grant mandamus
Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear a mandamus petition compelling Bar Counsel to investigate	Clevenger: Circuit court has jurisdiction because no disciplinary proceeding had started; petitioner seeks only enforcement of a procedural rule	Commission: Circuit courts lack jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals has original and exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline and related processes	Held: Circuit court lacked jurisdiction; exclusive jurisdiction belongs to Court of Appeals, so petition must be dismissed

In re Application of Kimmer, 392 Md. 251 (Court of Appeals of Maryland) (circuit court lacked jurisdiction over bar‑admission matters)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pak, 400 Md. 567 (Court of Appeals of Maryland) (Court of Appeals has original and complete jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. James, 385 Md. 637 (Court of Appeals of Maryland) (same jurisdictional principle over discipline)
Md. State Bar Ass’n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543 (Court of Appeals of Maryland) (historical explanation of Court’s role in lawyer discipline)
First Federated Commodity Tr. Corp. v. Comm’r of Sec., 272 Md. 329 (Court of Appeals of Maryland) (principles on subject‑matter jurisdiction)