Attorney Grievance Commission v. Basinger
109 A.3d 1165
| Md. | 2015Background
- Respondent Carl Stephen Basinger, a Maryland attorney since 1983, represented his sister‑in‑law Rosina Keys after her grandson died; their attorney‑client relationship arose Feb 18, 2012.
- Keys later sent a letter denying she retained Basinger; in response Basinger mailed three signed, firm‑letterhead letters (Mar 12 and Mar 16, 2012) addressing the estate and funeral payment.
- The letters included repeated, written personal insults directed at Keys (including the obscene, gendered slur “c[**]t”), accusations of dishonesty, suggestions she contributed to her grandson’s death, and other demeaning language.
- Keys filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission; Bar Counsel petitioned this Court for disciplinary action alleging violations of MLRPC rules including 8.4(d).
- The hearing judge made detailed factual findings but originally concluded no violation of MLRPC 8.4(d); the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and reversed, finding Basinger violated 8.4(d).
- The Court imposed a reprimand, noting aggravating factors (pattern of insults, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, long experience) and one mitigating factor (no prior discipline).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether written, obscene, sexist insults directed at a client by her lawyer violate MLRPC 8.4(d) | Commission: letters by Basinger were deliberate, on firm letterhead, related to representation, and would objectively harm public perception of the profession | Basinger: statements were private, not intended for public knowledge, and did not demonstrably affect public perception | Held: Violation. Court applied objective standard—conduct tended to bring the profession into disrepute and violated 8.4(d) |
| Proper standard for assessing 8.4(d) where conduct isn’t widely publicized | Commission: apply objective reasonable‑member‑of‑the‑public standard from Saridakis | Basinger: relied on cases like Link and Rand to argue private or non‑public conduct should not trigger 8.4(d) | Held: Use the objective Saridakis standard; Link construed as applying to conduct unrelated to practice of law; publicity not determinative |
| Whether private, non‑litigation context shields attorney from 8.4(d) liability | Commission: letters were related to legal representation (letterhead, subject matter) so not purely private | Basinger: argued conduct was private and did not impact public perception | Held: Because letters were connected to representation and were egregious, Link’s ‘‘purely private’’ protection doesn’t apply; liability upheld |
| Appropriate sanction for violation of 8.4(d) | Commission: reprimand sufficient to protect public confidence and deter others | Basinger: no sanction proposed | Held: Public reprimand imposed considering duty violated, intentional misconduct, aggravators (pattern, refusal to concede, long experience) and one mitigator (no prior discipline) |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Alison, 317 Md. 523 (1989) (attorney’s profane, abusive conduct in official settings may violate 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Saridakis, 402 Md. 413 (2007) (adopts objective reasonable‑member‑of‑the‑public standard to assess appearance of impropriety under MLRPC)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Link, 380 Md. 405 (2004) (private conduct unrelated to practice is prejudicial only if criminal or patently harmful)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reno, 436 Md. 504 (2014) (conduct that tends to bring the profession into disrepute violates 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McDowell, 439 Md. 26 (2014) (standards for review and burden of proof in attorney discipline proceedings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rand, 411 Md. 83 (2009) (example of no 8.4(d) violation; relied on by respondent but distinguished)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Frost, 437 Md. 245 (2014) (attorney speech in discipline context not entitled to First Amendment protection)