Attorney Grievance Commission v. Dusen
116 A.3d 1013
| Md. | 2015Background
- Dennis A. Van Dusen applied for admission to the Maryland Bar in 2009, answered "No" to a supplemental character question, and acknowledged an ongoing duty to update SBLE until admission.
- While his application was pending (2010–2012) Van Dusen secretly installed hidden cameras in the private bedrooms of female tenants and recorded them in intimate situations; the conduct continued over at least two years.
- Van Dusen falsely told the Court at his October 4, 2012 admission hearing that he had not engaged in any criminal conduct since SBLE’s recommendation, despite knowing this to be untrue.
- The cameras were discovered in October 2012 before his swearing-in; police investigated, civil suits were filed, and Van Dusen was sworn in on November 1, 2012 without notifying SBLE, the Commission, or the Court of the discoveries or charges.
- Van Dusen later pleaded guilty to three counts of unlawful visual surveillance (CR §3-902(c)), was sentenced to suspended terms and probation, and faced large civil judgments; he also received mental-health diagnoses relevant to the proceedings but was found capable of controlling his conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Attorney Grievance Comm’n (Plaintiff) | Van Dusen (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Van Dusen violate MLRPC 8.1(a)/(b) by making false statements and omitting material facts in bar admission? | He knowingly made a material false statement to the Court and failed to update his application and disclose criminal conduct and investigation. | Relied on Fifth Amendment and counsel’s advice; argued stress and other factors affected conduct. | Violated 8.1(a) and 8.1(b): false statement at hearing and failure to update application were knowing and material. |
| Does MLRPC 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) apply to a bar applicant who lied at an admission hearing? | N/A — Commission charged but primary focus on 8.1. | Argued 3.3 applies to false statements to a tribunal. | 3.3 does not apply because it governs conduct of a lawyer; applicant was not yet a lawyer. |
| Do the criminal convictions and concealment violate MLRPC 8.4(b),(c),(d)? | Convictions and deceptive conduct reflect adversely on honesty/trustworthiness, involve deceit, and are prejudicial to administration of justice. | Offered mental-health mitigation and argued limited culpability. | Violated 8.4(b),(c),(d): crimes reflected on fitness, involved dishonesty, and were prejudicial to the administration of justice. |
| What sanction is appropriate? | Disbarment, given criminality, deceit, pattern of concealment, aggravating factors, and public protection interests. | Sought one-year suspension; cited mitigation and treatment. | Disbarment imposed: deliberate, calculated misconduct and concealment plus aggravating factors outweigh mitigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hunt, 435 Md. 133 (discussing failure to disclose prior criminal conduct and post-admission conviction reflecting on fitness)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keehan, 311 Md. 161 (withholding material information during bar admission supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gilbert, 307 Md. 481 (failure to disclose civil litigation in admission process supports discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151 (disbarment for criminal conduct adversely reflecting on fitness)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Link, 380 Md. 405 (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice standard)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (mental/physical illness as mitigation only when it is the root cause rendering inability to conform conduct)