Attorney Grievance Commission v. Howell
434 Md. 1
| Md. | 2013Background
- Respondent Sherrie T. Howell, admitted 1992, forwarded inmate correspondence to her client Dayvon Gardner at MCIH in Jan. 2009; envelope used her attorney letterhead/return address.
- The envelope included letters from inmates at other facilities (including Adrian Outten), docket printouts, and postage stamps; MCIH policy classified such items as contraband.
- Hearing judge found respondent knew inmates cannot correspond directly and taped letters (and possibly stamps) to docket entries to conceal them; respondent admitted forwarding the letters but disputed knowledge that they were contraband or that she taped them.
- Hearing judge concluded respondent violated MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), (d) (and thus 8.4(a)) but not 8.4 as to postage stamps or MLRPC 8.1; petitioner sought disbarment, respondent sought reprimand or short suspension.
- Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the legal conclusions, upheld the hearing court’s factual findings as not clearly erroneous, found misconduct serious but distinguished from cases warranting disbarment, and imposed a one-year suspension (effective 30 days after opinion) plus costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forwarding inmate-to-inmate correspondence and concealing it in legal mail violated MLRPC 8.4(b), (c), (d) | Respondent knowingly sent contraband, used attorney/legal mail to hide it, and engaged in deceit prejudicial to administration of justice | She lacked direct knowledge that the letters/stamps were contraband; acted to assist literary enterprise/personal-injury representation and exercised poor judgment, not deceit | Court upheld violations of 8.4(b), (c), (d) based on hearing judge’s inferences about knowledge and concealment |
| Whether taping postage stamps violated 8.4(c) | Petitioner: stamps were contraband and were concealed | Respondent: no evidence she knew of MCIH stamp prohibition; had previously sent stamps without issue | Court rejected violation as to stamps — no clear proof respondent knew MCIH policy about stamps |
| Whether respondent violated MLRPC 8.1 (false statement or failure to respond) | Petitioner implied respondent misled investigator about conduct | Respondent: she admitted forwarding mail and was candid with investigator | Court found no 8.1 violation — responses were candid |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment v. suspension) | Petitioner: disbarment warranted given deceit and potential danger; analogized to severe prior cases | Respondent: conduct less serious than disbarment precedents; no prior discipline; no actual harm resulted | Court rejected disbarment, imposed one-year suspension, citing seriousness but distinguishing this case from more egregious precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Nwadike, 416 Md. 180 (2010) (standard that sanctions must fit nature, gravity, and intent of misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sheinbein, 372 Md. 224 (2002) (disbarment where attorney actively assisted client to evade prosecution)
- In re Garvey, 325 Or. 34 (1997) (attorney’s criminal assistance to inmate’s escape and related lies warranted disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Woodard, 183 Wis. 2d 575 (1994) (attorney delivered uninspected sealed packages that included contraband; suspension imposed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Goff, 399 Md. 1 (2008) (standard of review in attorney discipline; de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Haupt, 285 Md. 39 (1979) (attorney misrepresentation to obtain admission to secure area; suspension imposed)