Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hunt
435 Md. 133
| Md. | 2013Background
- Hunt, a Maryland-licensed Revenue Officer for the IRS, participated in criminal activity with Catlett from 1999–2004, including accepting bribes for confidential taxpayer information and portraying himself as Catlett’s inside contact at the IRS.
- Hunt pled guilty (Sept. 8, 2010) to unauthorized disclosure of return information under 26 U.S.C. § 7213(a)(1) and was sentenced (June 26, 2011).
- After law school, Hunt repeatedly failed the Maryland bar, then applied for admission in 2005 with a bar questionnaire question about unfavorable incidents; he answered “no.”
- He later supplemented with a 2007 nolle prosequi charge, but did not disclose 1999–2004 criminal activity or impending federal prosecution in his 2009 affirmation form and related disclosures.
- Fertigular investigation by the Character Committee concluded Hunt would not have been recommended for admission if full disclosure had been made; Hunt was indicted in 2010, and the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission filed a petition alleging rule violations.
- The circuit court found violations of MRPC 8.1(a)-(b) and 8.4(b)-(d), and the Maryland Court of Appeals adopted those findings, ultimately disbarring Hunt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hunt violate MRPC 8.1 by nondisclosure on the bar application? | Petitioner: omissions were material and intentional, undermining fitness to practice. | Hunt: no disclosure was not malicious or material to eligibility. | Yes; intentional nondisclosure violated 8.1. |
| Did Hunt’s conduct constitute violations of MRPC 8.4(b)-(d) based on his guilty plea and conduct? | Petitioner: conviction and related conduct reflect dishonesty and lack of fitness. | Hunt: pre-admission acts do not retroactively violate rules; assertions by Clark are inapplicable. | Yes; 8.4(b)-(d) violated. |
| Was Hunt’s omission after admission to the Bar a violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and/or materiality standard? | Petitioner: omission of 1999–2004 conduct was deliberate and deceptive to admissions authorities. | Hunt: failure to disclose was not willful or material to admission decision. | Yes; omission violated 8.4(c) and materiality standard supported. |
| What sanction is appropriate given the aggregate misconduct? | Petitioner: disbarment warranted due to intentional dishonesty and impact on administration of justice. | Hunt: seeks lesser sanction or remediation; argues mitigating factors. | Disbarment imposed. |
| Should prior authority allow application of pre-admission misconduct to later disciplinary status? | Petitioner: applicable under Clark-based approach to reflect fitness. | Hunt: argues pre-admission acts should not control post-admission discipline beyond that context. | Court relies on Clark framing to uphold discipline for post-admission consequences. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gilbert, 307 Md. 481 (1986) (materiality of information affects admissions fitness)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Joehl, 335 Md. 83 (1994) (truthfulness and candor emphasized in bar admissions)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark, 40 Ohio St.3d 81, 531 N.E.2d 671 (1988) (conviction for misconduct reflects on fitness to practice)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark, 66 Ohio St.3d 1223, 613 N.E.2d 1089 (1993) (reinforcement of disciplinary standards post-admission)