Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kahl
436 Md. 617
| Md. | 2014Background
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Jeffrey David Kahl for alleged MRPC violations.
- Kahl, a Maryland attorney, operated a 50/50 firm with Richard Scott; funds were moved from trust to operating accounts and disbursements were recorded inconsistently.
- Between 2009 and 2010, trust funds were transferred to Kahl’s personal account on multiple occasions without client authorization or proper documentation.
- Deposits and transfers included $1,300 and $2,000 disbursements, with explanations of donations and mistaken transfers later found uncredible.
- Scott discovered the misappropriations and terminated the partnership; Kahl admitted some withdrawals but offered explanations lacking credibility.
- Judge Norman found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kahl engaged in misappropriation, dishonesty, and misrepresentation, violating multiple MRPC provisions, and recommended disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Kahl violate trust accounting rules? | Grievance Commission argues misappropriation and commingling breached MRPC 1.15 and related rules. | Kahl contends no proper grounds shown; explanations for transfers were misinterpreted. | Yes; violations established by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Did Kahl engage in dishonesty or deceit in handling firm funds? | Grievance Commission asserts intentional misrepresentations and misappropriation reflect dishonesty under MRPC 8.4. | Kahl claims explanations were truthful or misunderstandings, not misrepresentations. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence of dishonesty and deceit. |
| Did Kahl fail to respond to Bar Counsel and produce records? | Grievance Commission argues Kahl knowingly failed to provide financial records in violation of MRPC 8.1(a),(b). | Kahl asserts he complied or that delays were inadvertent. | Yes; MRPC 8.1(a)-(b) violated. |
| Was Kahl’s conduct a violation of misappropriation statutes and MRPC 8.4 (d) and related sections? | Grievance Commission contends repeated unauthorized transfers constitute serious misconduct. | Kahl disputes scope or intent of transfers as misappropriations. | Yes; violations of BOP 10-306 and MRPC 8.4 (a)-(d) found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Carithers, 421 Md. 28 (2011) (disbarment supported for misappropriation and concealment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Vlahos, 369 Md. 183 (2002) (misappropriation supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Spery, 371 Md. 560 (2002) (misappropriation and deceit warrant discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Bakas, 323 Md. 395 (1991) (importance of trusteeship and honesty in accounting)
- Bar Ass'n v. Marshall, 269 Md. 510 (1973) (trust and accountability in handling client funds)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234 (2000) (disciplinary authority duty to respond)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Goff, 399 Md. 1 (2007) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)