Attorney Grievance Commission v. Keiner
27 A.3d 153
| Md. | 2011Background
- Keiner admitted to altering and deleting documents in his former law firm's client files to portray closed files and to facilitate taking those clients to his own practice.
- He solicited about 200 potential clients using firm resources and created letters on his own letterhead while employed at the firm.
- Electronic back-up and investigation revealed multiple cases with manipulated blood-lead level data to support viable claims, which did not align with the termination letters in the files.
- Judge McCrone held by clear and convincing evidence that Keiner violated MRPC 1.4(a)(b) and 8.4(a)-(d), and that his conduct also violated Criminal Law § 7-302.
- Keiner was terminated by the firm, treated for depression and alcohol issues, and coordinated with treatment providers; he argued these factors mitigated the misconduct.
- The Court ultimately disbarred Keiner and ordered payment of costs; dissenting views suggested a suspension rather than disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Keiner violate MRPC 1.4 and 8.4? | Bar Counsel argues violations proven by clear and convincing evidence. | Keiner concedes violations occurred. | Yes; violations established by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Was the Peer Review Report and related correspondence admissible or determinative? | Bar Counsel argues irrelevance and confidentiality justify exclusion. | Keiner seeks to rely on the Peer Review materials to support a conditional diversion. | Admissibility rejected; Peer Review materials struck; conditional diversion not appropriate. |
| Should the case be remanded for a conditional diversion agreement due to mitigating factors? | Bar Counsel contends there was no basis to remand for a diversion. | Keiner argues factors warrant conditional diversion. | Remand for conditional diversion denied; no basis under governing rules. |
| Did the trial court properly consider mitigating factors and their effect on sanction? | Mitigating factors do not overcome the dishonesty and misappropriation here. | Depression, alcohol abuse, cooperation, and treatment constitute compelling extenuating circumstances. | Mitigation not sufficient to avoid disbarment; disbarment approved. |
| Is the sanctions decision supported by the record and appropriate under Vanderlinde and related standards? | Disbarment is appropriate given intentional dishonesty for personal gain. | Suspension would be appropriate under Potter-like precedents. | Disbarment affirmed; costs awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (three-part test for mental disability as mitigation in serious misconduct cases)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185 (Md. 2010) (mitigation standards for mental illness and its relation to misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Cappell, 389 Md. 402 (Md. 2005) (role and limits of conditional diversion; mitigation analysis)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kinnane, 390 Md. 324 (Md. 2005) (Peer Review Panel reports are confidential and inadmissible evidence at hearing)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Olver, 376 Md. 650 (Md. 2003) (conditional diversion available post-petition under Rule 16-736)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Lee, 387 Md. 89 (Md. 2005) (Peer Review Panel's function is recommendatory, not binding)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sucklal, 418 Md. 1 (Md. 2010) (sanction goals: protect public and maintain confidence in the profession)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Guberman, 392 Md. 131 (Md. 2006) (disbarment typically follows willful dishonesty for personal gain unless compelling extenuating circumstances)