Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kent
136 A.3d 394
Md.2016Background
- Bruce A. Kent, a Maryland attorney and successor trustee of the McClelland Family Revocable Living Trust, was accused of misusing trust funds after the settlors named him trustee; he deposited trust receipts into his IOLTA and made loans/disbursements to related parties and clients.
- Bar Counsel served written discovery in July 2015; Kent (through counsel) missed deadlines, produced incomplete responses, and was sanctioned by the hearing judge on September 4, 2015: pleadings stricken, allegations deemed admitted, and precluded from offering evidence or mitigation.
- At hearing the judge found clear and convincing evidence Kent knowingly and intentionally misappropriated trust funds, issued checks payable to cash, created negative client-matter balances, made improper loans (including to his son‑in‑law and a client), and made a false statement to Bar Counsel.
- The hearing judge concluded Kent violated multiple MLRPC rules (including 1.1, 1.7, 1.8, 1.15, 8.1, 8.4), Md. Rules 16‑606.1 and 16‑609, and Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 10‑306; aggravating factors supported a severe sanction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings, upheld the discovery sanctions as not an abuse of discretion, and ordered disbarment based principally on intentional misappropriation and related misconduct. Justice Adkins dissented only as to the discovery sanctions and would have remanded for opportunity to present a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Attorney Grievance) | Defendant's Argument (Kent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of discovery sanctions (precluding defense and deeming allegations admitted) | Sanctions appropriate given repeated, prejudicial, and ongoing discovery failures that impeded preparation and could not be cured within Rule deadlines | Counsel’s failures and email/technical issues excused delay; sanction was unduly draconian for comparatively minimal tardiness | Sanction sustained: judge did not abuse discretion under Taliaferro factors; prejudice and tight timelines justified exclusion |
| Whether Kent misappropriated trust funds and violated trust-account rules | Kent knowingly used IOLTA funds for personal benefit, made unauthorized loans/disbursements, issued cash checks, and failed to keep required trust records | (No contested factual exceptions preserved) | Findings accepted: clear and convincing evidence of knowing misappropriation and multiple Rule violations |
| Conflict of interest and improper business transactions with clients/relatives | Loans to client entities and to son‑in‑law were conflicts and business transactions requiring independent counsel and written consent | Kent argued competence or inadvertence (not preserved) | Violations of MLRPC 1.7 and 1.8 established (no informed consent, no independent counsel) |
| Appropriate sanction (disbarment vs lesser discipline) | Misappropriation, false statements, pattern of misconduct, criminality, and aggravating factors justify disbarment to protect public and deter | Kent sought mitigation (blocked by discovery sanction) | Disbarment ordered; Court relied on precedent treating intentional misappropriation as ordinarily warranting disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Sachse v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 345 Md. 578 (conflict and trustee duties discussed)
- Hodes v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 441 Md. 136 (disbarment for intentional trust misappropriation; analogous facts)
- Admiral Mortgage, Inc. v. Cooper, 357 Md. 533 (sanctions doctrine; severe sanctions reserved for persistent/deliberate violations)
- Edib v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 415 Md. 696 (standard of review in disciplinary cases; findings of fact accepted unless clearly erroneous)