Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kepple
68 A.3d 797
Md.2013Background
- AGC filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent Cristine Kepple under Md. Rule 16-751 for alleged MLRPC Rule 8.1(a) violation.
- Hearing was conducted in the circuit court (Judge McDowell) to determine facts and law under Md. Rule 16-757.
- Judge McDowell found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kepple knowingly concealed her Maryland residency to obtain in-state tuition at West Virginia University College of Law.
- Kepple, a Maryland resident, attended WVU Law from 1991–1994 while continuing to use a WV address box; she surrendered WV driver’s license and paid Maryland taxes later, with WV tuition benefits continuing through law school.
- Kepple’s admission to the Maryland Bar occurred in December 1994, after she completed law school in May 1994 and answered Question 17 on the bar application with “no.”
- The Court of Appeals conducted de novo review of the circuit court record, upholding the findings and determining an appropriate sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence shows deliberate concealment of residency. | Kepple concealed residency to obtain in-state tuition. | Kepple lacked clear evidence of deliberate concealment; explanations were credible. | Evidence supports deliberate concealment. |
| Whether Kepple’s bar application disclosure omission violated Rule 8.1(a). | Knowing false statement concealed material facts. | No knowing false statement; defense credibility issue. | Violation established; knowledge and intent found. |
| What sanction is appropriate given the misconduct and mitigating factors. | Indefinite suspension with right to reinstate after at least one year. | Public reprimand warranted due to long period of good conduct. | Indefinite suspension with reinstatement after 30 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Penn, 431 Md. 320 (2013) (Court has original jurisdiction over attorney discipline; review de novo of legal conclusions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 408 Md. 404 (2009) (hearing judge credibility determinations given deference where appropriate)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gilbert, 307 Md. 481 (1986) (truthfulness and candor are paramount; material omissions can affect character)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209 (2006) (mitigating factors weighed in sanction determination)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Seltzer, 424 Md. 94 (2011) (serious dishonesty can lead to disbarment; acknowledges severity of intent)