Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kotlarsky, 162 A.3d 901

Mark Kotlarsky, admitted 1992, maintained a solo practice in Montgomery County and filed a Chapter 7 personal bankruptcy petition on February 6, 2013.
Bar Counsel learned in 2015 that Kotlarsky had an overdraft on his operating account and large disbursements from his attorney trust account to an LLC he owned; he claimed the transfers related to his law firm’s pension plan.
Investigation revealed Kotlarsky failed to disclose assets associated with his law firm’s pension plan (including a potential claim in a separate SSFMC bankruptcy) on his personal bankruptcy schedules; funds later were distributed to his bankruptcy trustee.
Kotlarsky had outstanding federal and state tax liens and repeatedly failed to respond to multiple written, lawful demands for information from Bar Counsel (letters dated June 22, 2015; July 13, 2015; August 4, 2015; and January 26, 2016).
The hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, violations of MARPC §19-308.1(b) (failure to respond) and §19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct, dishonesty, prejudicial conduct).
The Court of Appeals accepted the findings, concluded disbarment was the appropriate sanction, and entered a per curiam disbarment order effective April 4, 2017.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kotlarsky failed to respond to lawful disciplinary demands (MARPC §19-308.1(b))	Bar Counsel: Kotlarsky ignored multiple written requests for information about his trust account and tax liens	Kotlarsky did not contest; no responsive evidence presented	Court: Violation established; repeated nonresponses breached §19-308.1(b)
Whether Kotlarsky knowingly failed to disclose assets in bankruptcy (MARPC §19-308.4(c))	Bar Counsel: Kotlarsky omitted a potential claim of his firm’s pension plan in his Chapter 7 schedules, constituting dishonesty	Kotlarsky did not appear or file exceptions to contest findings	Court: Clear and convincing evidence of intentional nondisclosure; rule 8.4(c) violated
Whether combined misconduct was prejudicial to administration of justice (MARPC §19-308.4(d))	Bar Counsel: Dishonesty in bankruptcy and noncooperation with Bar Counsel undermines justice administration	Kotlarsky offered no defense or mitigating evidence	Court: Conduct, taken as whole, prejudicial to administration of justice; §19-308.4(d) violated
Appropriate sanction for these violations	Bar Counsel: Disbarment given intentional dishonesty and failure to cooperate	Kotlarsky offered no mitigating circumstances or rebuttal	Court: Disbarment is appropriate absent compelling extenuating circumstances; per curiam disbarment entered

Gallagher v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 371 Md. 673, 810 A.2d 996 (rule 8.4(a) implicated when other rules violated)
Foltz v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 411 Md. 359, 983 A.2d 434 (same principle on rule 8.4(a))
Hodes v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 441 Md. 136, 105 A.3d 533 (standards of review in attorney discipline)
Siskind v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 401 Md. 41, 930 A.2d 328 (dishonesty may warrant disbarment)
Vanderlinde v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 364 Md. 376, 773 A.2d 463 (compelling extenuating circumstances standard)
Byrd v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 408 Md. 449, 970 A.2d 870 (disbarment for false bankruptcy filings and perjury)
Zodrow v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 419 Md. 286, 19 A.3d 381 (disbarment for failure to disclose assets in bankruptcy)
Gray v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 436 Md. 513, 83 A.3d 786 (failure to respond to Bar Counsel violates rule 8.1(b))
Harmon v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 435 Md. 306, 77 A.3d 1107 (same)
Bleecker v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 414 Md. 147, 994 A.2d 928 (same)
McClain v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 406 Md. 1, 956 A.2d 135 (disbarment in absence of compelling extenuation)