Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kourtesis
437 Md. 436
Md.2014Background
- Nikolaos P. Kourtesis, admitted in Maryland (1997) and D.C. (2005), sought suspension in D.C. after claiming major depressive disorder prevented him from defending pending disciplinary charges.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals, based on medical affidavits and Kourtesis’s own acknowledgement, ordered indefinite suspension and held pending D.C. disciplinary matters in abeyance under D.C. Bar R. XI, §13.
- Maryland Bar Counsel filed a reciprocal Petition (Md. Rules 16-751, 16-773) attaching the D.C. order and sought corresponding discipline in Maryland.
- Kourtesis asked for a Maryland evidentiary hearing on competency, arguing exceptional circumstances: that the reason for D.C. suspension no longer exists and that imposing reciprocal discipline would cause grave injustice.
- The Maryland Court held a show-cause hearing, concluded it must give deference to D.C.’s finding of incapacity, and determined Maryland’s most analogous remedy is placement on inactive status (not indefinite suspension) until further order of the Court.
- The Court rejected Kourtesis’s exceptional-circumstances arguments: (1) the D.C. suspension and the stayed disciplinary proceedings remain interlinked, so the reason for D.C. action still exists; (2) financial hardship/forum-shopping do not constitute "grave injustice." Costs were assessed against Kourtesis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland should impose reciprocal discipline for D.C. indefinite suspension | Bar Counsel: impose corresponding discipline (indefinite suspension or equivalent) | Kourtesis: no reciprocal action; request Maryland hearing on competency | Court: impose inactive status (Maryland analogue) until further order |
| Whether Md. Rule 16-773(e)(5) (reason for inactive status no longer exists) applies | Bar Counsel: D.C. incapacity finding remains operative | Kourtesis: his "perfect storm" has passed; he is fit now | Court: exception inapplicable; D.C. suspension and stayed charges still exist and are linked |
| Whether Md. Rule 16-773(e)(3) (grave injustice) applies | Bar Counsel: reciprocal remedy appropriate; no grave injustice | Kourtesis: financial hardship and delay in D.C. process create grave injustice; seeks forum-shopping to expedite reinstatement | Court: financial hardship/forum-shopping insufficient; no grave injustice found |
| Appropriate Maryland remedy for incapacity implied by sister-jurisdiction order | Bar Counsel: reciprocal sanction (deference to D.C.) | Kourtesis: requests Maryland evidentiary competency hearing before any restriction | Court: apply Maryland rules—incapacity yields inactive status (not indefinite suspension); no separate Maryland hearing now |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Whitehead, 390 Md. 663 (general reciprocal-discipline principles; Court must assess appropriate sanction itself)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Weiss, 389 Md. 531 (reciprocal discipline deference to originating jurisdiction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Haas, 412 Md. 536 (do not relitigate final adjudications of sister jurisdictions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Demyan, 299 Md. 652 (placing attorney on inactive status for incapacity)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Draper, 307 Md. 435 (inactive status appropriate when attorney incompetent to practice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Cafferty, 376 Md. 700 (reciprocal discipline jurisprudence and consistency in sanctions)