Attorney Grievance Commission v. Litman
101 A.3d 1050
| Md. | 2014Background
- Litman, Maryland- and Pennsylvania-admitted, was publicly censured in Pennsylvania for misconduct; Maryland sought reciprocal discipline.
- Pennsylvania declared violations of Rules 1.1, 3.3(a), 8.4(c)(d); Bar Counsel sought disbarment in Maryland.
- Litman argued Pennsylvania discipline sufficed and HBPA due process issues; he urged no additional Maryland sanction.
- Maryland faced a reciprocal-discipline framework under Rule 16-773; the Court may impose a different sanction if warranted.
- Court concluded misconduct warranted indefinite suspension in Maryland, with six-month minimum wait before readmission, no disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate Maryland sanction for Litman’s conduct | Bar Counsel seeks disbarment | Litman argues Pennsylvania public censure suffices | Indefinite suspension warranted |
| Grave injustice exception to reciprocal discipline | Discipline should mirror Pennsylvania to deter misconduct | Reciprocal discipline would cause grave injustice | Grave-injustice exception not satisfied; Maryland imposes reciprocal-like discipline with own standards |
| Effect of Pennsylvania public censure on Maryland action | Public censure informs Maryland sanction | Maryland may differ if warranted | Maryland may impose different sanction; not bound to identical result |
| Readmission timing after indefinite suspension | Readmission allowed after minimal period | N/A | Six months minimum sit-out before petition for reinstatement |
| Mitigating factors and aggravating factors in sanction choice | Mitigating factors (remorse) considered; misconduct egregious | Litman’s remorse weighed but not enough to avoid suspension | Significant experience and intentional misrepresentations justify indefinite suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kourtesis, 437 Md. 436 (Md. 2014) (reciprocal discipline and deterrence considerations in Maryland)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Whitehead, 390 Md. 663 (Md. 2006) (integrity of the bar and deterrence in discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sperling, 432 Md. 471 (Md. 2013) (indefinite suspension with mitigating factors and misrepresentation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Robaton, 411 Md. 415 (Md. 2009) (minimum six-month sit-out after indefinite suspension)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Granger, 374 Md. 438 (Md. 2003) (indefinite suspension with right to re-apply after six months)