Attorney Grievance Commission v. O'Leary
433 Md. 2
| Md. | 2013Background
- Respondent Gina M. O’Leary was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 2001.
- Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in 2012 alleging multiple MRPC violations related to the Cosgrove divorce matter.
- O’Leary allegedly began a romantic relationship with Mr. Cosgrove, communicated with Ms. Cosgrove without her counsel’s consent, and misrepresented her representation.
- Judge Bailey held that O’Leary had a personal and proprietary interest in Cosgrove v. Cosgrove, actively participated after termination of employment, and engaged in deceptive conduct during Bar Counsel’s investigation.
- Sanctions were sought; the hearing judge imposed substantial discovery sanctions and the circuit court ultimately found clear and convincing evidence of multiple rule violations.
- The Court of Appeals conducted an independent de novo review and ultimately disbarred O’Leary, ordering payment of costs to the Bar Counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict of interest (Rule 1.7(a)(2)) | Cosgrove matter involved personal interest due to intimate relationship | O’Leary disputed that the relationship created an impermissible conflict | Violation found; personal interest created conflict of interest |
| Proprietary interest in the litigation (Rule 1.8(i)) | O’Leary had a financial stake due to shared expenses and daycare | No improper proprietary interest; living arrangement not champerty | Violation found; prohibited proprietary interest established |
| Termination/withdrawal (Rule 1.16(a)) | O’Leary failed to withdraw after romantic involvement began | Argues no ongoing representation or that withdrawal would be inappropriate | Violation found; failed to withdraw from representation |
| Communication with represented person (Rule 4.2(a)) | O’Leary directly contacted Ms. Cosgrove regarding custody and support | Communications with represented party were improper but not systemic | Violation found; direct communications improper without consent of counsel |
| Truthfulness and discovery misconduct (Rules 8.1, 8.4) | O’Leary made false statements and hindered Bar Counsel’s investigation | No mitigation presented; contested facts still undisputed | Violations found; false statements and deceitful conduct established |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance v. Culver, 381 Md. 241 (Md. 2004) (conflict due to intimate client relationship in domestic matter; impact on Rule 1.7(b))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harris, 371 Md. 510 (Md. 2002) (prohibition on acquiring proprietary interest; related to related misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance v. Brown, 426 Md. 298 (Md. 2012) (mitigation and factors in discipline; absence of prior record considered)
- Attorney Grievance v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; aggravation in sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance v. Kent, 337 Md. 361 (Md. 1995) (experience in practice as aggravating factor)
- Attorney Grievance v. James, 385 Md. 637 (Md. 2005) (sanctions for discovery violations; standard of proportionality)