Attorney Grievance Commission v. Penn
431 Md. 320
Md.2013Background
- Penn was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 2003 and became Old Republic’s Claims Counsel in 2008.
- He formed Bennett & Kuhn (B&K) in 2009 to perform pleadings for outside counsel in New York, billing through Hickey's firm without Old Republic knowledge.
- Old Republic paid Hickey’s firm for B&K invoices; B&K did not receive direct compensation from Penn, who owned B&K.
- After termination, Old Republic discovered Penn assigned Old Republic assets (Oliveira judgment and Gastgeb security deed) to B&K without authorization or disclosure and concealed these actions in records.
- Judge Stansfield found Penn violated Rules 8.4(a), (c), and (d) but not 7.5 or 8.4(b), and recommended disbarment; the Maryland Court of Appeals reviews de novo on law and facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Penn’s conduct constitute 8.4(c) dishonesty? | Bar Counsel: Penn engaged in self-dealing and concealment. | Penn: conduct lacked intentional dishonesty; relied on disclosure failures. | Yes; intentional dishonesty found (Rule 8.4(c)). |
| Did Penn’s conduct constitute 8.4(d) prejudicial to administration of justice? | Bar Counsel: self-dealing eroded public confidence. | Penn: no direct impact on justice administration. | Yes; findings support prejudice to administration of justice. |
| Was Penn required to disclose his Bennett & Kuhn arrangement to Old Republic and was self-dealing proven? | Bar Counsel: undisclosed self-dealing with fees and assignments. | Penn: asserted arrangements were fair and beneficial to Old Republic; argued no intentional wrongdoing. | Self-dealing proven; non-disclosure established. |
| Is disbarment the appropriate sanction given the findings and mitigating/aggravating factors? | Bar Counsel: disbarment warranted for intentional dishonesty and pattern of misconduct. | Penn: argues for reprimand based on mitigating factors and delay. | Disbarment warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (Md. 2001) (disbarment appropriate for intentional dishonest conduct)
- Attorney Grievance v. Chapman, 430 Md. 238 (Md. 2013) (principles for reviewing hearing judge’s findings of fact)
- Attorney Grievance v. Lara, 418 Md. 355 (Md. 2011) (independent review standard in attorney discipline)
- Attorney Grievance v. Keiner, 421 Md. 492 (Md. 2011) (8.4(c) violation and related conduct in in-house settings)