Attorney Grievance Commission v. Peters-Hamlin
136 A.3d 374
Md.
2016

Background

  • Kristan Peters‑Hamlin, lead counsel for Wolters Kluwer in SDNY litigation, instructed a first‑year associate to “mark up” clean deposition transcripts to claim work‑product and ordered copies of protected materials for use in a separate Massachusetts action in violation of a New York court Confidentiality Order.
  • She made false statements to the court (e.g., claiming transcripts/discs were misplaced or were work product) and attempted to conceal the conduct; the magistrate judge found her testimony not credible after an 11‑day evidentiary hearing.
  • The SDNY Grievance Committee adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and imposed a seven‑year suspension (nunc pro tunc to April 10, 2008); the Second Circuit affirmed that order.
  • Maryland Bar Counsel filed a reciprocal discipline petition; Maryland’s Court of Appeals issued a show‑cause order and, after briefing and oral argument, concluded the SDNY findings were conclusive under Md. Rule 16‑773 and that exceptional circumstances justified a different sanction.
  • The Maryland Court held Peters‑Hamlin violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) based on the SDNY record and imposed disbarment (finding intentional, repeated dishonesty, lack of remorse, and failure to notify Maryland Bar Counsel of out‑of‑state discipline).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Bar Counsel) Defendant's Argument (Peters‑Hamlin) Held
Whether SDNY findings of misconduct are conclusive in Maryland reciprocal proceedings SDNY adjudication is conclusive under Md. Rule 16‑773; permits reciprocal discipline Challenges credibility and urges reconsideration/mitigation; points to lighter sanctions in other jurisdictions SDNY findings treated as conclusive absent clear cause; Court accepted them and found misconduct proved
Whether conduct violated MLRPC rules (3.3, 3.4, 8.4) Conduct involved knowingly false statements, deceit, and disobedience of court orders—violations of listed MLRPC provisions Denies wrongdoing or frames actions as permissible/legal strategy; disputes characterization of testimony Court held clear and convincing evidence supported violations of MLRPC 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), and 8.4(a),(c),(d)
Whether reciprocal discipline should mirror SDNY sanction or be different Bar Counsel urged more severe sanction (disbarment) given intentional dishonesty and failure to notify Maryland Peters‑Hamlin argued for no discipline or nunc pro tunc (concurrent) discipline, citing other jurisdictions (including Connecticut) that imposed lesser/no discipline Court invoked Md. Rule 16‑773(e) and imposed a substantially different sanction: disbarment (discretion to depart when exceptional circumstances warrant)
Relevance of failure to notify Maryland of out‑of‑state discipline Aggravating: delayed or absent notice undermines entitlement to concurrent nunc pro tunc discipline Claims confusion or misunderstanding about reporting obligations; notes limited Maryland practice Court found failure to notify Bar Counsel an aggravating factor supporting deviation from nunc pro tunc reciprocity and harsher sanction

Key Cases Cited

  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Adams, 441 Md. 590 (discussing conclusiveness of sister‑jurisdiction findings in reciprocal discipline)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mixter, 441 Md. 416 (sanctioning principles: protection of public and deterrence)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (disbarment ordinarily appropriate for intentional dishonesty absent compelling mitigation)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zodrow, 419 Md. 286 (disbarment for intentional dishonest conduct; guidance on reciprocity)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gordon, 413 Md. 46 (reciprocal discipline; suspension where attorney accepted responsibility and misconduct not part of pattern)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Byrd, 408 Md. 449 (disbarment for repeated false statements and defiance of court orders)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Levin, 438 Md. 211 (disbarment for systematic dishonest misrepresentations and fabricated client records)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McClain, 406 Md. 1 (disbarment for intentional dishonest conduct and misleading the court)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dore, 433 Md. 685 (candor to tribunal as paramount ethical obligation)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barnett, 440 Md. 254 (MLRPC 8.4(c) prohibits dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Midlen, 395 Md. 628 (nunc pro tunc/concurrent reciprocal discipline analysis and the effect of prompt reporting to Maryland)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Whitehead, 390 Md. 663 (Court must independently assess appropriateness of sister jurisdiction’s sanction)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zimmerman, 428 Md. 119 (sanctions aim to deter and protect public)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 695 (importance of honesty in legal practice)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (ABA aggravating factors cited in sanctioning)
  • Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Coppola, 419 Md. 370 (list of mitigating factors considered in sanctions)
Read the full case