Attorney Grievance Commission v. Reno, 436 Md. 504

Background

Sandra Lynn Reno, a Maryland attorney admitted in 1991, bought a .45 caliber 1911 handgun and gave it to Cortney Stevens, who had prior drug and prescription-forgery convictions that disqualified him from firearm possession.
Stevens’s handgun purchase application had been disapproved by Maryland State Police; Reno learned of the disapproval but believed it was a minor issue (e.g., unpaid fine).
Reno transported the handgun directly to Stevens and later retrieved it for police when contacted during a handgun investigation; the handgun was confiscated.
Reno pled not guilty in state criminal proceedings via an agreed statement of facts, received probation before judgment, and reported herself to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
The Commission filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action; the circuit court hearing judge found Reno did not knowingly give the gun to a prohibited person and concluded she did not violate certain MLRPC provisions.
The Court of Appeals reversed part of that legal conclusion, holding that Reno violated MLRPC 8.4(d) and 8.4(a) based on clear and convincing evidence she had reasonable cause to believe Stevens was disqualified; the Court declined the Commission’s request to dismiss and invited sanction recommendations.

Issues

Issue	Attorney Grievance Commission's Argument	Reno's Argument	Held
Whether Reno engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (MLRPC 8.4(d)) by transferring a handgun to Stevens	Reno’s act of giving a regulated firearm to a disqualified person harmed public confidence and was an illegal act warranting disciplinary sanction	Reno asserted she did not actually know Stevens was a prohibited person and accepted criminal responsibility only because she “should have known”	Court held Reno violated MLRPC 8.4(d): clear and convincing evidence showed she had reasonable cause to believe Stevens was disqualified and thus engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
Whether Reno violated MLRPC 8.4(a) by violating law relating to firearms transfers	Commission argued violation of statutory/regulatory firearm-transfer provisions supports discipline under 8.4(a)	Reno argued lack of actual knowledge of Stevens’s disqualifying convictions and that she pled without admitting knowledge	Court held Reno violated MLRPC 8.4(a) because her unlawful transfer (in violation of PS §5-134(b)(2) standard of reasonable cause) constituted a violation of law implicating the MLRPC
Whether the hearing judge’s factual finding (no actual knowledge) precludes discipline	Commission argued reasonable-cause standard supports discipline even absent actual knowledge	Reno relied on the hearing judge’s finding that she did not know Stevens was prohibited	Court held the no-actual-knowledge finding did not preclude discipline because reasonable cause can be established on the facts and supports a regulatory violation leading to misconduct findings
Whether this Court should grant the Commission’s motion to dismiss the disciplinary proceeding	Commission moved to dismiss but argued discipline unnecessary given hearing judge’s conclusions	Reno implicitly sought dismissal based on hearing judge’s conclusions	Court declined to dismiss and proceeded to conclude misconduct occurred, then solicited sanction recommendations

Key Cases Cited

Mahone v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 435 Md. 84 (standard of review and deference to hearing judge’s factual findings)
Rand v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 411 Md. 83 (definition of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice)
Katz v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 429 Md. 308 (absence of criminal prosecution does not preclude disciplinary violation)
Dore v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 433 Md. 685 (practice of granting motions to dismiss and Court’s discretion)
Goodman v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 426 Md. 115 (discipline for acts that bring the legal profession into disrepute)