103 A.3d 565
Md.2014Background
- Sandra Lynn Reno, admitted 1991, was a criminal defense attorney who purchased a .45 caliber 1911 handgun and gave it to Cortney Stevens, a former client and her significant other.
- Stevens had applied to buy the same model handgun; the Maryland State Police Firearms Registration Section disapproved his application. Reno knew of that disapproval.
- Reno obtained the handgun on November 6, 2010, and delivered it directly to Stevens; police later confiscated the firearm during an investigation.
- Reno was charged under the Public Safety Article, pled not guilty and received probation before judgment; those records were later expunged. She self-reported to the Attorney Grievance Commission and had no prior disciplinary history.
- The hearing judge found Reno honest and forthright but concluded she should have known Stevens was a prohibited person; the Court of Appeals held she violated MLRPC 8.4(d) and 8.4(a).
- The Court considered aggravating (substantial experience; illegal conduct) and mitigating factors (no prior discipline; self-reporting; good character) and imposed a six-month suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Reno) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reno violated professional rules by transferring a handgun to a person who could not legally possess it | Reno circumvented firearm law and thereby violated MLRPC 8.4(d) and 8.4(a) by giving the handgun to Stevens despite the disapproved application | Reno claimed she believed the disapproval was for a minor issue and lacked requisite culpable mental state; hearing judge found no 8.4(b)/(c) violations | Court held Reno violated MLRPC 8.4(d) and 8.4(a) because she intentionally gave the handgun despite knowing the application was disapproved |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Six-month suspension to protect the public and deter similar conduct | Reprimand sufficient given self-reporting, character, and lack of prior discipline | Court imposed six-month suspension (starting 30 days after opinion) |
| Role of criminal disposition/expungement in mitigation | Commission argued suspension appropriate regardless of criminal disposition; Reno argued expungement and absence of conviction mitigate | Reno relied on expungement/absence of conviction and reputational consequences as mitigation | Court rejected expungement/absence of conviction and embarrassment as mitigating; misconduct evaluated independently of criminal outcome |
| Analogous precedent and consistency of sanction | Commission cited prior cases (e.g., Smith) supporting six-month suspension | Reno urged lighter sanction; argued distinctions from harsher cases | Court found Reno similar to Howell in circumvention but less egregious; adopted six-month suspension while distinguishing Smith |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reno, 436 Md. 504 (Md. 2014) (earlier opinion addressing facts and rule violations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McDowell, 439 Md. 26 (Md. 2014) (sanctioning framework and factors for attorney discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Howell, 434 Md. 1 (Md. 2013) (one-year suspension where lawyer circumvented prison mail rules, creating potential harm)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 405 Md. 107 (Md. 2008) (six-month suspension for false representation as law enforcement; court distinguished Smith here)