73 A.3d 243
Md.2013Background
- Garland Howe Stillwell, a D.C.-bar attorney, was suspended 60 days by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals after admitting violations of D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) (dishonesty) and 1.7(b)(1) (conflict of interest).
- Misconduct included misrepresenting his firm status, preparing false employment verifications/resume for a friend, charging personal expenses to firm/client accounts, using firm resources for a personal real-estate venture (TCR), and representing clients adverse to a firm client without informed consent.
- The D.C. discipline resulted from a negotiated petition (60-day suspension, no fitness requirement) supported by stipulated facts, respondent affidavit, and mitigating actions (repayment, counseling, no prior discipline).
- Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission petitioned for reciprocal discipline under Md. Rule 16-773; Court of Appeals issued a show-cause order and heard argument on whether corresponding Maryland discipline should be imposed or whether a different sanction was warranted.
- Key legal question: whether the admitted intentional dishonesty and conflict of interest in D.C. justify Maryland reciprocity with the same 60-day suspension or a different (more severe) sanction under Maryland precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland should impose corresponding discipline for D.C. suspension | Petitioner: misconduct was intentional dishonesty and conflicts; Maryland precedent (Vanderlinde/Garcia) normally mandates disbarment or longer suspension for intentional dishonesty; reciprocity should not automatically yield a lesser sanction | Stillwell: no basis under Rule 16-773(e) to avoid corresponding discipline; argues comity and that no Maryland case requires a substantially different sanction here | Court found misconduct proven and appropriate for reciprocal discipline but evaluated sanction independently; imposed six-month suspension (longer than D.C.) |
| Whether respondent’s conduct warrants disbarment or indefinite suspension | Petitioner: multiple acts of intentional dishonesty (misrepresentation, charging personal expenses, misuse of firm resources) and conflict justify severe sanctions up to disbarment | Respondent: mitigating factors (restitution, counseling, remorse, no prior discipline) mitigate against extreme sanctions; negotiated 60-day D.C. sanction appropriate | Court declined disbarment/indefinite suspension given mitigating factors and absence of a pattern; imposed six-month suspension |
| Whether exceptional circumstances exist to avoid reciprocal discipline under Md. Rule 16-773(e) | Petitioner: N/A (seeks greater discipline) | Stillwell: contended no grounds to avoid reciprocity; urged deference to D.C. sanction and comity | No exceptional circumstances shown to avoid reciprocal adjudication; Court proceeded to sanction analysis |
| Standard for departing from sister-state sanction in reciprocal cases | Petitioner: Court must independently assess sanction, and depart when Maryland precedent warrants different penalty for similar misconduct | Respondent: urges deference to D.C. imposed sanction absent clear reason to deviate | Court applied Maryland precedent (incl. Weiss, Vanderlinde, Garcia), evaluated facts and mitigation, and departed from D.C. 60 days to impose six-month suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (broad rule that intentional dishonesty ordinarily warrants disbarment)
- Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (applies Vanderlinde; intentional dishonesty generally results in disbarment absent compelling extenuation)
- Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586 (intentional deceit motivated by pecuniary interest; court imposed indefinite suspension rather than disbarment given mitigating factors)
- Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Potter, 380 Md. 128 (90-day suspension for dishonest-related conduct; no explicit finding of intent to defraud)
- Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Floyd, 400 Md. 236 (90-day suspension where deceit involved concealment rather than explicit misstatement)
- Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Wingerter, 400 Md. 214 (disbarment for active concealment and aiding immigration fraud despite prior commendable service)
- Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Weiss, 389 Md. 531 (framework for assessing when to defer to sister-state sanctions and when to depart to preserve consistent Maryland discipline)