Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tanko
427 Md. 15
| Md. | 2012Background
- Petitioner Attorney Grievance Commission filed a disciplinary action against Louis P. Tanko Jr. based on two client matters, Brown and Colahar.
- Tanko was suspended from the Maryland bar for 60 days starting April 17, 2009 and did not apply for reinstatement or pay costs; he resumed practice without authorization.
- In Brown, Tanko entered a retainer with Mrs. Gosnell to pursue a federal habeas corpus writ for Howard Brown, with funds paid by Gosnell and Brown outside a client trust account.
- The retainer included an instruction that funds could be deposited into Tanko’s personal account, and Tanko did not adequately explain MRPC 1.15 or obtain informed consent.
- Tanko did not file a habeas corpus petition for Brown, did not maintain time records, and was difficult to contact, misrepresenting status and continuation of representation.
- In Colahar, Tanko allegedly represented Colahar in an unpaid-wages action; Colahar testified she did not sign the retainer and did not consent to deposit of fees into Tanko’s personal account; Tanko did not deposit fees to a trust account and failed to obtain informed consent.
- Tanko withdrew from Colahar’s case after she terminated representation and reportedly did not inform her of suspension or status, leading to multiple MRPC violations and an indefinite suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Tanko’s handling of Brown violate MRPC 1.1? | Brown required competent habeas work; Tanko lacked necessary federal habeas expertise. | He provided substantial work; there was a plan to pursue relief and Brown approved some actions. | Yes; MRPC 1.1 violated |
| Did Tanko violate MRPC 1.2(a) in Brown by not pursuing the client’s objective? | He failed to file the habeas petition or other meaningful documents per Brown’s objective. | There was no clear evidence of failure to pursue objective; client may have constrained actions. | No; not clearly established |
| Did Tanko violate MRPC 1.15 by safekeeping property in Brown and Colahar? | Retainer funds were deposited into Tanko’s personal account without informed consent or a trust account. | He explained the arrangement and believed consent satisfied. | Yes; violation in both matters |
| Did Tanko’s post-suspension conduct amount to unauthorized practice of law (MRPC 5.5) and related misconduct (MRPC 8.4)? | Practiced law after suspension without reinstatement and misled the public about eligibility. | No intentional deception; believed he was authorized to practice. | Yes; specified violations and improper practice after suspension |
| Did Tanko’s failure to disclose information to Bar Counsel (MRPC 8.1) and related conduct aggravate the misconduct? | Ignored multiple lawful requests and delayed turning over Brown’s file. | No deliberate deception; attempts to cooperate eventually occurred. | Yes; MRPC 8.1(b) violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 408 Md. 404 (Md. 2009) (suspension and related disciplinary standards)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351 (Md. 2008) (de novo review; clear and convincing standard)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41 (Md. 2007) (8.4(c) requires knowledge of falsehood for deceit)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. James, 340 Md. 318 (Md. 1995) (reinstatement prerequisites and procedural requirements)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Maignan, 423 Md. 191 (Md. 2011) (sanction considerations and misconduct framework)