Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tun
51 A.3d 565
Md.2012Background
- Tun submitted 162 vouchers (1999–2003) seeking payment for the same time for two or more clients, resulting in overbilling.
- A Superior Court judge confronted double-billing; the matter was referred to the U.S. Attorney, who declined prosecution but required self-report to D.C. Bar Counsel.
- Tun self-reported; D.C. Bar Counsel charged violations of D.C. RPC 1.5(a)/(f), 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4(c)/(d); negotiated discipline was approved by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
- D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Tun for 18 months (6 months stayed) with one year probation and conditions, including a mandatory practice monitor.
- Maryland Bar (reciprocal discipline) suspended Tun indefinitely, with the right to reapply after readmission to D.C. Bar, under Maryland rules.
- Tun repaid double-billed funds to the Superior Court; Maryland considered whether reciprocal discipline should mirror or differ from D.C. sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reciprocal discipline is warranted. | Tun’s conduct violated multiple RPCs; the Maryland sanction should reflect the DC sanction's public protection. | Tun seeks comparable discipline or leniency; Maryland’s rule allows discretion to impose a different sanction. | Yes; reciprocal discipline appropriate, with Maryland adopting an indefinite suspension due to negligent misappropriation. |
| What is the appropriate Maryland sanction for this misconduct? | MD should mirror DC punishment or impose equivalent severity. | MD may tailor sanction via its own framework considering Maryland precedent. | Indefinite suspension with right to reapply, aligning with Maryland precedent for negligent misappropriation. |
| Should exceptional circumstances alter the sanction? | DC sanction is the benchmark; Maryland should not be more lenient. | Differences in jurisdictional schemes may justify a different sanction. | Exceptional circumstances exist; sanction diverges from DC's but remains consistent with MD norms for negligent misappropriation. |
| Is the sanction consistent with Maryland’s two-tier system for misappropriation? | The conduct resembles misappropriation; appropriate discipline is determined by MD rules. | MD’s two-tier approach supports indefinite suspension where misappropriation is negligent. | Indefinite suspension with right to reapply is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Weiss, 389 Md. 531 (Md. 2005) (original jurisdictional discipline standard; conclusive evidence in reciprocal action)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Whitehead, 390 Md. 663 (Md. 2006) (reciprocal discipline framework; discretion to impose lesser or greater sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Calhoun, 391 Md. 532 (Md. 2006) (indefinite suspension for negligent/faulty conduct; emphasis on intent)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 380 Md. 180 (Md. 2004) (indefinite suspension; right to reapply after a period for certain misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Culver, 371 Md. 265 (Md. 2002) (indefinite suspension with right to reapply; scales with level of misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662 (Md. 2002) (indefinite suspension after a misappropriation-type violation)