Attorney Grievance Commission v. Zeiger
428 Md. 546
Md.2012Background
- David L. Zeiger, a Maryland lawyer, opened a West Virginia estate for his deceased father to induce production of a rumored later will by Barbara Kohl.
- Zeiger possessed his father’s 1952 will and had been told of a newer will, but he left the West Virginia appointment form questions about a will blank.
- He and his sister were appointed co-administrators in Hampshire County, WV, and filed an appraisement with inaccurate property values.
- Zeiger did not notify Kohl of the opening of the estate or fully administer it, including accounting and taxes, under WV law.
- Kohl, a Maryland attorney and the stepmother, contested the appointment and later sought removal of Zeiger and his sister; Kohl later produced the 2001 will.
- Hearing Judge found violations of MLRPC 8.4(c) and 8.4(d); Zeiger raised exceptions and the court ultimately dismissed the petition for disciplinary action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estoppel by Peer Review Panel precludes charges? | Zeiger | Zeiger | Panel recommendations are nonbinding; estoppel not applying; charges may proceed. |
| Whether Zeiger violated MLRPC 8.4(c) by not disclosing a will on appointment form | Zeiger | Zeiger | Not proven; omission not equivalent to affirmative misrepresentation; lacked intent. |
| Whether inaccurate appraisals violated MLRPC 8.4(c) | Zeiger | Zeiger | Not proven; inaccuracies deemed negligent, not intentional misconduct. |
| Whether Zeiger violated MLRPC 8.4(c) by co-administration duties | Zeiger | Zeiger | Not proven; lack of clear and convincing evidence of dishonesty. |
| Whether Zeiger’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice under MLRPC 8.4(d) | Zeiger | Zeiker | Delay alone insufficient; no actual and substantial harm shown; no violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kinnane, 390 Md. 324 (2005) (Panel recommendations are nonbinding and not dispositive)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Lee, 387 Md. 89 (2005) (Peer review is informal and nonadversarial; not a final merits decision)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41 (2007) (Misrepresentation can be through omissions; intent required)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662 (2002) ( misconduct must be intentional rather than negligent)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420 (1997) (intentional misconduct required for 8.4(c))
- Rand, 411 Md. 83 (2009) (delay must show actual and substantial harm)