243 A.3d 520
Md.2020Background:
- Keating represented Keith Wilson for ~17 years and drafted multiple wills for him; Wilson named Keating beneficiary of a life-insurance policy first reflected in the 2016 will.
- Wilson died Feb. 16, 2018; the 2018 will Keating had prepared bore only one witness signature when returned; Keating signed as a second witness about a month after his death and filed the will for probate, attesting under penalty of perjury she had witnessed it.
- Keating deposited the $100,309.78 life-insurance proceeds into her attorney trust/escrow account, used some funds for estate-related expenses, and later transferred most estate materials to the successor personal representative after a caveat was filed.
- She admitted the false attestation to Bar Counsel, cooperated with proceedings, and self‑reported her conduct after the caveat; the hearing judge found violations of multiple MARPC provisions, but parties filed exceptions.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed violations for knowingly submitting a falsely attested will (candor and misconduct rules), rejected a conflict-of-interest finding as to drafting the will, and found no commingling/safekeeping violation.
- Sanction: indefinite suspension with right to reapply after six months (aggravating factor: illegal conduct/perjury; mitigating factors: no prior discipline, cooperation, reputation, lack of selfish motive).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preparing a will that references the attorney as beneficiary violated MARPC 19-301.8(c) (soliciting/accepting substantial testamentary gift) | Keating prepared testamentary language that effectively gave her a substantial gift; prohibited unless within narrow exception. | Keating did not solicit and did not receive the gift via the will — the life-insurance designation was a non‑probate contract made without her solicitation. | Reversed: no 19-301.8 violation — life-insurance proceeds were non‑probate and designation was not solicited by Keating. |
| Whether depositing the life-insurance proceeds into an attorney trust account and failing to promptly notify/deliver to devisees violated safekeeping/commingling rules (19-301.15 / 19-408) | Proceeds were personal to Keating and should not have been placed in trust; Keating failed to promptly notify or deliver gifts to named recipients. | Proceeds were partly or potentially Keating’s; she reasonably used the trust account to safeguard funds while administering estate matters; third parties had no legal interest requiring prompt notice/delivery. | No violation: deposit permitted under rule for funds partly belonging to attorney; no duty to notify/deliver to third parties lacking legal interest. |
| Whether signing as a witness after the testator’s death and filing the will under penalty of perjury violated candor and misconduct rules (19-303.3; 19-308.4) | Keating knowingly made false statements to a tribunal by attesting to witnessing execution and filed the probate petition under penalty of perjury. | Keating acted to carry out her client’s last wishes and lacked a selfish motive. | Held: violation — knowingly submitting a falsely attested will breached 19-303.3 and amounted to misconduct under 19-308.4. |
| Appropriate sanction | Petitioner urged disbarment given dishonesty before a tribunal. | Keating emphasized decades of unblemished practice, cooperation, remorse, and absence of selfish gain; urged lesser sanction. | Indefinite suspension with right to reapply after six months — balanced seriousness of perjury with mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, reputation, lack of selfish motive). |
Key Cases Cited
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Kaufman, 466 Md. 404 (violation of other professional rules supports misconduct charge)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494 (enumeration of aggravating factors for sanctions)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136 (mitigating factors considered in sanctioning)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Whitehead, 405 Md. 240 (standard of review for disciplinary findings)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Harrington, 367 Md. 36 (hearing court findings prima facie correct)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Kendrick, 403 Md. 489 (indefinite suspension in probate-administration context)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Sullivan, 369 Md. 650 (disbarment for personal enrichment from estate)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Coppola, 419 Md. 370 (disbarment for forged will and deliberate dishonesty)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Woolery, 462 Md. 209 (false statements to tribunal violate multiple rules)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Cohen, 361 Md. 161 (indefinite suspension with six-month waiting period for dishonesty among other violations)
- Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359 (violations of professional rules constitute misconduct under rule 19-308.4)