285 A.3d 546
Md.2022Background
- Edward A. Malone, admitted in Maryland and Virginia in 1999, had prior discipline: a Virginia public reprimand (2011) and a private reprimand from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (2012); he failed to timely report some of this discipline to Maryland Bar Counsel.
- Malone applied to the Texas Bar (2013–2015) and repeatedly omitted or misrepresented his prior bar admissions and disciplinary history on sworn applications and affidavits; he later admitted the omissions were intentional.
- The Texas Board investigated, concluded Malone obtained his Texas license by fraud/willful failure to comply with rules, and the Supreme Court of Texas cancelled his Texas license (2016); the Texas Board later denied his reapplication for lack of good moral character.
- Maryland Bar Counsel filed a petition for discipline alleging violations of MLRPC 8.1 and 8.4 (among others); Malone invoked the Fifth Amendment at his deposition, leading to litigation over whether that invocation was made in bad faith and whether it could limit his testimony at the disciplinary hearing.
- This Court (after an initial opinion remanding limited issues) found Malone knowingly and intentionally made false statements on his Texas applications, committed perjury under Texas law, violated MLRPC 8.1(a),(b) and 8.4(a)–(d), and—after assessing mitigating and aggravating factors—ordered disbarment effective immediately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commission) | Defendant's Argument (Malone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Malone violated MLRPC by false statements on Texas applications | Malone knowingly and intentionally omitted and misrepresented admissions and disciplinary history on sworn applications and affidavits | Any omissions were mistakes, memory lapses, or misread questions; not intentional misconduct | Court held Malone knowingly and intentionally made false statements and committed perjury; violations of 8.1(a),(b) and 8.4(a)–(d) proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Malone’s blanket invocation of the Fifth Amendment warranted preclusion and constitutes bad-faith obstruction | Invocation was made in bad faith (blanket refusals, including to questions central to merits), obstructing discovery and proceedings | Malone had a right to invoke the privilege and to decide later whether to testify at hearing | Court found bad-faith invocation as to several deposition questions, justified preclusion for merits testimony but allowed remand for mitigation testimony; bad-faith obstruction is an aggravating factor |
| Which mitigating/aggravating factors apply | Aggravators: prior discipline, dishonest/selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, bad-faith obstruction, substantial experience; few or no mitigating factors | Mitigants: volunteer/church work, refunds to clients, cooperation/self-reporting, no client harm, delay by Bar Counsel | Court sustained five aggravating factors; found limited mitigation (community volunteer work and remorse); rejected most claimed mitigators (refunds, cooperation, lack of harm, delay) |
| Appropriate sanction | Disbarment is appropriate given intentional, sustained deception in bar-admission process | Three-month suspension proposed | Court disbarred Malone, applying the Vanderlinde standard (disbarment ordinarily for intentional dishonesty absent compelling extenuating circumstances) and concluding no such circumstances exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Malone I, 477 Md. 225, 269 A.3d 282 (Md. 2022) (prior opinion establishing violations and ordering limited remand on mitigation)
- Slate v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 457 Md. 610, 180 A.3d 134 (Md. 2018) (disbarment for concealment during bar admission; discusses trustworthiness requirement)
- Vanderlinde v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 364 Md. 376, 773 A.2d 463 (Md. 2001) (framework: disbarment ordinarily required for intentional dishonesty absent compelling extenuating circumstances)
- Collins v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 477 Md. 482, 270 A.3d 917 (Md. 2022) (refines Vanderlinde: not every intentional-dishonesty case mandates disbarment; assess individually; applied indefinite suspension)
- Garcia v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 410 Md. 507, 979 A.2d 146 (Md. 2009) (disbarment for fraudulent misrepresentations to federal government; shows fraud unrelated to theft can warrant disbarment)
- Bonner v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 477 Md. 576, 271 A.3d 249 (Md. 2022) (disbarment for systematic misappropriation; discusses aggravating/mitigating factors in dishonesty cases)