223 A.3d 505
Md.2020Background
- Jason E. Rheinstein was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 2005 and represented Charles and Felicia Moore in litigation challenging confessed judgments from a private lender (Imagine Capital).
- Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action alleging violations of MLRPC Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.4, 4.4 and 8.4 based on Rheinstein’s conduct in the Moore litigation and related filings.
- Rheinstein repeatedly missed discovery deadlines, removed the disciplinary proceedings to federal court twice (both remanded), and largely failed to respond timely to Bar Counsel’s discovery requests propounded April 22, 2016.
- The circuit court (Judge Klavans) found Rheinstein’s discovery failures willful and imposed sanctions (default judgment in favor of Bar Counsel, striking his answer and precluding witnesses and documents), thereby deeming the Petition’s averments admitted.
- Based on the admitted averments Judge Klavans found Rheinstein made unsubstantiated fraud allegations, threatened opposing counsel to coerce settlement, pursued vexatious litigation (including RICO and qui tam filings), and misled a trial judge into believing criminal investigations existed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the rule violations and, considering aggravating and limited mitigating factors, disbarred Rheinstein and taxed costs against him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Rheinstein) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery sanctions: Were default/adverse sanctions and evidentiary preclusion warranted? | Respondent willfully failed to comply with discovery and scheduling orders; prejudice to Bar Counsel and the court justified default and preclusion. | Removal to federal court negated state discovery obligations and explanations (ADHD) excuse tardy responses. | Sanctions affirmed: judge did not abuse discretion; removals did not nullify discovery duties and delay was inexcusable. |
| Rule 1.1 / competence and procedural violations: Did Rheinstein’s filings and procedural errors violate competence rule? | Multiple meritless, procedurally improper and factually unsupported filings show lack of competence/thoroughness. | Errors were technical or due to inexperience, not professional incompetence. | Violations of Rule 1.1 sustained: repeated meritless and procedurally improper filings demonstrated lack of competent representation. |
| Rule 3.1, 3.4, 4.4, 8.4(c)/(d): Did Rheinstein engage in frivolous, deceitful, harassing litigation and misrepresent facts to tribunals and opposing counsel? | He advanced unsubstantiated fraud and criminal-investigation allegations, threatened counsel to extort settlements, filed vexatious suits, and misled the court — violating multiple rules. | He acted zealously to vindicate clients and had factual bases for his beliefs; misconduct was not shown. | Violations sustained: court concluded deceit, frivolous filings, abusive tactics and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice. |
| Sanction: Is disbarment appropriate? | Dishonesty to tribunal, selfish motive, pattern/multiple offenses, obstruction of disciplinary process, and refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing warrant disbarment. | Offer of lesser discipline (reprimand) or remand for mitigation (ADHD evidence). | Disbarment imposed: deceit to tribunal and vexatious conduct, plus obstruction and aggravating factors, made disbarment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kent, 447 Md. 555 (2016) (approving admission-of-averments and preclusion sanctions for persistent discovery violations in disciplinary matters)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mixter, 441 Md. 416 (2015) (disbarment for repeated misrepresentations and abusive discovery tactics)
- Rodriguez v. Clarke, 400 Md. 39 (2007) (upholding preclusion of expert testimony as discovery sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Alison, 349 Md. 623 (1998) (frivolous RICO/fraud claims and harassment to extract settlements violate Rule 3.1 and 8.4)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Fader, 431 Md. 395 (2013) (disbarment where lawyer lied to tribunal to secure advantage)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garcia, 410 Md. 507 (2009) (single instance of deceit can warrant disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Framm, 449 Md. 620 (2016) (disbarment for deceptive court testimony to obtain fees)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. O'Leary, 433 Md. 2 (2013) (trial judge’s broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions in grievance proceedings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337 (2006) (supporting admission-of-averments sanction in disciplinary context)