180 A.3d 134
Md.2018Background
- Gregory A. Slate sued ABC in federal court alleging copyright infringement arising from hidden-camera footage; the district court dismissed the case as a sanction for bad‑faith litigation and found Slate fabricated a letter, gave likely perjurious or intentionally misleading deposition testimony, and abused discovery. The D.C. Circuit affirmed.
- Slate applied for admission to the Maryland Bar, disclosed the ABC case in basic form on the questionnaire but did not attach or describe the district‑court Opinions or their findings; he answered "No" to a broad catchall Question 18 asking for any unfavorable incidents bearing on character.
- During the character interview and a follow‑up meeting with Character Committee co‑chairs Slate likewise failed to disclose the Opinions; the State Board cleared him and this Court admitted him to the Maryland Bar.
- A complaint later revealed the Opinions; Bar Counsel investigated, Slate responded in writing that he had disclosed everything necessary to the Character Committee, and the Attorney Grievance Commission filed disciplinary charges asserting violations of MLRPC 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(a).
- A hearing judge found Slate knowingly concealed the Opinions throughout the admission process and made false statements to Bar Counsel; this Court reviewed de novo the legal conclusions and, after oral argument, disbarred Slate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AGC) | Defendant's Argument (Slate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Slate violated MLRPC 8.1(a) by answering "No" to Q18 (catchall) | Q18 clearly required disclosure of the Opinions (implications of dishonesty/misconduct); answering "No" was a knowing false statement of material fact | Slate contends his Q11 disclosure of case basics and references to websites or related filings effectively disclosed the matter; he also claimed advisors told him not to attach the Opinions | Held: Violation of 8.1(a). Q18 was broad and required disclosure; Slate knowingly omitted the Opinions. |
| Whether Slate violated MLRPC 8.1(b) by failing to correct a misapprehension or supplement his application/character statements | Failure to supplement and failure to disclose during interviews created/left a misapprehension that no adverse conduct existed; thus 8.1(b) violated | Slate argued others (SBLE/Character Committee) would/should verify and that he constructively disclosed via mention of websites and case basics | Held: Violation of 8.1(b). Slate failed to disclose a fact necessary to correct the misapprehension. |
| Whether Slate engaged in dishonesty/deceit (MLRPC 8.4(c)) including false statement to Bar Counsel | Concealment plus the written false statement to Bar Counsel about full disclosure constitute dishonesty/misrepresentation | Slate denied intent; argued reliance on counsel/advisers and non‑technical reading of questionnaire | Held: Violation of 8.4(c). Both the omissions and the false statement to Bar Counsel were dishonest. |
| Appropriate sanction for deliberate concealment of material information in bar admission | Disbarment is appropriate to protect the public and the profession where an applicant intentionally conceals material information and demonstrates lack of candor and likelihood of repetition | Slate urged dismissal or lesser sanction, argued mitigating circumstances; said it was an "all‑or‑nothing" situation | Held: Disbarment. Multiple aggravating factors (dishonest motive, pattern, multiple rule violations, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing) outweighed limited mitigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slate v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2013) (district court found fabricated evidence, likely perjurious testimony, bad‑faith litigation and dismissed the suit)
- Slate v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., [citation="584 F. App'x 2"] (D.C. Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal for bad‑faith litigation conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Van Dusen, 443 Md. 413 (Md. 2015) (deliberate concealment in bar process supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hunt, 435 Md. 133 (Md. 2013) (failure to disclose past criminal conduct to admissions authority warranted disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keehan, 311 Md. 161 (Md. 1987) (withholding material employment information in bar application justified disbarment)
- Application of G.L.S., 292 Md. 378 (Md. 1982) (omissions that alerted committee and were corrected distinguished from deliberate concealment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dee, 306 Md. 799 (Md. 1986) (effective disclosure by application plus interview can avoid discipline where full substance emerges)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Allenbaugh, 450 Md. 250 (Md. 2016) (framework for sanction analysis: rules violated, mental state, injury, aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mahone, 451 Md. 25 (Md. 2016) (intentional dishonest conduct ordinarily warrants disbarment)