290 A.3d 1026
Md.2023Background
- Richard L. Sloane represented Daniel Kolat in a protracted divorce/custody action (Deneroff v. Kolat) from 2018–2019; discovery disputes and depositions were central to the conflict.
- Opposing counsel (Miliman) moved to compel after Sloane failed to timely and properly respond to discovery; the court ordered supplementation and awarded interim fees.
- Sloane produced disorganized discovery, asserted frivolous objections (including a non‑existent physician‑patient privilege), made numerous speaking objections at two depositions, and altered the parties’ Joint Statement.
- At hearings Sloane repeatedly misrepresented case history (including claims about in camera review and communications with a case manager) and certified false good‑faith efforts under Md. Rule 2‑431.
- The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence of violations of multiple Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (MARPC); the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed and imposed an indefinite suspension with leave to seek reinstatement after six months.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (AGC) Argument | Sloane’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sloane filed and pursued frivolous claims or contentions (MARPC 19‑303.1) | Motions and certifications were frivolous/premature and falsely certified good‑faith attempts to resolve disputes. | Responses were justified by late or incomplete discovery from Deneroff and Yeshiva records. | Court held Sloane violated 19‑303.1; motions were frivolous and certifications false. |
| Whether Sloane unreasonably delayed or obstructed litigation (MARPC 19‑303.2) | Obstruction at depositions, dilatory filings, and deficient discovery impeded progress. | Disputes were part of contentious litigation; conduct not materially delaying outcomes. | Court held Sloane violated 19‑303.2 for obstructive, dilatory conduct. |
| Whether Sloane knowingly misled the tribunal (MARPC 19‑303.3(a)(1)) | He knowingly made false statements (e.g., about in camera orders, case manager, good‑faith efforts). | Misstatements were unintentional and immaterial. | Court held Sloane violated 19‑303.3(a)(1); misrepresentations were knowing and material. |
| Whether Sloane acted unfairly in discovery (MARPC 19‑303.4(c),(d)) | Discovery responses and speaking objections were frivolous and noncompliant with rules. | Objections were defensible; supplements cured any deficiencies. | Court held Sloane violated 19‑303.4(c) and (d) for frivolous requests/objections and noncompliance. |
| Whether Sloane abused means that burdened third persons (MARPC 19‑304.4(a)) | His tactics had no substantial purpose other than delay/harassment of opposing party. | Conduct arose from zealous advocacy in a heated domestic case. | Court held Sloane violated 19‑304.4(a). |
| Whether Sloane’s conduct constituted professional misconduct generally (MARPC 19‑308.4(a),(c),(d)) and appropriate sanction | Pattern of dishonesty, multiple rule violations, and refusal to acknowledge misconduct warrant disbarment. | No theft, no client harm, good reputation, and no prior discipline justify lesser sanction (six months). | Court found violations of 19‑308.4(a),(c),(d); considered aggravating/mitigating factors and suspended Sloane indefinitely with right to apply for reinstatement after six months. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mixter, 441 Md. 416, 109 A.3d 1 (Md. 2015) (pattern of frivolous discovery motions and false certifications supported disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Wemple, 479 Md. 167, 277 A.3d 427 (Md. 2022) (dishonesty and frivolous process use supporting severe sanction)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 773 A.2d 463 (Md. 2001) (intentional dishonesty ordinarily warrants disbarment absent severe mitigating health conditions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Malone, 482 Md. 82, 285 A.3d 546 (Md. 2022) (Vanderlinde standard refined; disbarment not automatic for all intentional dishonesty)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Keating, 471 Md. 614, 243 A.3d 520 (Md. 2020) (indefinite suspension with six‑month reinstatement option for serious dishonesty without misappropriation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, 477 Md. 482, 270 A.3d 917 (Md. 2022) (dishonest conduct may warrant indefinite suspension rather than disbarment where no theft or client harm)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Slate, 457 Md. 610, 180 A.3d 134 (Md. 2018) (framework for aggravating and mitigating factors in discipline)
- Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. White, 480 Md. 319, 280 A.3d 722 (Md. 2022) (definition and standard for ‘‘knowingly’’ making false statements to tribunal)