The case involved the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland petitioning for disciplinary action against attorney Harvey Malcolm Nusbaum after he pleaded guilty to a violation of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act. The court initially suspended Nusbaum from practice and ultimately disbarred him, determining that the conviction amounted to a serious crime and professional misconduct under Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), (c), and (d). The core reasoning was that intentional dishonest conduct by an attorney ordinarily requires disbarment absent compelling extenuating circumstances, none of which were shown.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a disciplinary petition filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission against Maryland attorney Jeffrey David Kahl, alleging violations of professional conduct rules including Rule 1.15 on safekeeping client property, Rule 8.1 on candor in disciplinary matters, and Rule 8.4 on misconduct, as well as related trust account record-keeping requirements. A circuit court hearing judge found that Kahl had misappropriated funds from his attorney trust account for personal use and made false representations to Bar Counsel to conceal the misconduct, with no mitigating factors present. The Court of Appeals adopted the hearing judge's findings and disbarred Kahl, holding that intentional misappropriation of entrusted funds constitutes dishonest conduct that justifies disbarment under established precedent.

procedurecriminal law

The Attorney Grievance Commission charged Maryland attorney Anthony I. Butler with multiple violations of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules on competence, diligence, client communication, conflict of interest, and misconduct, based on his handling of a tort lawsuit for Ferguson Towing, Inc. and its owners in which he missed two scheduled trial dates due to overlapping court appearances and obtained a release of liability from the clients upon termination of representation. A circuit court judge found clear and convincing evidence supporting violations of competence, diligence, communication, conflict of interest, and conduct prejudicial to justice, while concluding the evidence did not support the remaining charges such as knowing violations of tribunal rules or false statements in the disciplinary process. The Court of Appeals adopted the hearing judge's findings of fact with no exceptions filed to them, overruled most of the Commission's exceptions to the conclusions of law, and ordered a 60-day suspension, reasoning that the established violations warranted that sanction to protect the public and maintain professional standards.

proceduretorts & liability

Ira C. Cooke was disbarred from the Maryland Bar after consenting to a joint petition for disbarment based on his California criminal convictions for offenses involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Following the reversal of those convictions on appeal and the dismissal of the underlying charges, Cooke petitioned for reinstatement. The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted the petition, holding that disbarment is not permanent and that reinstatement is appropriate when the petitioner demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence over time that he has been rehabilitated, is legally competent, and has become a proper person to practice law, particularly where the convictions forming the basis for disbarment no longer stand. The court evaluated the nature of the original misconduct, Cooke's subsequent conduct and character, and his current qualifications under the factors in Maryland Rule 16-781.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an application by J.H.K. for admission to the Maryland Bar. The Character Committee for the Sixth Appellate Circuit recommended against admission, while the State Board of Law Examiners recommended in favor. After reviewing the recommendations, the applicant's memorandum, and hearing oral argument, the Court of Appeals of Maryland rejected the unfavorable recommendation and accepted the favorable one. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicant be admitted to the practice of law upon taking the required oath.

procedure

In Polek v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., multiple borrowers appealed dismissals of their lawsuits against mortgage lenders and assignees, alleging violations of the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (SMLL) regarding loan origination fees and disclosure forms, as well as breaches of contract and Consumer Protection Act claims for failure to provide loan documents after payoff. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the circuit courts' dismissals. The court reasoned that the SMLL permits multiple itemized fees as long as their total does not exceed the statutory maximum, that the required disclosure form applies only to commercial-purpose loans, and that the plaintiffs who lacked documentation failed to plead sufficient facts to support their contract and accounting claims.

business & regulatoryproperty