Home Improvements

The Maryland Court of Appeals has disbarred an attorney for misconduct that at first was unrelated to the practice of law.

Rather, it was the unlicensed practice of home improvements

The hearing judge found…that Respondent, who had “vast experience in home improvement,” knowingly worked as an unlicensed home improvement contractor and earned a substantial amount of money as a result.

The substantial amount was over $150,000.

The real problem – and the disbarrable offenses –  involved false statements in the ensuing investigations.

The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MLRPC 8.4(b) by knowingly and repeatedly acting as a home improvement contractor without a valid license, constituting numerous violations of Section 8-601 of the Business Regulation Article (“BR”), and calling into question Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer. The hearing judge concluded that each violation of MLRPC 8.4(b) also constituted a violation of MLRPC 8.4(c), as did Respondent’s misrepresentations to Mr. Niebuhr and Bar Counsel and his institution of frivolous lawsuits against the McCartys and the Woodses. 

Sanction

Respondent engaged in intentional dishonest conduct when he knowingly held himself out as a home improvement contractor without first obtaining the required license, which is a crime in Maryland. See BR § 8-601. He also exhibited dishonest behavior in his many interactions with Bar Counsel and [the Maryland Home Improvement Commission]  by intentionally misrepresenting both that he possessed a proper home improvement license in his own name and that he was working under his brother’s license with his brother’s permission. The threats to Mr. McCarty and the frivolous lawsuits filed against both complainants, moreover, harm the public’s confidence in the integrity of the legal profession…Because the hearing judge did not find any mitigating circumstances and, in fact, found the presence of six aggravating factors by clear and convincing evidence, we will not depart from our practice of disbarring an attorney whose misconduct is characterized by intentional dishonesty.

The video of the oral argument is linked here. (Mike Frisch)