Pro Bono, Pro Hac, No Mas

A sixty-day suspension has been imposed by the Maryland Court of Appeals on an attorney admitted in a Maryland matter pro hac vice.

This attorney discipline proceeding involves a lawyer who was only licensed to practice in the District of Columbia, yet represented a defendant pro bono for a criminal proceeding in a Maryland District Court, sitting in Prince George’s County (“District Court”), and made a false statement to Bar Counsel regarding his pro hac vice admission to the Maryland Bar.

The attorney had represented a client without seeking pro hac admission

Regarding MLRPC 8.4(c), the hearing judge found that Respondent’s statement to Bar Counsel – that he was “being admitted pro hac vice in the underlying matter of State v. Jaimel Fatin Peace” – involved “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” MLRPC 8.4(c). As discussed in the factual findings, Respondent never filed a pro hac vice motion.

The court rejected the call for a more stringent sanction in light of the isolated instance of misconduct

Had Respondent engaged in an ongoing pattern of dishonest conduct like Mr. Barneys, this Court would be inclined to impose disbarment or indefinite suspension, as requested by Bar Counsel…the isolated nature of Respondent’s unauthorized practice, and the pro bono nature of his representation, does not warrant such a sanction.

Instead, a 60 day suspension from the practice of law will deter Respondent and other nonMaryland attorneys from practicing law in Maryland courts without authorization, notwithstanding that such representation was on a limited, pro bono, basis.

(Mike Frisch)