Where Maryland Has Gone Before

I just listened to a very interesting argument in the Maryland Court of Appeals

AG No. 51 (2020 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Keith M. Bonner

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Courtney Miller

Video of the argument linked here.

The misconduct – conceded here – involved (it appears) billing his law firm for personal expenses. 

One issue pressed by Respondent’s counsel caught my attention in particular.

It appears that the Respondent is admitted in both Maryland and the District of Columbia. Both sides agree that the D.C. Rules apply as a matter of choice of law.

Respondent’s counsel argued that the D.C. sanction standards  – notably less harsh in matters of dishonesty – should apply even though the case was prosecuted in Maryland.

I suspect that is a losing argument.

But I heard Maryland Bar Counsel say that the allegations were also filed in D.C.

Here’s what the D.C. discipline web page says about the attorney

O results for: “Keith Bonner”

How does a matter that involves conduct in D.C. get to the cusp of final discipline in Maryland without any public action in the jurisdiction with a presumably greater regulatory interest?

Regrettably, I suspect the answer is found in systemic differences between the two regimes.

Maryland is somewhat tougher but infinitely faster. D.C. Disciplinary Counsel may actually find it prudent to hold its fire and let Maryland do the heavy lifting.

Which in my eyes is a sad state of affairs.

Update: I have now read the findings of Circuit Judge Storm.

Respondent is described as a highly successful partner in a firm. He was named “2016 Lawyer of the Year by the DCDLA, an invitation-only organization of defense-focused D.C. trial lawyers and served as its president in 1996.”

He became dissatisfied with his compensation and resented what he viewed as the lesser efforts of other colleagues, one in particular.

In 2012, he expensed to the firm as family trip to Bermuda as “client development.” It was not.

While he had a client with a Bermuda office (they were close and are godfather to each other’s child),  the client/friend was not in Bermuda at the time.

Respondent falsely represented that the client had invited him there.

When confronted by his partners, he admitted the conduct. No action was taken but a formal expense reimbursement policy was adopted.

Several years later, Respondent began to seek reimbursement for personal expenses.

Among the findings are charges to see “Hamilton” in New York, a trip to San Francisco and one to Nashville to see his daughter perform at the Grand Old Opry.

Judge Storm found that the total amount involved was over $14,000.

There were a number of highly favorable findings as to his general character.

Notably, the findings were submitted on June 23, 2021. The briefing and oral argument is completed.

Impressive. (Mike Frisch)