Maryland Sanction Law Applies To D.C. Misconduct

The Maryland Court of Appeals applied the substantive law of the District of Columbia but -significantly – its own sanction standards – in disbarring an attorney for thefts from his law firm

We will not apply the case law of another jurisdiction when imposing a sanction for misconduct by a Maryland attorney. Such a notion is inconsistent with our paramount duty to protect the public when considering a sanction and could lead to less-than-uniform sanctions being imposed on Maryland attorneys who engage in similar misconduct. In other words, we will not impose a less severe sanction upon a Maryland attorney simply because the attorney engaged in a pattern of deceit and misappropriation in the District of Columbia instead of in Maryland.

In a (rare) instance of predictive accuracy, I had foreseen that result.

The court

“How much more grievous are the consequences of anger than the causes of it.”

Aurelius, Marcus. 2014. Meditations. Translated by Martin Hammond. Penguin Pocket Hardbacks. London, England: Penguin Classics.

In this attorney grievance proceeding, we must determine the sanction to impose for an attorney’s misconduct involving misappropriation of funds from his law firm in which he was a founding partner and member for decades. Respondent Keith Bonner freely admits to the facts of the misconduct and resulting violations of the professional ethical rules applicable to his misconduct. The case he presents to this Court in his defense relates almost exclusively to the mitigating factors that this Court should consider when imposing a sanction (in addition to one aggravating factor to which he excepts). Specifically, he asserts that he has shown sufficient mitigating circumstances to justify a deviation from our case law, which generally imposes the sanction of disbarment where an attorney’s misconduct involves theft or intentional misappropriation of funds. Prior to our consideration of the sanction, as we always do, we shall describe the procedural history, as well as the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We shall then discuss our case law concerning sanctions where intentional misconduct involves theft or misappropriation, as well as Mr. Bonner’s argument that we should consider the emotional problems that he experienced during the period of his misconduct—anger, frustration, and feelings of entitlement and self-righteousness—as a mitigating factor in this case, along with the other mitigating factors that are present here, which he asserts warrant the imposition of a sanction less than disbarment.

The respondent was an accomplished insurance defense attorney who worked hard but resented the perceived lesser efforts of his colleagues.

He was caught charging unauthorized expenses in 2012 but not reported to the either of his Bars.

Then it happened again including  this example

The primary purpose of the vacation was for the Bonners to see one of their daughters perform at the Grand Ole Opry. While in Nashville, Mr. Bonner stopped by the office of one of his clients for approximately one hour and dropped off a box of donuts. He did not engage in any other client development while in Nashville, and improperly charged $1,638.66 to the Firm’s credit card for airfare, car rental, meals, and hotel expenses. Similarly, he submitted false time entries for client development, including “meetings” and “dinner.” He followed up with an email to the Firm’s equity partners on September 25, 2017, in which he knowingly and intentionally mispresented that he engaged in client development activities during his Nashville trip, describing in detail client development and meetings that did not happen.

Sanction

Although we have considered the mitigating factors that Mr. Bonner has proven, such as his remorse for acting out, his acceptance of responsibility through the repayment of the misappropriated funds, his full cooperation with Bar Counsel, and his admission in full of his various misdeeds, as well as the efforts that he has made in counseling to understand and acknowledge the reasons that he engaged in this misconduct, in addition to his character and reputation, we conclude that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, these mitigating factors do not tip the scales in favor of a sanction less than disbarment.

Will D.C. impose lesser reciprocal discipline? (Mike Frisch)