A Prudent Use Of Limited Resources

The strategy of having the Maryland disciplinary process – which is light years faster than its District of Columbia counterpart – play out first worked to perfection for D.C. Disciplinary Counsel as an attorney recently disbarred in Maryland has now been reciprocally disbarred in D.C. 

As we reported when the Maryland Court of Appeals heard argument

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. [editor’s note: a rare instance when I was correct!]

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.

(Mike Frisch)