The Reasons That Followed
The Maryland Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney for misconduct in connection with his family trust
The misconduct that is the focus of this disciplinary proceeding stems from Respondent’s conduct in connection with a series of legal disputes involving the Marion E. Pisner Revocable Trust, a trust he shares with his sister, Marla Pisner Rubinstein. By order dated December 14, 2023, this Court designated the Honorable Louis M. Leibowitz (the “Hearing Judge”) of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to consider the matter against Respondent and render findings of fact and conclusions of law. A two-day evidentiary hearing was held on June 10 and 14, 2024, and upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Hearing Judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated each rule of professional conduct as alleged by Petitioner: Rules 1.1, 1.15, 3.1, 3.4, and 8.4(a) and (d). Petitioner did not file any exceptions and recommends that the Respondent be disbarred. Respondent filed exceptions on September 18, 2024.
After oral argument, on March 5, 2025, we ordered Respondent disbarred. We explain the reasons for that sanction here, agree with the facts and conclusions reached by the Hearing Judge, and overrule the exceptions filed by Respondent.
Safekeeping property
In the instant matter, Pisner Trust records, once obtained, revealed that Respondent received distributions in excess of his share: in 2009, he distributed approximately $1.19 million to himself while Ms. Rubinstein received $1.06 million, and in 2010, he received $136,410.93 despite a lack of supporting source documentation, while Ms. Rubinstein received $54,894.78. The record further demonstrated that many of these unauthorized distributions were used for personal expenses, including legal fees, credit card payments, and educational costs, none of which were justified or approved. We agree with the Hearing Judge’s conclusion that Respondent violated Rule 1.15.
Frivolous claims
Respondent pursued identical claims in multiple forums without curing a plainly fatal legal defect, indicating an absence of any good faith basis for relief and no effort to seek a legitimate change in the law. These violations were not without consequence. The Hearing Judge found that Respondent’s frivolous filings caused actual harm to others. Ms. Rubinstein incurred substantial legal expenses in defending multiple actions.6 Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Evans both experienced increased liability insurance premiums as a result of being named in the litigation. While Respondent failed in every action, he imposed significant financial and emotional burdens on the other parties and expended judicial resources in multiple jurisdictions.
Accordingly, based on these findings, the Hearing Judge concluded that Respondent violated Rule 3.1 by initiating and maintaining multiple meritless proceedings in bad faith, and by continuing to litigate matters long after he had lost on the merits. We agree that Respondent’s conduct constituted an abuse of the judicial process and caused concrete harm to opposing parties and the courts in violation of Rule 3.1.
Court orders
Throughout more than eighteen months of litigation, Respondent made no meaningful attempt to comply with the court’s discovery orders. He testified that he believed he had already turned over the appropriate documents and made no effort—even in the face of potential incarceration—to retrieve responsive documents. The Hearing Judge found that Respondent never seriously attempted to obtain or produce the required documents, and that this prolonged noncompliance constituted a knowing violation of a tribunal’s order in contravention of Rule 3.4(c). See Attorney Grievance Commission v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642, 704 (2019) (holding that an attorney violates Rule 3.4(c) by repeatedly failing to produce documents as directed by court order).
Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
Respondent repeatedly made baseless accusations and pursued frivolous litigation against Ms. Rubinstein, Mr. McCarthy, Ms. Evans, and even Mr. McCarthy’s son (Kevin McCarthy)—which the Hearing Judge noted had nothing to do with Respondent’s alleged grievances against Mr. McCarthy. Respondent’s claims lacked any factual or legal foundation and were often resubmitted after being rejected by trial and appellate courts. The Hearing Judge also found that Respondent misappropriated Pisner Trust assets for personal use, failed to maintain proper records, and concealed assets in a divorce proceeding in Virginia by evading a discovery order. By engaging in this pattern of conduct, the court concluded that Respondent not only violated specific ethical rules but also committed serious acts of professional misconduct that undermined the integrity of the legal system. Based upon our independent review of the record, we agree with the Hearing Judge’s assessment that Respondent’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d).
Sanction
Although indefinite suspension has been imposed in some cases involving frivolous litigation, those cases did not involve intentional misappropriation of client or fiduciary funds. See Attorney Grievance Commission v. Whitted, 487 Md. 501 (2024).7 Considering the totality of his conduct, the serious harm inflicted, the presence of multiple aggravating factors, and a dearth of mitigating factors, we conclude that disbarment is the only sanction adequate to protect the public and preserve confidence in the profession. Respondent’s actions are fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities of an attorney licensed to practice law in this State.