Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Keating

Decision Date23 December 2020
Docket NumberMisc. Docket AG No. 46 September Term, 2019
Citation471 Md. 614,243 A.3d 520
Parties ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Mary Theresa KEATING
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Argued by Raymond A. Hein, Deputy Bar Counsel (Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.

Argued by Irwin R. Kramer for Respondent.

Argued Before: Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran, JJ.

Hotten, J.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel ("Petitioner"), directed that charges be filed against Mary Theresa Keating ("Respondent"), pursuant to Md. Rule 19-721.1 The charges followed an investigation of Respondent's letter to Petitioner dated August 2, 2018, where Respondent admitted that she falsely witnessed the last of three wills of her now-deceased client, Keith Wilson.

On October 21, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent. On October 23, 2019, pursuant to Md. Rule 19-722(a),2 we assigned the matter to the Honorable Gregory Sampson ("hearing judge") of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to conduct a hearing and render findings of fact and conclusions of law. The circuit court conducted a hearing on January 28, 2020. Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC")3 19-301.8 (Conflict of Interest), 19-303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-308.4 (Misconduct), and 19-408 (Commingling of Funds). Both Petitioner and Respondent filed Exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We republish the pertinent portions of those findings of fact and conclusions of law below.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The hearing judge rendered the following findings of fact regarding Respondent's representation of Mr. Wilson:

Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 26, 1985. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Baltimore City. Each of Petitioner's allegations against the Respondent arise from the common nexus of Respondent's representation of [Mr. Wilson].
[ ] Representation of Mr. Wilson Prior to 2013.
Beginning in 2001, Respondent developed a long-standing attorney-client relationship with Mr. Wilson. In 2001, the Respondent represented Mr. Wilson in a matter before the Equal Employment Opportunit[y] Commission. After that initial representation, the Respondent regularly represented Mr. Wilson as he began to acquire properties in Baltimore City (in matters primarily related to landlord/tenant issues as well as matters involving the Maryland Department of [the] Environment). Relevant to this proceeding, Respondent represented Mr. Wilson in estate matters, testifying that she often changed Mr. Wilson's will, upon his request, to reflect the changing relationships in Mr. Wilson's life.
The Respondent drafted several wills for Mr. Wilson, beginning in 2003. Per the evidence and testimony in this matter, the Respondent drafted as least six wills for Mr. Wilson from January 2003 until February 2018.[4]
The 2003 will designated a Joan Malarkey as personal representative and a Marvin Walker as the personal representative should Joan Malarkey become unwilling or unable to serve. The 2003 will describes Joan Malarkey and Marvin Walker as friends of Mr. Wilson. In pertinent part, the 2003 will directs that Mr. Wilson's personal effects, automobiles, and other tangible personal property as well as the residuary estate be given, in equal parts, to Joan Malarkey, Marvin Walker and a Robert [M]asingo, who is identified as Mr. Wilson's cousin (hereinafter "Mr. [M]asingo").
[ ] The 2013 will[.]
The 2013 will, drafted for Mr. Wilson by the Respondent, designated Mr. [M]asingo as personal representative of the estate and a Rodney Nasingo[5] as the personal representative should Mr. [M]asingo become unwilling or unable to serve. In pertinent part, the 2013 will directs that Mr. Wilson's personal effects, automobiles and other tangible personal property, as well as the residuary of his estate, be given in equal shares to Rodney Nasingo and Mr. [M]asingo.
[ ] The 2015 will.
The 2015 will designated, for the first time, the Respondent as personal representative of Mr. Wilson's estate. A Cailin Smith, later identified as the daughter of the Respondent, was named as the personal representative should the Respondent become unwilling or unable to serve. The Respondent testified that Mr. Wilson knew her daughter, and that he suggested her as an alternate personal representative. In pertinent part, the 2015 will directs that "personal and household effects, vehicles and other tangible personal property" be given to a Corey Blanton, identified as a friend of Mr. Wilson. Corey Blanton was also to be given a building owned by Mr. Wilson.
The 2015 will further designated that a trailer and its contents, and the land where the trailer was situated, would be given to Mr. [M]asingo. Mr. [M]asingo was also to receive boats, a gun collection and the proceeds of a life insurance policy. Lastly, pursuant to this will, a Gary Feliciano, an acquaintance and occasional roommate of Mr. Wilson, was to receive a $10,000 cash gift from the estate, if the funds were available. The residuary of the estate was to be given to "the New Southwest Baptist Church."
[ ] The 2016 will and the Respondent's representation regarding the 2016 will.
The 2016 will, drafted for Mr. Wilson by the Respondent, designated the Respondent as the personal representative of Mr. Wilson's estate. Mr. David Allen, Esq. (hereinafter "Mr. Allen") was designated as the personal representative should the Respondent become unwilling or unable to serve. In pertinent part, the will directs that "personal and household effects, vehicles, boats, tools and other tangible personal property" be divided equally between Corey Blanton and Gary Feliciano. Corey Blanton was also to receive a building owned by Mr. Wilson. Further, Gary Feliciano was to receive a $10,000 cash gift from the estate (so long as the funds were available), as well as Mr. Wilson's dog, if the personal representative was satisfied that Mr. Feliciano was not using any drugs. The 2016 will further directs the personal representative to sell a trailer and its contents, as well as the land it was situated upon, and a condominium with the proceeds to be added to the estate. The residuary of the estate was to be given to the New Southwest Baptist Church.
Regarding Mr. [M]asingo, the will states as follows: "I will give the guns that my cousin Robert [M]asingo took, along with the ammunition, and the remaining pieces of my gun collection to Robert [M]asingo, if he survives me." The Respondent testified during trial that she believed Mr. Wilson's relationship with Mr. [M]asingo deteriorated after some firearms went missing while in his care.
The 2016 will memorializes the first appearance of Mr. Wilson's appointment of the Respondent as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy in his name. The Respondent testified during trial that she believes Mr. Wilson took out the policy in or around April of 2015, but she first became aware of it when working with Mr. Wilson to draft the 2016 will. Regarding the Respondent, the 2016 will states: "[Mr. Wilson has] a $100,000 life insurance policy with [Respondent] as [Mr. Wilson's] beneficiary. [Mr. Wilson] direct[s] her to use the proceeds to pay for [Mr. Wilson's] funeral, pay all the expenses of the administration, and to retain the remainder, along with anything still in [Respondent's] safe that [Mr. Wilson] entrusted to [Respondent] for safekeeping."
The Respondent testified that the portion of the will directing the use of life insurance policy funds was constructed at the insistence of Mr. Wilson, and that the policy was purchased by Mr. Wilson without the knowledge of the Respondent. The Respondent further testified that Mr. Wilson was a very persistent and headstrong individual and insisted upon the resulting construction despite Respondent's advice to the contrary.[ ] Nevertheless, the Respondent testified that she did cede to Mr. Wilson's wishes, due in large part to his insistence. Respondent's testimony evidenced that she was aware there may be some level of impropriety in preparing a will that would deliver to her a benefit. However, per her testimony, the Respondent took such action anyway.
[ ] The 2017 will.
The 2017 will designated the Respondent as personal representative and Mr. Allen as the personal representative should the Respondent be unwilling or unable to serve.
In pertinent part, the 2017 will directed that Gary Feliciano and Corey Blanton were each to receive one of the vehicles owned by Mr. Wilson. Corey Blanton was also to be given a building owned by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Feliciano was to receive Mr. Wilson's dog and a cash gift of $5,000. Regarding a Douglas Haynes, identified as a business partner with Mr. Wilson, the 2017 will states: "[Mr. Wilson] give[s] half of the limited liability company Willshay Properties, plus the sum of $10,000, to [Mr. Wilson's] co-owner, Douglas Haynes, if he survives [Mr. Wilson]."
Regarding the Respondent, the 2017 will stated: "[Mr. Wilson has] a life insurance policy with [Respondent] as [the] beneficiary. [Mr. Wilson directs] her to use the proceeds to pay for [Mr. Wilson's] funeral, pay all expenses of the administration, pay off the balances of [Mr. Wilson's] mortgages, and to pay the gifts to Gary Feliciano and Douglas Haynes. [The Respondent] may retain the remainder, if any, along with anything still in her safe that [Mr. Wilson] entrusted to her for safe keeping."
As in the 2016 will, the personal representative was directed to sell a trailer, its contents and the land upon which it was situated, as well as a condominium, with the proceeds of all transactions added to the estate. The residuary of the estate under the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Dailey
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 23, 2021
    ...Conduct. E.g., Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Karambelas , 473 Md. 134, 167, 248 A.3d 1019 (2021) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Keating , 471 Md. 614, 650, 243 A.3d 520 (2020) (reaffirming the "well-established principle that an attorney violates Maryland Rule 19-308.4(a) when she or he viol......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Bonner
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 3, 2022
    ...quotations omitted). "It is well-established that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish the attorney." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Keating , 471 Md. 614, 651, 243 A.3d 520 (2020). "Sanctions are also designed to effect general and specific deterrence." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Shap......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. White
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 12, 2022
    ...that involving the use of controlled substances; and (12) likelihood of repetition of the misconduct. Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Keating , 471 Md. 614, 639, 243 A.3d 520 (2020) (quoting Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Shuler , 443 Md. 494, 506–07, 117 A.3d 38 (2015) ). We consider the following mi......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Silbiger
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 26, 2022
    ...efforts made on her behalf in a case, and made false statements to Bar Counsel in a letter about the case); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Keating , 471 Md. 614, 243 A.3d 520 (2020) (imposing a sanction of indefinite suspension, with the right to apply for reinstatement in six months, where t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT