Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Rheinstein
Decision Date | 24 January 2020 |
Docket Number | Misc. Docket AG No. 77, Sept. Term, 2015 |
Citation | 466 Md. 648,223 A.3d 505 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION of Maryland v. Jason Edward RHEINSTEIN |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Lydia E. Lawless, Bar Counsel (Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.
Argued by Craig Stephen Brodsky, Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP, (Baltimore, MD), for Respondent.
Argued before: Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Booth, Lynne A. Battaglia (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), Clayton Greene Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Battaglia, J. Jason Edward Rheinstein ("Rheinstein"), Respondent, was admitted to the Bar of this Court on December 15, 2005. On February 17, 2016, the Attorney Grievance Commission ("Petitioner" or "Bar Counsel"), acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-751(a),1 filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action ("Petition") against Rheinstein related to his representation of Charles and Felicia Moore. The Petition alleged that Rheinstein violated the following Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct ("Rule"): 1.1 (Competence),2 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions),3 3.2 (Expediting Litigation),4 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel),5 4.4 (Respect for Rights of Third Persons)6 and 8.4 (Misconduct).7 The allegations of the Petition stem from his representation in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of the Moores in challenging confessed judgments entered against them based upon their default on a construction loan in the amount of $200,000.00 from Imagine Capital, Inc.
In an Order dated February 23, 2016, we referred the matter to Judge Paul F. Harris of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County for a hearing, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-757.8 Judge Glenn L. Klavans of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County heard the matter following Judge Harris's retirement; he determined that Rheinstein had committed discovery violations which warranted sanctions culminating in Respondent admitting the allegations in the Petition as well as being prohibited from presenting evidence, to include the presentation of experts.9 We begin with an extensive review of the procedural history.
Rheinstein was served with the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, our Order, and the Writ of Summons on April 22, 2016. On the same day, Bar Counsel served counsel for Respondent with Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories and Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents.
On May 12, 2016, Rheinstein filed, in the circuit court, "Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action for Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Ripeness; or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement; and Request for Hearing." On May 23, 2016, without responding to Bar Counsel's discovery requests and before his motion to dismiss was ruled upon, Respondent also filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, contending that the federal court possessed jurisdiction because of federal questions and the federal officer removal statute.10 Ten months later, on March 17, 2017, after Bar Counsel moved to have the case remanded back to the state court, the federal district court did so, noting that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter, and, if it were to have possessed jurisdiction, it "would nevertheless have abstained and remanded the case to proceed in the state court." Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Rheinstein , No. MJG-16-1591, 2017 WL 1035831, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2017).
On June 8, 2017, upon remand, Judge Harris heard arguments on the 2016 motion to dismiss and subsequently denied it. During this hearing, Judge Harris stated on the record that the deadline for discovery was August 8, 2017, which was noted on the Scheduling Conference Hearing Sheet, albeit not on the Scheduling Order:
(alterations added). Judge Harris chose to conclude discovery within 60 days, by August 8, 2017:
(alterations added).
At the hearing, Judge Harris also inquired as to whether the parties would be calling any expert witnesses:
The hearing on the matter was set for six days to begin on September 5, 2017. On June 30, 2017, the attorneys representing Rheinstein moved to withdraw whereupon Respondent entered "the appearance of Jason E. Rheinstein, Esq., pro se , as counsel for the Respondent[.]"
On July 19, 2017, Bar Counsel filed a Motion for Sanctions and Order of Default, based upon Respondent's failure to answer the Petition within fifteen days of April 22, 2016, the date of its service; his failure to respond to Bar Counsel's interrogatories and requests for production of documents or otherwise to explain his failure to respond or seek a protective order, thus, asking the court to:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Brooks
...by "applying the appropriate knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation to the client's issues." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rheinstein , 466 Md. 648, 709, 223 A.3d 505 (2020) ; see also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Woolery , 456 Md. 483, 495, 175 A.3d 129 (2017) ("An attorney may hav......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Planta
...otherwise participate in discovery, admitted that he "is addicted to crystal methamphetamine." See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rheinstein , 466 Md. 648, 223 A.3d 505, 2020 WL 398841 (2020).DISCUSSION This Court "has original and complete jurisdiction over attorney discipline proceedings" i......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Taniform
...to the client's issues." Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Brooks, 476 Md. 97, 131 (2021) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rheinstein, 466 Md. 648, 709 (2020), cert. Denied, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 370 (2020)). An attorney can violate this rule by failing to file necessary motions or failin......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Proctor
...Attorney Grievance Comm'n v . Brooks , 476 Md. 97, 131, 258 A.3d 266 (2021) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v . Rheinstein , 466 Md. 648, 709, 223 A.3d 505 (2020), reconsideration denied (Feb. 28, 2020), cert . denied sub nom . Rheinstein v . Attorney Grievance Comm'n , ––– U.S. ––––, 14......