Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Kotlarsky
Decision Date | 22 June 2017 |
Docket Number | Misc. Docket AG No. 30, Sept. Term, 2016 |
Citation | 162 A.3d 901,453 Md. 469 |
Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Mark KOTLARSKY |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Lydia E. Lawless, Senior Assistant Bar Counsel (Raymond A. Hein, Acting Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.
No Argument on behalf of Respondent.
Argued before Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.
Hotten, J.Respondent, Mark Kotlarsky, was admitted to the Bar of Maryland on December 15, 1992. On August 22, 2016, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland ("the Commission"), through Bar Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action ("Petition") against Respondent as a result of having received a notice from Citibank that Respondent had over-drafted his operating account ending in -XXXX. Upon investigation, the Commission discovered that Respondent had failed to disclose assets that were associated with his law firm's pension plan in his bankruptcy petition, and that Respondent had outstanding federal and state tax liens totaling $35,092.72.1 In its Petition, the Commission alleged that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC") § 19–301.15(a) (safekeeping property),2 § 19–308.1(b) ( ),3 and § 19– 308.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct).4
On September 1, 2016, this Court referred the matter to the Honorable Steven G. Salant ("the hearing judge") in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct a hearing and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Maryland Rule 19–727(d).5 On February 10, 2017, the hearing judge conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding Respondent's professional misconduct. Thereafter, the hearing judge issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, determining by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated MARPC § 19–308.1(b) and MARPC § 19–308.4(a), (c), and (d).On April 4, 2017, this Court entered a per curiam order disbarring Respondent, effective immediately. For the reasons stated below we hold that the hearing judge's conclusions regarding Respondent's violations of MARPC § 19–308.1(b) and § 19–308.4(a), (c), and (d) were supported by clear and convincing evidence and disbarment is the appropriate sanction.
In his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the hearing judge rendered the following factual findings:
Based on the aforementioned findings of fact, the hearing judge concluded that Respondent had violated MARPC § 19–308.1(b) ( ), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct).
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC § 19–308.1(b) by failing to respond to Bar Counsel's letters and requests for information dated June 22, 2015, July 13, 2015, August 4, 2015, and January 26, 2016.
MARPC § 19–308.4 provides, inter alia , that "[i]t is professional misconduct for an attorney to:"
The hearing judge determined that Respondent violated subsection (a) because Respondent had violated other Rules of Professional Conduct. See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gallagher , 371 Md. 673, 710–11, 810 A.2d 996, 1018 (2002) ( ); see also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Foltz , 411 Md. 359, 411, 983 A.2d 434, 465 (2009).
The hearing judge held that Respondent violated MARPC § 19–308.4(c) by failing to disclose assets associated with his pension plan when he filed his Petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on February 6, 2013. The hearing judge also concluded that Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d).6
The hearing judge also determined there were no mitigating factors in the case at bar.
In Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hodes , 441 Md. 136, 105 A.3d 533 (2014), we articulated our oft-cited standards for reviewing attorney disciplinary proceedings, stating that:
Id. at 168, 105 A.3d at 552 (citations, internal quotation marks, and footnote omitted).
We note that Respondent did not appear for either the fact-finding or for oral argument before this Court and that neither Bar Counsel nor Respondent filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact or conclusions of law. Accordingly, we conclude that the hearing judge's findings of fact are thereby established. See Maryland Rule 19–741(b)(2)(A) (). We also agree that the findings of fact establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated MARPC § 19–308.1(b) and § 19–308.4(a), (c), and (d) when he failed to respond to lawful demands for information by Bar Counsel and failed to disclose assets associated with his law firm's pension plan in his petition for bankruptcy.7
The Commission requests that this Court disbar Respondent from the practice of law. According to the Commission, Respondent's repeated failure to respond to Bar Counsel's inquiries regarding outstanding tax liens, his attorney trust account, and his failure to disclose assets associated with his law firm's pension plan in his Petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, warrant such a sanction. We agree.
"In fashioning the appropriate sanction to be imposed, we are guided by our interest in protecting the public and the public's confidence in the legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial