Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Kepple

Decision Date21 June 2013
Docket NumberSept. Term, 2007.,Misc. Docket AG No. 55
Citation432 Md. 214,68 A.3d 797
PartiesATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Cristine A. KEPPLE.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Fletcher P. Thompson, Asst. Bar Counsel (Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for petitioner.

Edward Hutchins, Esq. (Baltimore, MD), for respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, *ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, the Attorney Grievance Commission (“AGC”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed, in accordance with Maryland Rule 16–751, 1 a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Cristine Kepple (Respondent) for violation of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”). Petitioner alleges that Respondent violated MLRPC Rule 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) 2 when Respondent failed to inform the Maryland State Board of Law Examiners on her application for admission to the Maryland Bar that she had knowingly concealed from her law school, West Virginia University College of Law, that she was not a resident of West Virginia at any time during her law school career, all in order to receive the benefit of in-state tuition at that institution. She is thus, Petitioner submits, subject to this Court's disciplinary authority. 3

In accordance with Maryland Rule 16–752(a),4 we referred the Petition to the Honorable John H. McDowell of the Circuit Court for Washington County for an evidentiary hearing and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordancewith Maryland Rule 16–757. 5 Following such a hearing, Judge McDowell issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in which he concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated Rule 8.1(a).

I. The Hearing Judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Respondent graduated from the University of Maryland at College Park on December 22, 1989, with a Bachelor of Science degree in the field of agricultural and resource economics. During her time as an undergraduate student, Respondent, a life-long resident of Garrett County, Maryland, prior to commencing her undergraduate studies, received in-state tuition as a Maryland resident.

After graduation, Respondent worked from January through August, 1990 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C., as a marketing specialist for the Dairy Division of the Agriculture Marketing Service. There, Respondent oversaw a dairy farmer-funded promotion and research program; evaluated plans and budgets for proposed research projects; wrote reports; and reviewed proposed federal orders, proposed legislation, and contracts. Respondent moved to Terra Alta, West Virginia, in August 1990, while she was employed with the City of Morgantown as an Assistant City Planner. In this position, Respondent was, among other things, [r]esponsible for [the] application, implementation, and evaluation of [a] Small Cities Block Grant Program and Rental Rehabilitation program.” Also in 1990, Respondent became engaged to Barry Sweitzer, a co-worker for the City of Morgantown, West Virginia.

After taking the LSAT in June of 1990, Respondent decided to apply for admission to the West Virginia University College of Law. She met with the Director of Admissions and Student Affairs of the law school, Janet Long Armistead, several weeks prior to October 2, 1990, after relocating to West Virginia. During that meeting, Respondent posed “questions regarding residency and application requirements” that would permit her to “meet the August 26th deadline for residency.”

On Respondent's application for admission, prepared that same day, Respondent stated that her mailing address was P.O. Box 387, Terra Alta, Preston County, West Virginia, and that she was a permanent resident of West Virginia. As noted by Judge McDowell,

In question 6 on the first page of the application it was noted that “if you graduated from an out of state college, or had been a resident of West Virginia for less than one year, you may be asked to furnish acceptable proof of residency to be admitted as a West Virginia resident.”On the last page of the application, appearing above her signature, was the following: “Furnishing or causing to be furnished false information for the purpose of your law school application constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, including, but not limited to, expulsion or revocation of one's acceptance ab initio. I certify that the information herein is complete and accurate and that I will inform this law school promptly of any material change in any of the information given in response to the questions above.”

(Internal citations omitted).

In May of 1991, Respondent moved from Terra Alta, West Virginia, to a home that she purchased on Bethlehem Road in Oakland, Maryland. She and Barry Sweitzer were married on August 17, 1991. Shortly thereafter, she began law school at West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia, on or about August 26, 1991. Respondent surrendered her West Virginia driver's license to the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration on November 21, 1991, and obtained a Maryland license, which listed her address as Route 3, Box 8910, Oakland, Maryland 21550. She paid income taxes to West Virginia for 1991 and part of 1992, but thereafter paid state tax obligations only to Maryland.

Although Respondent left West Virginia before commencing law school and was a permanent resident of Maryland throughout her law school career, she did not inform West Virginia University or the law school of her change of residence. Rather, Respondent maintained the post office box in Terra Alta, West Virginia, as her address on file with the University. Respondent claimed that she continued to use the Terra Alta post office box because she wanted to consolidate her mail at one address, and because Garrett County, Maryland, was in the process of changing “all mailing addresses from rural route and box numbers to street names and numbers to assist with 911 responses within that county.” Respondent received her law school tuition bills, correspondence from her undergraduate school and former employers, magazines, periodicals, and miscellaneous mail at the post office box in West Virginia, but she also received utility bills, tax bills, bank statements, and other correspondence at her Oakland, Maryland, address. Respondent continued to utilize the Terra Alta post office box, located approximately eighteen miles from her Oakland home, throughout her law school career.

Because West Virginia University assumed that Respondent remained a West Virginia resident, Respondent benefitted by paying the reduced, in-state tuition rate throughout her three years of law school. She paid tuition, per semester, of $973.00 in 1991, $1,017.00 in 1992, and $1,068.00 in 1993. Non-resident tuition was at the time, per semester, $2,628.00 in 1991, $2,877.00 in 1992, and $3,078.00 in 1993. Thus, Respondent would have paid an additional $11,050.00 to West Virginia University over those three years had the University been aware of her true residency status. Respondent financed her education with a student loan in 1991, and thereafter by payments made out of a bank account drawn on a line of credit from a West Virginia bank and secured by a home equity loan, for which her Oakland, Maryland, residence served as security. The drafts for those payments noted her Maryland address. Respondent admitted that, when she applied to law school, she was aware of the difference in price between in-state and out-of-state tuition. She stated, however, that she assumed that the price differential was merely a policy decision made by the University, and that her residency for tuition purposes was determined and became fixed as of the date of her application for admission.

Respondent received her Juris Doctor degree from West Virginia University College of Law on May 15, 1994. On May 16, 1994, she prepared her application for admission to the Bar of Maryland. Question 17 of her application asked whether there had been

any circumstances or unfavorable incidences in your life, whether at school, college, law school, business or otherwise, which may have a bearing upon your character or fitness to practice law, not called for by the questions contained in this questionnaire or disclosed in your answers?

Respondent answered no to Question 17. Accordingly, as noted earlier in this opinion, Respondent was admitted to the Bar of Maryland in December of 1994.

The Attorney Grievance Commission received a complaint in 2007 from Respondent's by-then ex-husband, Barry Sweitzer, bringing to its attention Kepple's manipulation of her residency status vis a vis her law school tenure. Respondent claimed that, prior to receipt of a copy of the complaint, she did not realize that she incorrectly paid tuition as an in-state student.

In considering Respondent's proffered defense to Bar Counsel's complaint—that she believed that her West Virginia residency was established upon application and not subject to later modification—, Judge McDowell found that it was unsupported by credible evidence. Specifically, Judge McDowell noted that Respondent “could not point definitively to any statements made by either an official of the University or anyone whatsoever, which led her to believe that her domicile at the time of application was determinative of her residency throughout the time that she attended law school.” Rather, finding that Respondent was an intelligent young woman who demonstrated that she was capable of significant responsibility in her employment prior to law school, and that Respondent had previously engaged in conversation with the law school's Director of Admissions and Student Affairs relating in part to residency and application requirements, Judge McDowell concluded that Respondent “had some understanding of the importance of her residency to the establishment of her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Steinhorn
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 20, 2018
    ...attorneys who knowingly misrepresented material facts. E.g. , Litman , 440 Md. at 221, 101 A.3d 1050 ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kepple , 432 Md. 214, 232, 68 A.3d 797 (2013) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Harrington , 367 Md. 36, 51, 785 A.2d 1260 (2001) ; Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. C......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 16, 2021
    ...of the misconduct." Miller , 467 Md. at 195, 223 A.3d 976 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kepple , 432 Md. 214, 226–27, 68 A.3d 797 (2013) ). We therefore overrule Mr. Johnson's exception. Next, Mr. Johnson excepts to the hearing judge's decision to ......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Miller
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 29, 2020
    ...and Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Guida , 391 Md. 33, 50, 891 A.2d 1085, 1095 (2006) ). See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kepple , 432 Md. 214, 226, 68 A.3d 797, 803 (2013), (noting that "the hearing judge was in the best position ‘to evaluate the veracity of the respondent's explanation......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Miller
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 29, 2020
    ...and Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 50, 891 A.2d 1085, 1095 (2006)). See also Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kepple, 432 Md. 214, 226, 68 A.3d 797, 803 (2013), (noting that "the hearing judge was in the best position 'to evaluate the veracity of the respondent's explanation' r......
  • 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