Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Sloane
| Decision Date | 02 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 37-2021 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. RICHARD LOUIS SLOANE |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Argued: December 5, 2022
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No C-15-CV-21-000242
OPINION
On November 1, 2021, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, through Bar Counsel ("Petitioner"), filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Richard Louis Sloane ("Respondent") with this Court under Md. Rule 19-721(a)(1).[1] On November 2, 2021, we designated the Honorable Bibi M. Berry ("hearing judge") of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct a hearing and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The hearing judge held an evidentiary hearing on May 23 and 24, 2022. In an opinion dated August 5, 2022, the hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated the following Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MARPC"): 19-303.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions); 19-303.2 (Expediting Litigation); 19-303.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal); 19-303.4(c) and (d) (Fairness to the Opposing Party and Attorney); 19-304.4(a) (Respect for Rights of Third Persons); and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). We concur and indefinitely suspend Respondent from the practice of law in Maryland with the right to apply for reinstatement after six months.
We summarize the hearing judge's factual findings, which were established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 17, 2003. At all relevant times, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Montgomery County, Maryland. His practice focused on employment law, family law, civil litigation, and mediation.
On January 11, 2018, Sarah Deneroff, through Mandy Miliman, Esq., filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against Daniel Kolat, in which she sought custody of their two minor children, child support, alimony, and division of marital property.[2] On February 9, 2018, Ms. Miliman requested discovery from Mr. Kolat. On March 1, 2018, Respondent entered his appearance on behalf of Mr. Kolat and filed an answer to the complaint. At Respondent's request, Ms. Miliman agreed to extend the deadline to respond to discovery to April 25, 2018. However, Respondent failed to timely provide responses to the outstanding discovery, allowing the deadline to pass. As a result of the discovery violation, on April 26, 2018, Ms. Miliman cancelled the mediation scheduled for May 16, 2018 and, instead, noted Mr. Kolat's deposition for that day. On April 30, 2018, Ms. Miliman wrote to Respondent, stating that if she did not receive Mr. Kolat's completed discovery responses by the end of the week, she would "be forced to file a motion with the court."
On May 8, 2018, Respondent and Ms. Miliman attended a scheduling hearing. After the hearing, the circuit court issued a Scheduling Order, setting discovery deadlines of July 31, 2018 for custody and child support matters, and March 8, 2019 for remaining issues. The Scheduling Order set a pendente lite hearing on child support and access for August 10, 2018, as well as a merits hearing on January 8 and 9, 2019. The same day as the scheduling hearing, Ms. Miliman served Respondent with a Motion to Compel and Request for Attorneys' Fees and filed a copy with the circuit court.
Shortly before May 16, 2018, Ms. Miliman cancelled Mr. Kolat's deposition, requesting that it be rescheduled because she still had not received discovery responses and her grandmother had recently passed away. In his response to Ms. Miliman, Respondent expressed his condolences and then stated, "[i]t's a shame - worse, in fact - that your insatiable greed continues to waste resources that could benefit our clients' children." Mr. Kolat's deposition was ultimately rescheduled for July 10, 2018.
On June 6, 2018, the circuit court granted Ms. Miliman's Motion to Compel and ordered Respondent to satisfy outstanding discovery responses within ten days. The circuit court reserved ruling on Ms. Miliman's request for attorney's fees. On June 15, 2018, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman his discovery responses, to which Ms. Miliman spent "hours sorting, indexing, and labeling" because they were disorganized, missing documents, contained duplicates, and lacked labels or categorizations as required under Md. Rule 2-422(d).[3] Additionally, Respondent objected to nineteen interrogatories, including standard form interrogatories and slight variations thereof, as "overly broad and unduly burdensome[]" even when they were "straightforward" and sought "simple and relevant information."[4] Respondent also asserted a "physician/patient" privilege, which does not exist under Maryland law.
On June 18, 2018, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman the Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. On June 22, 2018, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman the Defendant's First Set of Document Requests and also requested dates in July for Ms. Deneroff's deposition. Ms. Miliman advised that she was not available in July, but provided several dates in August on which she was available. Respondent did not reply or note Ms. Deneroff's deposition. On June 28, 2018, Ms. Miliman filed a Motion for Sanctions, Request for Attorney's Fees, and Request for a Hearing based on Mr. Kolat's deficient discovery responses.
On July 10, 2018, Ms. Miliman took Mr. Kolat's deposition. During the deposition, Respondent provided Ms. Miliman with a copy of Mr. Kolat's prior discovery responses, which had not been supplemented, claiming that the "alleged error ha[d] been cured." Respondent requested that Ms. Miliman withdraw her pending motion, asserting that it was moot. Ms. Miliman disagreed. Respondent "engaged in obstructionist behavior by making baseless objections [and] speaking objections, [as well as] answering for Mr. Kolat[.]"[5] Respondent also "encouraged Mr. Kolat's refusal to respond to Ms. Miliman's reasonable inquiries[.]" As a result, Ms. Miliman ended the deposition after an hour.
Thereafter, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman on July 12, 2018, requesting dates for Ms. Deneroff's deposition and discovery responses. In her reply, Ms. Miliman advised that she was unwilling to schedule Ms. Deneroff's deposition until she took Mr. Kolat's deposition again and the court ruled on her Motion for Sanctions. Ms. Miliman further stated that Respondent's discovery requests were not properly served, but she would provide an update regarding discovery within the next week. On July 18, 2018, Ms. Miliman filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, based on Respondent's and Mr. Kolat's obstructive behavior during the deposition.
On July 31, 2018, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman a Notice of Oral Deposition and Deposition Duces Tecum to depose Ms. Deneroff on August 29, 2018 and also sent seventy-five document requests regarding custody-related matters, despite discovery on those matters being closed. The following day, Ms. Miliman reiterated that she would not attend the deposition, pending a ruling on her motion by the circuit court. Then, on August 3, 2018, Ms. Miliman filed a Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition, Motion for Protective Order, Motion to Quash Subpoena, and Request for Attorney's Fees, requesting that Mr. Kolat's deposition be scheduled before Ms. Deneroff's deposition.
On August 8, 2018, Ms. Miliman served Ms. Deneroff's Answers to Interrogatories. On August 9, 2018, she provided a link to Ms. Deneroff's document production. That same day, Respondent filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion for Sanctions, Request for Attorney's Fees, and Oppositions to Ms. Deneroff's pending motions. In his motions, Respondent claimed that Ms. Miliman refused "to respond timely and fully" to his discovery requests, and that she was unwilling to attend Ms. Deneroff's deposition. Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-431,[6] Respondent certified that his good-faith efforts to resolve the discovery dispute occurred on "July 10, July 12, July 23, August 1, and August 3, 2018." On September 6, 2018, Respondent filed a "Renewed and Amended" motion that parroted his August 9, 2018 Motion to Compel. Ms. Miliman filed her opposition on September 13, 2018, including a request for attorney's fees.
On September 21, 2018, the Honorable Cynthia Callahan held a hearing on Ms. Miliman's pending discovery motions. Respondent deflected blame to Ms. Miliman, arguing that the "hearing boils down to [] the pot calling the kettle black." Judge Callahan described Respondent's conduct during the deposition as "a complete and total disregard of what the laws say and what the rules say and what the rules governing behavior of lawyers say." Judge Callahan described Respondent's objections to discovery as "not legitimate." During the hearing, the parties rescheduled the depositions of Mr. Kolat and Ms. Deneroff for October 4, 2018 and October 9, 2018, and Judge Callahan "ordered that the depositions take place at the courthouse in case court intervention was required." Judge Callahan further ordered Mr. Kolat to reproduce all discovery by October 1, 2018 and pay $5,000 in attorney's fees to Ms. Miliman. Judge Callahan noted that she could "use [Md. Rule] 1-341 as the basis of" her ruling,[7] but, in exercising her discretion, she opted to use Md. Rule 2-433(d)[8] instead.
On September 30, 2018, Respondent provided some of the outstanding discovery materials, which contained similar frivolous objections and assertions as his June 15, 2018 production. As a result, Ms. Miliman filed her Second Motion for Sanctions and Request for Attorney's Fees on October 4, 2018. That same...
To continue reading
Request your trial