Legal Opinions - Maryland Court of Appeals: December 17, 2007

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Dec 17, 2007

LAW: First, the Commission excepted to the hearing judge's conclusion that Kalil's use of pseudonyms did not violate Rule 8.4(c). The hearing judge found that Kalil's use of pseudonyms in his conversations with Stanton and Judge Winzer were not material and did nothing to mislead the call recipients to their detriment.

The record did not show that the hearing judge's findings of fact pertaining to the use of pseudonyms were clearly erroneous, and these facts supported the conclusion that Kalil's use of alternate names did not rise to the level necessary for a violation of Rule 8.4(c). Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robertson, 400 Md. 618, 629, 929 A.2d 576, 583 (2007). Nevertheless, the hearing judge concluded that Kalil's representation that he was working "on behalf of" Bar Counsel violated Rule 8.4(c).

In addition, the Commission excepted to the hearing judge's findings and conclusion that Kalil did not violate Rule 8.4(d) and argued that Kalil's representation, that he was acting on behalf of the District of Columbia Bar Counsel, was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

This conduct, according to the Commission, "could negatively impact on the image or perception of the legal profession and engender disrespect for the legal profession" and therefore violated Rule 8.4(d). See Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Painter, 356 Md. 293, 306-607, 739 A.2d 24, 31 (1999).

The hearing judge found that Kalil's telephone calls "were minimally intrusive" and that they did not disrupt the work of the MSPB. This finding was not clearly erroneous. These findings also supported the conclusion that the calls did not result in "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice" as is required for a violation of Rule 8.4(d).

The conduct at issue here was strikingly different from that in Painter, where the Court held that the subject attorney's conduct, which "consisted of abusing, physically, verbally, and psychologically, his wife and his children" for a period of sixteen years violated Rule 8.4(d). Id. at 300, 302.

The Commission asserted that the appropriate sanction to impose, in light of Kalil's dishonest conduct, was disbarment. Kalil argued that no sanction wais appropriate because he lacked an intent to deceive and demonstrated a lifetime of public service.

In considering a sanction, it is appropriate to weigh the nature and gravity of the violations as well as the intent with which they were committed. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robertson, 400 Md. at 642. The gravity of Kalil's violations was minimal and his intention, although misguided, was not to deceive. The proper sanction, therefore, was a reprimand.

COMMENTARY: Kalil excepted to the hearing judge's finding that some of Kalil's testimony at his hearing contradicted statements in his deposition. Specifically, Kalil pointed to the finding that the "testimony of Respondent was that he volunteered to Bar Counsel's Office to find out about Judge Cook's Bar membership.