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

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

Neither of the actions against Mba-Jonas involved an intent to defraud, deceive, or steal from his clients. Likewise, in the present matter, the state of Mba-Jonas' escrow account was not the result of dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

In determining the appropriate sanction to apply, the Court does not seek to punish the erring attorney but to protect the public. Robertson, 400 Md. at 642. Viewing Mba-Jonas' two cases in conjunction, the appropriate sanction was a continuation of the indefinite suspension with the right to reapply for readmission after six months from the date this opinion was filed.

DISSENT: Although the dissenting judges agreed with most of the Majority opinion, they disagreed with the sanctions imposed. believing that there was a clear separation of the prior misconduct and that in the instant case. The dissent would have disbarred Mba- Jonas.

PRACTICE TIPS: The only case not relied on by Bar Counsel in the first matter, but cited in this case, is Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420, 435, 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997). In Awuah, an attorney, who previously had been indefinitely suspended with a right to reapply after 60 days, was disbarred after he continued to practice law in spite of his suspension. The initial suspension involved similar offenses to the present matter. Specifically, Awuah failed to maintain proper trust accounts, commingled client funds with his own, and failed to keep proper records. Id. at 508.

In the subsequent case, however, Awuah was disbarred because he continued to practice law in violation of Rule 5.5(a). Id. at 525- 526. Here, Mba-Jonas did not continue to practice law subsequent to his suspension, nor did he deceive his clients.

Professional Responsibility

Reprimand for misguided conduct

BOTTOM LINE: Where the gravity of the respondent's violation of Maryland Rules of Professional Misconduct 8.4, was minimal and his intention, although misguided, was not to deceive, the proper sanction was a reprimand.

CASE: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kalil, Misc. Docket (Subtitle AG), No. 27, September Term, 2006 (filed Dec. 6, 2007) (Judges Bell, Raker, Harrell, Battaglia, ELDRIDGE (retired, specially assigned), Wilner (retired, specially assigned) & Cathell (retired, specially assigned)).

FACTS: On December 20, 1983, Thomas Kalil was admitted to the Maryland Bar. He is not a member of the Bar of any other state or the District of Columbia. Kalil does not practice law and has never maintained an office for the practice of law.

For the time period relevant to this matter, he worked for the United States Department of Agriculture as an Assistant to the Deputy Administrator of the Farm Loan Programs. The Department of Agriculture suspended Kalil for 14 days without pay, and Kalil believed that the suspension was retaliation for what he claimed was "whistleblowing."

Kalil appealed his suspension to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. [section]2301 (b)(9). Administrative Judge Thomas P. Cook presided over a hearing to determine whether the Department of Agriculture had, in fact, retaliated against Kalil in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act and whether the 14-day suspension was meritorious.