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

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

Kalil told Stanton that he was gathering information for a response to the D.C. Bar about violations of ethics, and, if Judge Cook did not return his call, he would consider it a refusal to respond. Stanton recognized Kalil as the same person who called three times previously and prepared a memorandum to memorialize the four conversations with him.

The memoranda of the phone calls from and conversations with Kalil were sent to the MSPB general counsel. The incident was subsequently reported to the District of Columbia Bar Counsel and, because Kalil is not a member of the District of Columbia Bar, it was forwarded to the offices of the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission (the Commission).

The Office of the District of Columbia Bar Counsel never employed Kalil and never authorized him to act for the Office in any capacity. Kalil had previously filed two or three complaints with the Office of the District of Columbia Bar Counsel, and it is the practice of the Office to ask complainants to provide further information. The Office does not, however, authorize or permit others to investigate complaints.

The records of the District of Columbia Bar Counsel's Office also contained a memorandum written on September 29, 2005, by Joe Perry, a law clerk for the Office, which concerned a conversation with Kalil in which Kalil asked Perry to speculate about the meaning of the phrase "on behalf of." The memorandum also noted that Kalil complained about Bar Counsel's referral of the MSPB complaint to the Commission.

On August 10, 2005, a staff attorney memorandum stated that Kalil had demanded that someone order Wallace E. Shipp (District of Columbia Bar Counsel) to withdraw the referral of the complaint or to have Mr. Shipp disciplined for the referral.

Approximately three months after the calls to Judges Cook and Winzer, on October 14, 2005, Kalil delivered to the Office of the District of Columbia Bar Counsel the transcript of the hearing of his case before the MSPB. He included with the transcript a document entitled "Confirmation of Delivery and Receipt." Ms. Mayfield, the office receptionist, signed and date stamped the receipt.

At some point, Kalil wrote on the receipt: "As part of Dr. Thomas F. Kalil, Esq.'s continuing efforts on behalf of the District of Columbia Bar Counsel's investigation regarding disciplinary action in" three docketed complaints that he filed with Bar Counsel. Neither Judge Winzer nor Judge Cook was the subject of those complaints.

The Commission, by Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against Kalil, alleging violations of Rules 3.31 and 8.42 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. The matter was referred to the circuit court for a hearing and factual findings pursuant to Rules 16-752(a) and 16-757(c).

The hearing judge found that Kalil did not violate Rule 3.3 but did violate Rule 8.4. Both the Commission and Kalil filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court of Appeals overruled both the Commission's and Kalil's exceptions and imposed a reprimand as the appropriate sanction.