As one law professor wrote, this oral “argument delve[d] into the philosophy of attorney regulation and the appropriate role of disciplinary counsel in a way that few cases do.”
Issue: Should the Court sanction a member of the D.C. Bar who followed Bar Counsel’s guidance in maintaining a law office located in Maryland?
Holding: No. Having followed Bar Counsel’s own recommendations on how a D.C. lawyer may maintain an office located in Maryland, the Court did not believe that sanctions were warranted even though current rules prohibit a continuous and systematic presence. Because the lawyer reasonably believed that she could keep her Maryland office, the Court unanimously dismissed all charges against her.
Alleged Violation: Maryland Attorneys’ Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law).
Visiting her office on an unrelated matter in 2015, Bar Counsel’s senior assistant knew this lawyer wasn’t licensed to practice in Maryland. Rather than prosecute her for opening a Maryland office, the assistant advised her on how to maintain it. She followed this advice. But three years later, Bar Counsel tried to have her disbarred for staying there.
Outraged by the prosecution of an attorney who relied on Bar Counsel’s recommendations, Irwin Kramer urged the Court to dismiss all charges. As Georgetown Legal Ethics Professor Michael Frisch wrote, “the argument delve[d] into the philosophy of attorney regulation and the appropriate role of disciplinary counsel in a way that few cases do.” Like the Court, he “was hard pressed to understand the wisdom of this prosecution.“
Argued: September 13, 2021
Dismissed: January 31, 2022
