Maryland Supreme Court

Sanctions; six months’ probation with conditions for MARPC violations: Where a lawyer violated multiple provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, but there were numerous mitigating factors, a 60-day suspension, stayed in favor of six months’ probation with conditions, was imposed. The probation required the attorney to adhere to the MARPC and complete a CLE on conflicts of interest or general ethics. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kalarestaghi, AG No. 48, Sept. Term, 2021 (filed March 13, 2023).

Sanctions

Six months’ probation with conditions for MARPC violations

BOTTOM LINE: Where a lawyer violated multiple provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, but there were numerous mitigating factors, a 60-day suspension, stayed in favor of six months’ probation with conditions, was imposed. The probation required the attorney to adhere to the MARPC and complete a CLE on conflicts of interest or general ethics.

CASE: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kalarestaghi, AG No. 48, Sept. Term, 2021 (filed March 13, 2023) (Judges Watts, HOTTEN, Biran, Eaves) (Judges Fader, Booth, and GOULD, concur and dissent).

FACTS: The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through bar counsel, filed a petition against Ali Mansouri Kalarestaghi, alleging that Kalarestaghi violated multiple provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, or MARPC. After a two-day hearing, the hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated multiple MARPC provisions. Respondent filed numerous exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

LAW: After reviewing the respondent’s exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact, the court overrules each of the respondent’s 16 exceptions.

The hearing judge concluded that respondent violated MARPC 19-301.4(a)(1) and (b), 19-301.7, 19- 301.8(a), 19-301.9(a), 19-301.16(a)(1), and 19-308.4(a), (c) and (d). Respondent excepts to all the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. Based on this court’s independent review of the record, it upholds the hearing judge’s legal conclusions, except for the 19-308.4(c) violation.

Petitioner alleged the existence of two aggravating factors: (1) dishonest or selfish motive and (2) substantial experience in the practice of law. The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence to establish each of the alleged aggravating factors. These determinations are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The hearing judge found that respondent established the following mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; (2) the absence of a prior disciplinary record; (3) a good reputation in the legal community and (4) the imposition of other penalties or sanctions. The court concludes that respondent has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, the mitigating factors found by the hearing judge.

The court concludes that a 60-day suspension, stayed in favor of six months’ probation with conditions, is sufficient to deter respondent from violating the MARPC. The conditions of respondent’s probation require him to: (1) adhere to the MARPC and (2) complete a CLE on conflicts of interest or general ethics.

CONCUR/DISSENT: I concur with the majority that violations of Rules 1.4 and 1.7 were established by clear and convincing evidence, but not for the reasons found by the hearing judge. I also concur that sufficient evidence establishes violations of Rules 1.9, 1.16 and 8.4(a) and (d). But I disagree with the majority that respondent violated Rule 1.8(a). I would sustain respondent’s exception to this conclusion.