Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Myles Louis Lichtenberg, 379 Md. 335

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether an attorney who owned and operated a title company violated professional-conduct rules and related statutes by retaining interest earned on real-estate settlement funds. The court held that the title company complied with Maryland Insurance Article § 22-103 and that the evidence did not establish violations involving safekeeping of property, misuse of trust money, fraud, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The disciplinary petition was dismissed.

Holdings

1. The Court declined to construe § 22-103(f) in the first instance under the circumstances presented. Because the alleged conduct arose from Lichtenberg's separate, regulated title-agent business, the statute had not previously been judicially construed, and the Insurance Commissioner had not provided administrative guidance, the Court held that it was inappropriate to decide the statutory issue as the basis for attorney discipline.
2. Lichtenberg did not commit theft because he never exercised unauthorized control over the disputed interest; the client had consented to the title company's retention of it.
3. Lichtenberg did not violate § 10-306 because the settlement funds were used for the settlement and payments to the required parties, while the interest was retained pursuant to the separate agreement with the buyer.
4. Lichtenberg did not violate Rule 1.15(a) or (c) because the challenged conduct was not connected with legal representation of a client.
5. The Court expressly declined to decide whether Rule 1.15(b) applies to conduct outside the course of legal representation because the only plausible violation depended on the unresolved interpretation of Insurance Article § 22-103(f).
6. Bar Counsel failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lichtenberg committed a criminal act reflecting adversely on his honesty, engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, or engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court should construe Insurance Article § 22-103(f), in an attorney disciplinary proceeding, to determine whether consent from beneficial owners was required before the title company retained interest earned on settlement funds.
2. Whether Lichtenberg's retention of the settlement-fund interest constituted theft or misuse of trust money under the cited Maryland statutes.
3. Whether Lichtenberg violated Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 by retaining the interest through his title company.
4. Whether Bar Counsel proved violations of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), (c), or (d) by clear and convincing evidence.

Disposition

dismissed