Attorney Grievance Commission v. Katz

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered reciprocal discipline for an attorney who pleaded guilty to willfully failing to file Maryland income tax returns for 2004 and 2005. Although other jurisdictions imposed suspensions, the court determined that Maryland precedent warranted an indefinite suspension, with the right to seek reinstatement after readmission in the other disciplining jurisdictions, subject to one stated exception. Several judges dissented.

Holdings

1. Maryland Rule 16-773 does not require the Court to impose discipline identical to that imposed by a sister jurisdiction; the Court may impose corresponding discipline or another appropriate sanction after independently evaluating the misconduct and Maryland precedent.
2. Katz's misconduct warranted an indefinite suspension rather than the proposed six-month suspension, with the right to apply for reinstatement after readmission to each other jurisdiction that had disciplined him, except the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
3. Repayment of tax obligations does not mitigate the underlying misconduct, but lack of fraudulent intent, acceptance of responsibility, cooperation, and compliance with payment obligations are relevant to determining the appropriate sanction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Maryland should impose the six-month suspension imposed by Virginia as reciprocal discipline.
2. Whether Katz's willful failure to file Maryland income tax returns warranted substantially different discipline in Maryland under Maryland Rule 16-773(e)(4).
3. Whether the appropriate Maryland sanction was an indefinite suspension with a conditional right to seek reinstatement.

Disposition

other