Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket (Subtitle AG) No. 27 September Term, 2006 _________________________________________

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

THOMAS FORD KALIL

_________________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Harrell Battaglia Eldridge, John C. (Retired, Specially Assigned), Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, Specially Assigned) Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, Specially Assigned) JJ. _________________________________________ Opinion by Eldridge, J. _________________________________________

Filed: December 6, 2007

The Attorney Grievance Commission, by Bar Counsel, filed a petition for disciplinary action against the respondent, Thomas F. Kalil, on July 21, 2006. In the petition, the Attorney Grievance Commission alleged violations of Rules 3.31 and 8.42

1

Rule 3.3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct provides, in relevant part, as follows: "Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal. (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures."

The relevant portions of Rule 8.4 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct provide as follows: "Rule 8.4 Misconduct. "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; *** (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (continued...)

2

-2-

of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. The matter was referred to Judge Durke G. Thompson of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for a hearing and factual findings pursuant to Maryland Rules 16-752(a) and 16-757(c).3 The facts, as found by Judge Thompson, are summarized as follows. On December 20, 1983, Thomas Kalil was admitted to the Maryland Bar. He is not a member of the Bar of any other state or the District of Columbia. Kalil does not practice law and has never maintained an office for the practice of law. For the time period relevant to this matter, he worked for the United States Department of Agriculture as an Assistant to the Deputy Administrator of the Farm Loan Programs. The Department of Agriculture suspended Kalil for 14 days without pay, and Kalil

2

(...continued) (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."

3

Maryland Rules 16-752(a) and 16-757(c) state as follows: "Rule 16-752. Order designating judge. "(a) Order. Upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the Court of Appeals may enter an order designating a judge of any circuit court to hear the action and the clerk responsible for maintaining the record. The order of designation shall require the judge, after consultation with Bar Counsel and the attorney, to enter a scheduling order defining the extent of discover and setting dates for the completion of discover, filing of motions and hearing." "Rule 16-757. Judicial hearing. *** "(c) Findings and conclusions. The judge shall prepare and file or dictate into the record a statement of the judge's findings of fact, including findings as to any evidence regarding remedial action, and conclusions of law."

-3-

believed that the suspension was retaliation for what he claimed was "whistleblowing." Kalil appealed his suspension to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C.

Download Attorney Grievance v. Kalil.pdf

Maryland Law