Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER ZENO Respondent * * * * *

Miscellaneous Case No. 11-MC-275

OPINION
I.
Local Rule 701 of this Court sets forth the conditions for admission to the Bar of this Court. Rule 701.1.a provides in pertinent part that "an attorney is qualified for admission to the Bar of this District if the attorney is, and continuously remains, a member in good standing of the highest court of any state (or the District of Columbia) in which the attorney maintains his or her principal law office, or of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, is of good private and professional character, [and] is familiar with the Maryland Lawyers Rules of Professional Conduct" and other Federal Rules. Subsection (d) of the Rule reads: "Non-Maryland Lawyers Maintaining Any Law Office in Maryland. An attorney who is not a member of the Maryland Bar is not qualified for admission to the Bar of this District if the attorney maintains any law office in Maryland." Subsection (e) of Rule 701.1 defines "Principal Office" as follows: "The term `principal law office' as used in this Rule means `the chief or main office in which an attorney usually devotes a substantial period of his

or her time to the practice of law during ordinary business hours in the traditional work week." The subsection goes on to define six non-exclusive factors to be considered in determining whether an office is the attorney's "principal office."1

II.
On January 24, 2011, Alexander Zeno filed, under penalties of perjury, an application for admission to the Bar of this Court. He certified that he was admitted to practice in the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico (as of January 17, 1997) and Massachusetts (as of October 5, 2006). He further indicated that he was familiar, inter alia, with the Local Rules of this Court. He listed his address as: RR-05 Box 7881 Toa Alta, Puerto Rico 00953 He gave as his main phone number 787-638-7818. The application inquired as to whether Zeno had ever been denied admission to practice, disbarred, suspended from practice, or disciplined by any court or bar authority, to which he answered "yes." In an attachment explaining his response, he indicated that on June 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico had suspended him from practice for a period of three months and had withdrawn his name from the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel until the fall of 2008. He indicated that soon after the suspension period ended he was reinstated to practice by the Puerto Rico federal court
-2-

and that, although he had requested more than once to have his name reinstated on the CJA Panel, his request had yet to be granted. He reported that the suspension was based on an alleged threat he made to Judge Carmen C. Cerezo when he complained to her with regard to delays and arbitrariness in administering CJA payments and also because he was allegedly disrespectful to Judge Daniel R. Dominguez when he complained about sarcastic comments he said the Judge made and also about the Judge's alleged aiding the attempt of another attorney to interfere with Zeno's defense of his client. The suspension, Zeno reported, had been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which affirmed the suspension but which, in Zeno's opinion, "incorrectly found that the criticism of Judge Dominguez occurred during proceedings."2 In his application to this Court, Zeno stated in italics "I disagree with the holding of the First Circuit," but said he decided not to seek review in the Supreme Court. He reported that other courts of which he was a member had considered the Puerto Rico matter in reciprocity proceedings and that the "only" court that decided to impose the same sanction was the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in which he was subsequently reinstated to practice. However, he also stated the Federal District Court in Massachusetts had imposed reciprocal discipline because it had to follow the Massachusetts state court, while the District Court for the District of Columbia had not. On the other hand, he also stated that the Northern District

1 2

These factors will be discussed in further detail in the body of the Opinion. Zeno stated that the First Circuit had completely disregarded the complaint by Judge Cerezo. But see n.4, infra. -3-

of Texas had asked him to file briefs in the matter, but these were rejected "because they were a week late," such that the Texas court also imposed reciprocal discipline. But there, too, he indicated that he had been reinstated to that court's Bar. Zeno advised that the Fourth Circuit had not applied reciprocal discipline and that he was currently a member in good standing not only in that court, but in all the other referenced courts as well. In the course of processing Zeno's application, it came to the attention of the Disciplinary and Admissions Committee of the Court (hereinafter "the Committee") that, in recent lawsuits filed in this Court where Zeno appeared as a pro se plaintiff, he had represented himself to be a resident of the State of Maryland. A quick Google search revealed at least one website which gave Zeno's office address as being in College Park, Maryland, a fact which suggested that he might be engaged in the practice of law in this State.3 Those facts, together with the listing of what appeared to be a post office box in Puerto Rico as his "address," gave the Committee pause as to where Zeno in fact maintained his principal office for the practice of law. In addition to the matter of the actual location of Zeno's principal office and the possibility that for some time he may in fact have been practicing law in Maryland, Zeno's negative interaction with the Puerto Rican Judges, as well as his apparent reluctance to accept the appellate court decision affirming the sanctions imposed on him

3

The Google search indicated that Zeno's office address was 9308 Cherry Hill Road, College Park, Maryland, which Zeno stated at the June 27, 2011 hearing was, until a couple of years ago, his home address. He presently resides in Annapolis, Maryland. -4-

by reason of those actions,4 led the Committee to direct that Zeno appear before a ThreeThree-Judge Panel of the Court to answer questions relative to his application for admission. The hearing was scheduled for June 27, 2011 before a Panel consisting of Senior U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte, U.S. District Judge Roger W. Titus and U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey. By letter to Zeno dated March 2, 2011, mailed to the Puerto Rico box office address listed on his application, the Committee advised him that the following specific concerns of the Committee would be addressed at the June hearing: a) Whether as a non-Maryland lawyer Zeno had maintained any law office in Maryland; b) Where his principal law office, as defined in Local Rule 701.1.e, had been located over the past five years

Download In the Matter of Alexander Zeno - Opinion.pdf

Maryland Law