Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Kotlarsky

Citation: 

Docket Number: 30ag/16

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2017-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mark Kotlarsky, Misc. Docket No. 30, September Term 
2016. Opinion by Hotten, J. 
 
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE — SANCTIONS — DISBARMENT 
Court of Appeals disbarred from practice of law in Maryland lawyer who intentionally 
failed to disclose assets of his law firm’s pension plan in his bankruptcy petition, and failed 
to respond to Bar Counsel’s repeated lawful demands for information.  Such conduct 
violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) §19-308.1(b) 
(Disciplinary Matters), and §19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No. 32608-M 
Argued: April 4, 2017 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. Docket AG No. 30  
 
September Term, 2016 
 
__________________________________ 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 
COMMISSION OF MARYLAND 
 
 
v. 
MARK KOTLARSKY 
__________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J., 
Greene, 
Adkins, 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Getty, 
 
JJ. 
__________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Hotten, J. 
__________________________________ 
 
Filed:  June 22, 2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondent, Mark Kotlarsky, was admitted to the Bar of Maryland on December 
15, 1992.  On August 22, 2016, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“the 
Commission”), through Bar Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or 
Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Respondent as a result of having received a notice 
from Citibank that Respondent had over-drafted his operating account ending in -3487.  
Upon investigation, the Commission discovered that Respondent had failed to disclose 
assets that were associated with his law firm’s pension plan in his bankruptcy petition, and 
that Respondent had outstanding federal and state tax liens totaling $35,092.72.1  In its 
Petition, the Commission alleged that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of 
                                              
1 The record reflects that the first lien was filed by the U.S. National Association on 
February 21, 2013 in the amount of $12,144.23.  The second lien was filed by the 
Comptroller of Maryland on August 23, 2014 in the amount of $22,948.49.  Both liens 
remain active. 
 
2 
 
Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) §19-301.15(a) (safekeeping property),2 §19-308.1(b) 
(bar admission and disciplinary matters),3 and §19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct).4  
                                              
2 MARPC §19-301.15 provides, in relevant part: 
 
(a) An attorney shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in an 
attorney’s possession in connection with a representation separate from 
the attorney’s own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account 
maintained pursuant to Title 19, Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules, and 
records shall be created and maintained in accordance with the Rules in 
that Chapter. Other property shall be identified specifically as such and 
appropriately safeguarded, and records of its receipt and distribution shall 
be created and maintained. Complete records of the account funds and of 
other property shall be kept by the attorney and shall be preserved for a 
period of at least five years after the date the record was created. 
 
After the evidentiary hearing was held, Bar Counsel withdrew the allegation that 
Respondent violated Rule §19-301.15(a). 
 
3 MARPC §19-308.1 provides, in relevant part:  
 
An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or an attorney in 
connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a 
disciplinary matter, shall not: 
* 
* 
* 
(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by 
the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a 
lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary 
authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information 
otherwise protected by Rule 19-301.6 (1.6). 
* 
*  
* 
 
4 MARPC §19-308.4 provides, in relevant part: 
 
It is professional misconduct for an attorney to: 
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of 
Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do 
so through the acts of another; 
* 
* 
* 
 
 
 
 
 
(continued . . . ) 
 
 
3 
 
 
On September 1, 2016, this Court referred the matter to the Honorable Steven G. 
Salant (“the hearing judge”) in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct a 
hearing and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-
727(d).5  On February 10, 2017, the hearing judge conducted an evidentiary hearing 
regarding Respondent’s professional misconduct.  Thereafter, the hearing judge issued 
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, determining by clear and convincing evidence 
that Respondent violated MARPC §19-308.1(b) and MARPC §19-308.4(a),(c), and (d).On 
April 4, 2017, this Court entered a per curiam order disbarring Respondent, effective 
immediately. For the reasons stated below we hold that the hearing judge’s conclusions 
regarding Respondent’s violations of MARPC §19-308.1(b) and §19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) 
                                              
(. . . continued) 
 
(c) 
engage 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation; 
 
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.] 
 
5 Maryland Rule 19-727(d) provides: 
 
The judge shall prepare and file a written statement which shall contain: 
 
(1) findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each charge; 
(2) findings as to any remedial action taken by the attorney; and 
(3) findings as to any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that exist. 
 
Unless the time is extended by the Court of Appeals, the statement shall be 
filed with the clerk responsible for the record no later than 45 days after the 
conclusion of the hearing. The clerks shall mail a copy of the statement to 
each party. 
 
4 
 
were supported by clear and convincing evidence and disbarment is the appropriate 
sanction. 
I. 
BACKGROUND 
 
a. The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact 
 
In his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the hearing judge rendered the 
following factual findings: 
During the time covered by the [Petition], Respondent maintained a 
general solo practice in Montgomery County. 
 
On January 14, 2015, a check presented to Citibank account No. 
X3487 by the Respondent was dishonored for insufficient funds. On January 
26, 2015, Bar Counsel received notice from Citibank that Respondent had 
over-drafted account No. X3487 in the amount of $103.83. Bar Counsel 
informed the Respondent through letter dated January 27, 2015 that he 
should provide information and documentation relating to the overdraft 
within ten days of receipt of the letter. The letter was sent to the address 
maintained with the Client Protection Fund. 
 
Respondent wrote to Bar Counsel by letter dated March 12, 2015, 
stating the account was an operating account, not an attorney trust account, 
and the overdraft was due to a stop payment. Respondent provided a copy of 
the January 2015 statement for account Nos. X3487 and X1177. Account No. 
X1177 was Respondent’s attorney trust account. The statement showed that 
Respondent disbursed a sum of $53,484 to “6 Beachside LLC” (“LLC”) from 
his attorney trust account on January 7, 2015. The LLC is a Florida limited 
liability company owned by the Respondent. The LLC owns real property in 
Palm Coast, and the resident agent for the LLC is Alla March, aka, Alla 
Marchenko, who is Respondent’s girlfriend and paralegal. 
 
Respondent replied to Bar Counsel’s inquiries that the transactions to 
the LLC were for his law firm’s pension plan. After further investigation, Bar 
Counsel discovered that Respondent filed a Petition for Chapter 7 
Bankruptcy. Respondent failed to disclose all of his assets, as well as assets 
associated with his pension plan in the bankruptcy petition, which is signed 
under oath. Additionally, Bar Counsel learned that Respondent had 
outstanding state and federal tax liens in the amount of approximately 
$22,948. 
 
5 
 
Respondent was instructed to provide information and documentation 
about the tax liens and related tax liability by July 10, 2015 through a letter 
from Bar Counsel dated June 22, 2015. However, Respondent failed to 
respond in any manner after receiving the letter. Bar Counsel sent another 
letter on July 13, 2015 requesting a reply no later than July 27, 2015 and 
Respondent again failed to answer after receiving the second letter. On 
August 4, 2015, Bar Counsel sent a third letter to Respondent, which he did 
not answer. 
 
Bar Counsel received Respondent’s bank records from Citibank 
through a subpoena issued on June 22, 2015. Bar Counsel requested 
information about eight transactions pertaining to Respondent’s attorney 
trust account and relating to client ledgers for six named individuals through 
letter dated January 26, 2016. Respondent received the letter on about the 
same day and has failed to answer. 
 
b. The Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law 
 
Based on the aforementioned findings of fact, the hearing judge concluded that 
Respondent had violated MARPC §19-308.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary matters), 
and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct).  
MARPC §19-308.1(b) 
MARPC §19-308.1(b) prohibits a lawyer from  
[F]ail[ing] to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known 
by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a 
lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, 
except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise 
protected by Rule 19-301.6 (1.6).  
 
The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated MARPC §19-308.1(b) by 
failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s letters and requests for information dated June 22, 2015, 
July 13, 2015, August 4, 2015, and January 26, 2016. 
 
 
 
6 
 
 MARPC §19-308.4 
 
MARPC §19-308.4 provides, inter alia, that “[i]t is professional misconduct for an 
attorney to:” 
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Attorneys’ 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 dishonest, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; 
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.] 
 
The hearing judge determined that Respondent violated subsection (a) because 
Respondent had violated other Rules of Professional Conduct.  See Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Gallagher, 371 Md. 673, 710-11, 810 A.2d 996, 1018 (2002) (“As we have 
held that respondent violated several Rules of Professional Conduct, [the attorney] 
necessarily violated [MARPC] 8.4(a) as well.”); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Foltz, 411 Md. 359, 411, 983 A.2d 434, 465 (2009). 
 
The hearing judge held that Respondent violated MARPC §19-308.4(c) by failing 
to disclose assets associated with his pension plan when he filed his Petition for Chapter 7 
Bankruptcy on February 6, 2013.  The hearing judge also concluded that Respondent’s 
conduct, taken as a whole, was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of 
Rule 8.4(d).6   
                                              
6 We note the hearing judge cited Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Walker Turner, 
428 Md. 214, 51 A.3d 553 (2012), in support of his finding that Respondent’s conduct was 
prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(d).  Specifically, the 
hearing judge noted that we discussed in Walker Turner “that when an attorney violates 
several of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the attorney necessarily violates the Rule 
prohibiting attorneys from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(continued . . . ) 
 
7 
 
 
The hearing judge also determined there were no mitigating factors in the case at 
bar. 
II. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 
 
In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136, 105 A.3d 533 (2014), we 
articulated our oft-cited standards for reviewing attorney disciplinary proceedings, stating 
that: 
This Court has original and complete jurisdiction over attorney discipline 
proceedings in Maryland. We conduct an independent review of the record 
and we accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact unless shown to be clearly 
erroneous. Under our independent review of the record, we must determine 
whether the findings of the hearing judge are based on clear and convincing 
evidence. With respect to exceptions, upon our review of the record, the 
hearing judge’s findings of fact generally will be accepted unless they are 
clearly erroneous. A hearing judge’s factual finding is not clearly erroneous 
if there is any competent material evidence to support it. As to the hearing 
judge’s conclusions of law, such as whether provisions of the Maryland 
[Attorneys’] Rules of Professional Conduct were violated, our consideration 
is de novo. 
 
Id. at 168, 105 A.3d at 552 (citations, internal quotation marks, and footnote omitted).  
III. 
DISCUSSION 
 
We note that Respondent did not appear for either the fact-finding or for oral argument 
before this Court and that neither Bar Counsel nor Respondent filed exceptions to the 
hearing judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law.  Accordingly, we conclude that the 
hearing judge’s findings of fact are thereby established.  See Maryland Rule 19-
                                              
(. . . continued) 
Walker Turner, 428 Md. at 232, 51 A.3d at 564.  This portion of our opinion addressed, 
however, the attorney’s violation of Rule 8.4(a), not 8.4(d), as the hearing judge suggested 
in his Conclusions of Law.  
 
8 
 
741(b)(2)(A) (“If no exceptions are filed, the Court may treat the findings of fact as 
established.”).  We also agree that the findings of fact establish by clear and convincing 
evidence that Respondent violated MARPC §19-308.1(b) and §19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) 
when he failed to respond to lawful demands for information by Bar Counsel and failed to 
disclose assets associated with his law firm’s pension plan in his petition for bankruptcy.7 
IV. 
SANCTION 
 
The Commission requests that this Court disbar Respondent from the practice of 
law.  According to the Commission, Respondent’s repeated failure to respond to Bar 
Counsel’s inquiries regarding outstanding tax liens, his attorney trust account, and his 
failure to disclose assets associated with his law firm’s pension plan in his Petition for 
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, warrant such a sanction.  We agree. 
“In fashioning the appropriate sanction to be imposed, we are guided by our interest in 
protecting the public and the public’s confidence in the legal profession.”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565, 595, 876 A.2d 642, 660 (2005) (citing 
                                              
7 The record before the hearing judge reflects that on November 18, 2010, Silver Spring 
Family Medical Center, LLC (“SSFMC”) filed a voluntary Petition for Chapter 7 
Bankruptcy in the Maryland Bankruptcy Court.  On November 23, 2010, Respondent 
entered his appearance in the SSFMC bankruptcy case as counsel for the Law Office of 
Mark Kotlarsky, Esq. Pension Plan, alleging the Pension Plan was an unsecured creditor 
of SSFMC.  Three years later, on February 6, 2013, Respondent filed a Petition for Chapter 
7 Bankruptcy, in his personal capacity, in the Maryland Bankruptcy Court.  Although 
Respondent disclosed the Pension Plan in his bankruptcy petition, the record indicates that 
he failed to disclose the potential SSFMC claim as an asset.  Upon discovery of the Pension 
Plan’s potential claim, Respondent’s bankruptcy trustee contested the Final Report and 
Account in the SSFMC bankruptcy.   The SSFMC bankruptcy judge subsequently held that 
the funds due to Respondent’s Pension Plan would be distributed to Respondent’s 
bankruptcy trustee until ownership of the funds could be determined.  On August 28, 2013, 
$41,148.55 was distributed to Respondent’s bankruptcy trustee.  
 
9 
 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Powell, 369 Md. 462, 474, 800 A.2d 782, 789 (2002)).  We 
have also noted that “the purpose of attorney disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the 
lawyer, but to protect the public as well as to deter other lawyers from engaging in similar 
misconduct.”  Id. at 596, 876 A.2d at 660 (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ellison, 
384 Md. 688, 714, 867 A.2d 259, 274 (2005)).  In addition, “[t]he gravity of misconduct is 
not measured solely by the number of rules broken but is determined largely by the 
lawyer’s conduct.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 74, 930 A.2d 328, 
347 (2007) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Briscoe, 357 Md. 554, 568, 745 A.2d 
1037, 1044 (2000)).  To determine the proper sanction, we also consider the facts and 
circumstances of an individual case, including the “nature of the ethical duties violated[,]” 
and “any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Shepard, 444 Md. 299, 339, 119 A.3d 765, 788 (2015) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n 
v. Paul, 423 Md. 268, 284, 31 A.3d 512, 522 (2011).  Considering the facts presented 
before us, and absent mitigating circumstances, we conclude that disbarment is the 
appropriate sanction. 
We have consistently held that repeated failures to respond to Bar Counsel’s 
investigative requests can be a violation of MARPC §19-308.1(b).  See Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Gray, 436 Md. 513, 521-22, 83 A.3d 786, 791 (2014) (holding attorney violated 
Rule 8.1(b) by failing to respond to two letters from the Commission regarding grievance 
complaint); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harmon, 435 Md. 306, 315-16, 77 A.3d 1107, 
1112-13 (2013) (concluding that attorney violated Rule 8.1(b) by failing to respond to Bar 
Counsel’s letters regarding multiple grievance complaints); Attorney Grievance Comm’n 
 
10 
 
v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147, 174, 994 A.2d 928, 944 (2010) (determining that attorney 
violated Rule 8.1(b) by failing to respond to repeated written requests for information from 
Bar counsel regarding grievance complaint).  Here, the record reflects that Respondent 
repeatedly failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s request for information regarding 
Respondent’s trust account and the tax liens entered against him in violation of  MARPC 
§19-308.1(b).   
In Siskind, we noted that “acts of dishonesty, fraud, or misleading behavior may warrant 
a sanction of disbarment.”  401 Md. at 75, 930 A.2d at 348; see also Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. White, 354 Md. 346, 366, 731 A.2d 447, 458 (1999) (“[t]actics involving 
dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, carry the risk of the ultimate sanction by this Court.”).  We 
concluded that this is so, because 
[u]nlike matters relating to competency, diligence and the like, intentional 
dishonest conduct is closely entwined with the most important matters of 
basic character to such a degree as to make intentional dishonest conduct by 
a lawyer almost beyond excuse. Honesty and dishonesty are, or are not, 
present in any attorney’s character.  
 
Siskind, 401 Md. at 75, 930 A.2d at 348 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 418, 773 A.2d 463, 488 (2001)).  We have also held that “[o]nly 
in the case of compelling extenuating circumstances ‘will we even consider imposing less 
than the most severe sanction of disbarment’ in cases involving dishonesty and fraudulent 
conduct.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McClain, 406 Md. 1, 19, 956 A.2d 135, 145-46 
(2008) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Goodman, 381 Md. 480, 499, 850 A.2d 
1157, 1168 (2004)). Elaborating on the “compelling extenuating circumstances” 
requirement, we concluded that  
 
11 
 
we will not accept, as “compelling extenuating circumstances,” anything less 
than the most serious and utterly debilitating mental or physical health 
conditions, arising from any source that is the “root cause” of the misconduct 
and that also results in an attorney’s utter inability to conform his or her 
conduct in accordance with the law and with the [MARPC]. 
 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 413-14, 773 A.2d 463, 485 
(2001).  We conclude that no such “compelling extenuating circumstances” exist in the 
case at bar.  
 
This case is analogous to our decisions in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Byrd, 408 
Md. 449, 970 A.2d 870 (2009) and Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zodrow, 419 Md. 286, 
19 A.3d 381 (2011).  In Byrd, we disbarred an attorney for, inter alia, perjuring himself by 
filing false business reports under oath in the attorney’s bankruptcy proceeding in violation 
of Rule 8.4(b), (c), and (d). 408 Md. at 483, 970 A.2d at 889.  In Zodrow, a reciprocal 
discipline proceedings case, we disbarred an attorney for, inter alia, failing to make 
pertinent asset disclosures during his personal bankruptcy case in violation of Rule 8.4.  
419 Md. at 303-04, 19 A.3d at 391-92.  In the present case, Respondent knowingly failed 
to disclose a potential claim his law firm’s pension plan may have received in his petition 
for bankruptcy, thereby violating MARPC §19-308.4(c) and (d).  
In concluding that Respondent has violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, 
we further hold that Respondent thereby violated MARPC §19-308.4(a).  See Gallagher, 
371 Md. at 710-11, 810 A.2d at 1018 (holding that because attorney violated several Rules 
of Professional Conduct, the attorney also violated Rule 8.4(a)); Foltz, 411 Md. at 411, 983 
A.2d at 465 (concluding that attorney’s violation of multiple other Rules constituted a 
violation of Rule 8.4(a)).  Accordingly, and guided by our holdings in Byrd and Zodrow, 
 
12 
 
we entered the April 4, 2017 per curiam order, disbarring Respondent and awarding costs 
against him.