Title: Reinstatement of Keehan

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV)
No. 16
September Term, 1992
_____________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT
     
 TO 
    
    THE BAR OF MARYLAND 
 OF
   MICHAEL PATRICK KEEHAN
____________________________________
Murphy, C.J.
Eldridge
Rodowsky
Chasanow
Karwacki
Bell
Raker,
JJ.
____________________________________
        
PER CURIAM
____________________________________
       Filed:  April 9, 1996
PER CURIAM:
The Attorney Grievance Commission charged Michael Patrick
Keehan with violations of the former Code of Professional
Responsibility, DR 1-101(A), which subjects a lawyer "to discipline
if he has made a materially false statement in, or if he has
deliberately failed to disclose a material fact requested in
connection with, his application for admission to the bar."  
The matter was referred to the Honorable A. Owen Hennegan of
the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, who found as a fact that
Keehan had violated the rule when, as a Maryland resident and a
member of the Pennsylvania bar, he submitted an application for
admission to the Maryland bar pursuant to Maryland Rule 14 of the
Rules Governing Admission to the Bar.  That Rule permits a member
of the bar of another state to seek admission to the bar of this
State if "for at least five of the seven years immediately
preceding the filing of his petition [the petitioner] has been
regularly engaged ... as a practitioner of law...."  A
"practitioner of law," for purposes of Rule 14, is defined in the
rule as a member of the bar of another state
who throughout the period specified in the 
petition has regularly engaged in the practice of
law in such jurisdiction as the principal means of
earning his livelihood and whose entire professional
experience and responsibilities have been sufficient
to satisfy the Board that the petitioner should be 
admitted under this Rule. 
Keehan graduated from the University of Baltimore School of
Law in 1973.  He was unsuccessful in several attempts to pass the
2
Maryland Bar Examination. Beginning in September of 1972, Keehan
was employed as a claims adjuster by the United States Fidelity and
Guaranty Company (USF&G), remaining there until March of 1982 while
residing and working in Baltimore.  In the meantime, Keehan passed
the Pennsylvania bar examination and was admitted to practice in
that State on November 24, 1974.  From 1975 until 1982, Keehan
shared a law office gratuitously in York, Pennsylvania, where his
practice was described by Judge Hennegan as "minimal."  Keehan
petitioned for admission to the Maryland bar under Rule 14 on May
12, 1980, representing on his application that he qualified for
admission to the Maryland bar as an out-of-state attorney under the
rule.  He claimed that he had been a practitioner of law, as
defined in Rule 14, as the principal means of earning his
livelihood was "the practice of law" for at least five years during
the seven-year period beginning in May 1973.
Keehan did not disclose in his application for admission to
the bar his full-time employment with USF&G in Baltimore nor his
office-sharing arrangement in Pennsylvania.  Based on the averments
of his application, Keehan was admitted to the Maryland bar in
November 1981.  Subsequently, the Attorney Grievance Commission
filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against him, alleging
violation of DR 1-101(A) for misrepresenting his eligibility for
admission to the Maryland bar without taking the regular bar
examination.  Judge Hennegan concluded that Keehan had violated
Rule DR 1-101(A) in that he "did ... deliberately misrepresent
3
and make false and material misstatements in answer to questions
11(a) and (b) and further that his failure to disclose his full-
time employment in answer to question 12 could have readily misled
the bar examiners."  Moreover, Judge Hennegan stated that "if the
examiners had been alerted, an inquiry would certainly have been
made which may have divulged some material information concerning
[Keehan] prior to his application and admission to the Maryland
Bar."
In agreeing with Judge Hennegan's findings, we made these
observations:
Rule 14 is designed to afford a benefit
to lawyers who have practiced lawfully for at
least a minimum period of time.  The benefit
occurs because a lawyer who meets the rule's
practice requirements is excused from taking
the comprehensive two-day bar examination
normally required of those who seek admission
to practice in Maryland.  Instead, the out-of-
state-attorney applicant need submit to a test
of but three hours duration, with subject
matter limited to practice and procedure and
professional ethics.  Board [of Law Examiners]
Rule 3.
The reason for this privilege rests on
the assumption that a lawyer who has regularly
engaged in the practice of law, as a chief
means of earning the lawyer's living over a
period 
of 
years, 
has 
sufficient 
legal
knowledge to demonstrate at least minimum
competence; hence, it is not necessary to
apply the rigors of the full examination to
make that determination. ... It is, therefore,
of basic importance that the Board of Law
Examiners has before it information from which
it can determine whether a Rule 14 applicant
has engaged in practice to the extent required
by the rule.  Thus, it is important that an
applicant disclose to the board all facts
4
bearing on this subject.
Attorney Griev. Com'n v. Keehan, 311 Md. 161, 167, 533 A.2d 278
(1987).
We further noted:
(H)ad the board been informed of (and checked
into) Keehan's employment at USF&G during the
critical 1972-1980 time frame, the Rule 14
application 
would 
undoubtedly 
have 
been
rejected.  At the hearing before Judge
Hennegan, Keehan said that his work as a
claims supervisor was full-time, forty hours a
week.  He admitted that in his Pennsylvania
practice he handled but "ten to fifteen cases
a year" and "worked about fifteen hours a week
... on the practice."  This desultory activity
simply does not show one "who throughout the
period specified in the petition has regularly
engaged in the practice of law ... as the
principal means of earning his livelihood....
Rule 14 d."
Id. at 168.
Finally, we said that Judge Hennegan
could infer from the circumstances present in
this case that Keehan, aware of the practice
requirements of Rule 14, aware of his apparent
inability 
to 
pass 
the 
Maryland 
bar
examination, and aware of his only occasional
practice 
in 
Pennsylvania, 
deliberately
concealed his employment at USF&G so that the
board would be unaware that this employment,
and not the practice of law, was his principal
means of livelihood.  Judge Hennegan did so
infer.  His factual findings are "prima facie
correct and ... will not be disturbed unless
clearly erroneous."
Id. at 169.
Concluding that it was Keehan's deliberate and calculated
intention to avoid taking the Maryland bar examination, we
5
disbarred him on November 20, 1987.  
Keehan filed a Petition for readmission to the Maryland Bar on
May 13, 1992.  We referred the matter to Bar Counsel for
appropriate investigation and hearings.  Consistent with our cases,
four principal criteria had to be evaluated:
1. The nature and circumstances of [petitioner's] original
   misconduct.
2. [Petitioner's] subsequent conduct and reformation.
3. [Petitioner's] present character.
4. [Petitioner's] present qualifications and competence to
          practice law.
See, e.g., In re Braverman, 271 Md. 196, 199-200, 316 A.2d 246 
(1974).
The three-person panel voted 2 to 1 for readmission to the Bar
but not before November 20, 1997.  The Review Board voted 14 to 1
against readmission, stating that Keehan's original admission was
based on fraud and misrepresentation and to now reinstate him to
the bar would reward him for the very conduct for which he was
disbarred.  The Review Board suggested as an alternative, if he was
to be readmitted, he should be required to pass the regular
comprehensive bar examination.  In this regard, the Review Board
said that while Keehan was competent in some narrow areas of the
law, it was not convinced that he was presently competent to
satisfy the last of the four criteria.
After hearing oral argument in this matter, reading the
memoranda of counsel, and considering the letters of recommendation
6
written on Keehan's behalf, we are satisfied that Keehan has
demonstrated compliance with the first three of the above criteria.
As to these, he has demonstrated his fitness to become a member of
the Maryland bar, but only if he takes and passes the regular
comprehensive Maryland bar examination.  If he is successful in
this endeavor, he will be eligible for admission to the Maryland
bar, subject to the customary character update, and payment of all
costs of this proceeding in the amount of $1,415.50.
Judge Eldridge would admit Keehan.