Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Eugene Ignatius Kane, Jr., Miscellaneous 

Docket AG No. 5, September Term, 2018

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – INDEFINITE SUSPENSION

Respondent Eugene Ignatius Kane, Jr., violated the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of 

Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.16, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.1, and 8.4(a) 

and (d). These violations arose from Respondent’s misconduct during his representation 

of clients in two separate matters, as well as in his own personal bankruptcy filings and tax 

return filings. Taken together, Respondent’s violations warrant the sanction of indefinite 

suspension.
Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Case No.: 447490-V

Argued: June 6, 2019

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

Misc. Docket AG No. 5

September Term, 2018

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 

OF MARYLAND

v.

EUGENE IGNATIUS KANE, JR.

Barbera, C.J.

*Greene

McDonald

Watts

Hotten

Booth

Battaglia, Lynne A.

 (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),

JJ.

Opinion by Booth, J.

Filed: August 26, 2019

*Greene, J., now retired, participated in the 

hearing and conference of this case while an 

active member of this Court; after being recalled 

pursuant to the MD. Constitution, Article IV, 

Section 3A, he also participated in the decision 

and adoption of this opinion.
This attorney discipline matter against Respondent, Eugene Ignatius Kane, Jr.

(“Respondent” or “Mr. Kane”) arises out of Mr. Kane’s representation of two clients, Mrs. 

Lonergan and Mr. Arvin, in separate matters, as well as his personal bankruptcy filings in 

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, his personal tax return 

filings and the related investigations of the Attorney Grievance Commission (“AGC”). 

On May 1, 2018, the AGC, through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or 

Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Mr. Kane alleging that he had violated several 

provisions of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”). 

Specifically, Bar Counsel charged him with violating Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.2 (Scope 

of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Attorney), 1.3 

(Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 1.15 

(Safekeeping Property), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.1 (Meritorious 

Claims and Contentions), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing 

Party and Counsel), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4 (Misconduct) 

of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.

1

 Mr. Kane was also charged 

with violating Maryland Rule 16-606.1

2

 

 

1 Effective July 1, 2016, the MLRPC were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules 

of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and recodified in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules. 

Mr. Kane’s misconduct occurred before and after the recodification of the rules of 

professional conduct. Because Mr. Kane violated the rules under both the MLRPC and the 

MARPC, and there is no substantive difference in the two codifications, we shall use the 

shorter designations of the MLRPC throughout this opinion, e.g., “Rule 8.4” rather than 

“Maryland Rule 19-308.4.” 

2 Effective July 1, 2016, this rule was re-codified as Maryland Rule 19-407.
2

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722(a), this Court designated the Honorable David 

W. Lease of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct an evidentiary hearing

(the “attorney grievance hearing” or “hearing”) regarding the alleged violations, and to 

provide findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-272. The

attorney grievance hearing was held between December 10, 2018 and December 14, 2018. 

Mr. Kane represented himself throughout the hearing. 

The hearing judge issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on March 14, 

2019, in which he found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kane violated MLRPC

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.16, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.1, and 8.4.

3

 The hearing judge did not find a 

violation of Maryland Rule 16-606.1.

Bar Counsel filed one exception, which was to the hearing judge’s failure to find 

Mr. Kane’s prior warning by the AGC to be an aggravating factor. Mr. Kane filed a number 

of exceptions to both the hearing judge’s findings of fact, as well as his conclusions of 

law.

4

 

 

3 Following the hearing, Bar Counsel withdrew the allegation that Mr. Kane violated 

Rule 1.15(e). 

4 Mr. Kane’s pleading titled “Respondent’s Exceptions and Recommendations” 

(“Exceptions”) contains a section titled “Introduction,” which sets forth many facts and 

conclusions not contained in the record or found by the hearing judge. In his Exceptions, 

Mr. Kane essentially asks this Court to accept his version of the facts and overturn the 

hearing judge’s credibility determinations. To the extent that Mr. Kane’s “Introduction” 

contains exceptions to facts that are not specifically discussed below, they are overruled. 

As an initial matter, it should be noted that a “factual finding is not clearly erroneous ‘[i]f 

there is any competent material evidence to support [it].’” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 

McDonald, 437 Md. 1, 16 (2014) (alterations in original) (quoting YIVO Inst. for Jewish 

Research v. Zaleski, 386 Md. 654, 663 (2005)). “The hearing judge is entitled to ‘pick and 

choose which evidence to rely upon’ from a conflicting array when determining findings 
3

Concerning the appropriate sanction, Bar Counsel recommends that Mr. Kane be 

disbarred for his violations of the MLRPC. Mr. Kane requests that this Court impose a 

reprimand as the appropriate sanction. On June 6, 2019, this Court heard oral arguments 

in this matter. Mr. Kane appeared and was represented by counsel. We address the parties’ 

exceptions below. For the reasons set forth herein, we hold that Mr. Kane’s violations 

warrant the sanction of indefinite suspension. 

I. The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact 

When no exception is made to a hearing judge’s finding of fact, we accept it as 

established. Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A). When a party excepts to a finding, we must 

determine whether the finding is established by the requisite standard of proof—in the case 

of an allegation of misconduct, clear and convincing evidence. Md. Rules 19-741(b)(2)(B), 

19-727(c). The standard of review for a hearing judge’s factual findings where a party 

excepts to the findings is the clearly erroneous standard. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 

Chanthunya, 446 Md. 576, 588 (2016) (cleaned up). We summarize the hearing judge’s 

findings of fact and other undisputed matters in the record. We also address any exceptions 

in relation to the findings to which they pertain as follows. 

 

of fact.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 50 (2006) (quoting Attorney 

Grievance Comm’n v. Fezell, 361 Md. 234, 253 (2000)). Additionally, as set forth infra, 

although Mr. Kane notes many exceptions to both findings of fact and conclusions of law 

made by the hearing judge, he admits in many instances that he engaged in the conduct 

upon which the violation is based. 
4

Mr. Kane’s Credentials and Practice5

Mr. Kane graduated from Georgetown Law School in 1983 and was admitted to the 

Maryland Bar on December 20, 1983. He is a solo practitioner with a virtual office located 

in Montgomery County, Maryland. While Mr. Kane’s mail was delivered to his virtual 

office, he conducted meetings in public places, such as restaurants and coffee shops, and 

otherwise worked from his home, also located in Montgomery County. Mr. Kane did not 

have any administrative support, other than a receptionist at his virtual office.

The Lonergan Matter

In 2006, Brian Lonergan and his wife (“Mrs. Lonergan”) purchased a PostNet 

franchise. Soon thereafter, Mr. Lonergan established Montgomery Business Solutions, 

LLC (“MBS”) to operate the printing and shipping franchise. MBS traded under the names 

PostNet and PostNet MD 112 (hereinafter “PostNet”). Mr. Lonergan was the sole member 

and owner of MBS and managed the day-to-day operations of the store. Mrs. Lonergan, 

an attorney, was not involved in the operation of the MBS business venture. 

 

5 Mr. Kane excepts to the fact that, in the hearing judge’s summary of his practice, 

the hearing judge did not find that Mr. Kane “was also experiencing some personal 

financial difficulties with his mortgage lender—Wells Fargo—which necessitated the 

filing of personal bankruptcy petitions by [] [Mr. Kane].” We overrule this exception. 

Although the hearing judge did not incorporate this finding into his initial description of 

Mr. Kane’s practice, he found that, on the eve of Mr. Kane’s five personal bankruptcy 

filings, Mr. Kane was facing a foreclosure on his home. Mr. Kane’s serial bankruptcy 

filings related to his attempts to negotiate his mortgage with his lender, a fact noted by the 

hearing judge in his written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 
5

1. PNC v. MBS

In November 2010, Mr. Lonergan retained Mr. Kane to represent MBS in 

connection with collection efforts by PNC Merchant Services Company (“PNC”) after it 

was discovered that MBS had been the target of a credit card scam. The transaction at 

issue involved a large order placed by a third-party that was paid for with a stolen credit 

card. PNC claimed that MBS owed approximately $50,000 due to a charge back to MBS’s 

account after the transaction was determined to have been fraudulent. PNC cancelled 

MBS’s merchant account and placed MBS on a “blacklist,” preventing MBS from 

conducting credit card transactions. 

During their initial meeting, Mr. Kane indicated that he could attempt to negotiate 

a resolution with PNC. Mr. Lonergan, through PostNet, retained Mr. Kane. Mr. Lonergan 

testified that he did not recall discussing an hourly rate with Mr. Kane, but he understood 

that Mr. Kane would charge him an hourly rate for his services. 

Mr. Kane attempted to negotiate a resolution with PNC, to no avail. PNC would 

not agree to remove MBS from the blacklist, which had the effect of preventing MBS from 

accepting credit card payments from its customers. As a result, in September of 2011, PNC 

filed a complaint against MBS in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Prior to trial, 

PNC offered to settle the matter by removing MBS from the blacklist in exchange for a 

payment of $50,719.25. It became apparent to Mr. Kane that MBS had no defense, so he 

investigated other options. 

In early June of 2012, Mr. Kane advised Mr. Lonergan that he had consulted with a 

bankruptcy attorney, who recommended that they create a new entity to operate PostNet 
6

so that the business could continue to operate.6 Mr. Kane indicated that the new entity 

would be able to process credit cards. Mrs. Lonergan, skeptical of this advice, asked Mr. 

Kane whether his proposed course of action could be successful, and whether there would 

be any associated risk. Mr. Kane told Mrs. Lonergan that there was nothing wrong with 

attempting to operate under the new entity, although it might not be successful. Mr. Kane 

advised that the only potential risk was that the credit card processing company might 

discover a connection between MBS and the newly formed company, which could lead to 

the loss of the filing fees paid to create the new entity. 

Based upon Mr. Kane’s advice, the Lonergans agreed that Mr. Lonergan would form 

a new company. The day before the PNC trial, Mr. Kane filed articles of organization with

the Maryland State Department of Assessment and Taxation (“SDAT”) establishing Matrix 

Printing, LLC (“Matrix”). Matrix was registered to the same address as MBS and was 

intended to control and continue MBS’s printing and shipping franchise. 

The following day, Mr. Kane appeared in the circuit court on behalf of MBS. Mr. 

Kane advised PNC and the court that MBS would not contest the matter. The circuit court 

entered judgment in favor of PNC against MBS in the amount of $50,719.25. Mr. Kane 

 

6 Mr. Kane excepted to this finding and contends that the hearing judge should have 

found that he discussed the Lonergan litigation strategies with two experienced lawyers. 

We overrule this exception. The hearing judge specifically found that Mr. Kane discussed 

this matter with an experienced bankruptcy attorney. The hearing judge is entitled to 

significant deference in assessing the credibility of witnesses and picking and choosing 

from the evidence presented and the inferences to be drawn from that evidence. See

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Page, 430 Md. 602, 627 (2013). Moreover, as discussed 

infra, the hearing judge did not find that Mr. Kane violated any Rule in connection with 

his recommendations and advice on the formation of the new entity. 
7

did not inform PNC or the circuit court of the formation of Matrix prior to the entry of the 

judgment; however, there was no duty to disclose such information. 

PNC commenced efforts to collect on the judgment and garnished MBS’s bank 

accounts. Mr. Kane advised Mr. Lonergan that MBS should explore filing bankruptcy 

because PNC was unrelenting. Mrs. Lonergan requested a telephone call with Mr. Kane 

regarding the potential bankruptcy filing. She again asked if there was risk or anything 

illegal about the creation of Matrix. Mr. Kane was adamant that there was no risk. Mr. 

Kane spoke with MBS’s accountant, Mr. Burstein, as well as a bankruptcy attorney, and 

they both agreed with his recommendation. 

2. MBS Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

Mr. Kane filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition on behalf of MBS in the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (“Bankruptcy Court”) in March of

2013. The filing contained numerous deficiencies, including the failure to file many 

schedules. On April 2, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the petition because the 

deficiencies had not been cured. 

The following day, Mr. Kane filed an appearance of counsel and an affidavit for 

explanation of non-compliance and disclosure, wherein Mr. Kane advised that he did not 

have an account to electronically file MBS’s pleadings. Mr. Kane also filed a motion to 

reinstate Chapter 7, associated schedules, and a statement of financial affairs. Mr. Kane’s 

filings once again contained deficiencies. He failed to include the required declaration 

from the debtor or to file a certificate of service as required by the bankruptcy rules. 
8

The Bankruptcy Trustee (“Trustee”) retained counsel, Jeffrey M. Orenstein, to 

investigate MBS and Matrix. The bankruptcy judge granted the Trustee’s motion to vacate 

the dismissal of the bankruptcy, which allowed the Trustee to continue his investigation. 

In the course of his investigation, Mr. Orenstein reviewed the bankruptcy petition prepared 

by Mr. Kane on behalf of MBS. Mr. Orenstein noted that the petition stated that MBS had 

no assets; however, there was no disclosure of any transfers by MBS or any closed bank 

accounts. Mr. Orenstein investigated the PNC litigation and concluded that there were 

potential claims that could be pursued on behalf of the bankruptcy estate.7 

On February 2, 2014, Mr. Kane emailed Mr. Lonergan and advised that there were 

no updates in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. In this email, Mr. Kane inquired about how he 

was going to be compensated. At no time between November 2010 and February 2014 did 

Mr. Kane provide an invoice or billing statement in connection with his representation of 

MBS. Mr. Kane stated that “if [I] did an itemized bill based on time it would be excessive. 

Thoughts on alternatives to hourly arrangement?” Mr. Kane and Mr. Lonergan agreed on a 

total fee of $12,000 with $5,000 to be paid immediately and the remainder in monthly 

installments of $1,000. Mr. Lonergan’s father sent two checks totaling $5,000 on behalf of 

Mr. Lonergan in February of 2014. One check in the amount of $2,000 referenced 

 

7 Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s findings concerning MBS’s bankruptcy 

and contends that the hearing judge “should have found that the [R]espondent advised Mr. 

Lonergan and the [Bankruptcy] Trustee that the [R]espondent was not an experienced 

bankruptcy petitioner.” We overrule this exception. Even assuming that Mr. Kane advised 

the Lonergans and the Bankruptcy Court of his lack of experience, Mr. Kane is required to 

possess basic minimum standards of competence required by Rule 1.1 when representing

his clients, which includes ensuring that schedules comply with the minimal bankruptcy 

requirements and that they are accurate. 
9

“Services/PostNet.” The other check in the amount of $3,000 referenced “PostNet Legal 

Services.” 

On April 15, 2014, Mr. Lonergan requested a statement representing the agreedupon amount owed. Mr. Kane provided Mr. Lonergan an invoice that day, which included 

time spent on the matter through March 9, 2011, as well as a “general entry” in the amount 

of $4,776.68 on April 15, 2014, which brought the total invoice amount of $11,999. The 

invoice did not account for the February 2014 payments. Mr. Lonergan testified that his 

understanding was that the $12,000 would cover the case to its conclusion. Mr. Kane 

testified that he had a clear understanding that he would handle the bankruptcy matter 

without charge. 

3. Adversary Proceeding Against MBS, Mr. Lonergan, Mrs. Lonergan, and 

Mr. Kane

The Trustee’s investigation led to the filing of a Complaint to Avoid Transfers, for 

Declaratory Judgment, and to Recover Monetary Damages against Matrix, Mr. Lonergan,

Mrs. Lonergan, and Mr. Kane. The Complaint, which was filed in June of 2014 in the 

Bankruptcy Court, consisted of ten counts, including civil conspiracy and a fraudulent 

conveyance based on the transfers allegedly made by the Lonergans and Mr. Kane between 

MBS and Matrix on the eve of trial in the PNC case (the “Adversary Proceeding”). 

Mr. Kane discussed the Adversary Proceeding with Mr. Lonergan and advised him 

that he believed that the case was defensible because Mr. Kane had spoken to a bankruptcy 

attorney and to MBS’s accountant prior to creating Matrix and filing MBS’s bankruptcy. In 

August of 2014, Mr. Kane filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint, or Alternatively, a Motion 
10

for More Definite Statement of Same on behalf of Matrix, the Lonergans, and himself. 

Mr. Kane had not discussed the complaint or his motion with Mrs. Lonergan, nor did he have 

her authorization to take any action on her behalf. 

From the outset of the Adversary Proceeding, counsel for the Trustee, Mr. Orenstein,

had several discussions with Mr. Kane wherein he expressed concern regarding Mr. Kane’s 

ongoing representation of the Lonergans and Matrix. Specifically, Mr. Orenstein expressed 

concern about the fact that Mr. Kane was a named defendant against whom the Trustee was 

seeking damages, and that he would be a primary witness in the case. Mr. Orenstein told 

Mr. Kane several times that he did not believe that Mr. Kane could represent the Lonergans 

or Matrix in the Adversary Proceeding because Mr. Kane was also a defendant. 

In August of 2014, the Bankruptcy Court held a pretrial hearing. Mr. Kane appeared 

on behalf of the defendants. As before, Mr. Kane had not discussed the complaint or the 

hearing with Mrs. Lonergan, nor was he authorized to appear on her behalf. 8 The Lonergans 

were not present. At the hearing, the Trustee advised the Bankruptcy Court that Mr. Kane 

would be a witness and therefore, could not serve as counsel for the Lonergans or Matrix. 

After the hearing, Mr. Kane emailed Mr. Lonergan and informed him that the Trustee 

intended to file a motion to disqualify him as counsel in the case because a lawyer cannot be 

 

8 Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s finding. He contends that the hearing 

judge should have found that Mr. Kane believed that Mr. Lonergan was advising Mrs. 

Lonergan on the status of the Adversary Proceeding and that Mr. Kane was not 

communicating with Mrs. Lonergan at Mr. Lonergan’s request because of serious marital 

issues. We overrule this exception. Mr. Kane had a duty to discuss the Adversary 

Proceeding with Mrs. Lonergan, and the fact that Mr. Kane believed that the Adversary 

Proceeding was creating marital discord between his two clients only heightened this duty. 
11

a witness and act as counsel at trial. Mr. Kane stated that: “[w]e will wait to see what the 

Trustee files.” Mr. Kane did not withdraw as counsel for the Lonergans and Matrix in the 

Adversary Proceeding at that time, nor did he discuss his conflict of interest with

the Lonergans. 

In September of 2014, the Trustee served interrogatories and requests for production 

of documents on each of the Lonergans. In November of 2014, the Trustee filed an 

amended complaint, wherein he added claims against the Lonergans and Mr. Kane related 

to the alleged fraudulent conveyance. Mr. Kane failed to communicate in any manner with 

Mrs. Lonergan about the amended complaint. 

On December 12, 2014—more than two months after the discovery had been 

propounded—Mr. Kane emailed Mr. Lonergan and asked how he was doing on the 

“discovery preparation.” On December 16, Mr. Orenstein wrote to Mr. Kane concerning 

the overdue discovery responses and stated that if responses were not received on or before 

December 20, the Trustee would seek sanctions against the Lonergans. That same day, 

Mr. Kane emailed Mr. Orenstein and stated: “Client has been working on the responses. 

This is a very busy time of the year for the company. Anticipate responses shortly.” At 

that time, Mr. Kane still had not had any communications with Mrs. Lonergan about the 

lawsuit that had been filed in which she was a named defendant, the outstanding discovery 

requests, or the response deadline. 

On January 4, 2015, Mr. Kane emailed Mr. Lonergan about the discovery responses. 

Mr. Kane indicated that he was “very certain” that Mr. Orenstein was “going to insist [they] 
12

file the discovery responses this week.” Mr. Kane did not advise Mr. Lonergan that the 

responses were overdue or of the content of Mr. Orenstein’s December 16 letter. 

In January of 2015, Mr. Kane filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on behalf 

of all the defendants, including himself. Again, Mr. Kane was not authorized by Mrs. 

Lonergan to take any action on her behalf. 

On February 3, 2015, Mr. Orenstein once again wrote to Mr. Kane regarding the 

overdue discovery responses. Mr. Orenstein advised that if discovery responses were not 

received by February 10, he would file a motion for sanctions. On February 4, Mr. Kane 

emailed Mr. Lonergan and indicated that they needed to “resume” their efforts on the 

discovery responses. Mr. Kane stated that he had a new deadline of February 10 to submit

discovery responses. Mr. Kane did not advise Mr. Lonergan that the Trustee intended to file 

a motion for sanctions if responses were not received by February 10. The deadline passed 

without any further communication between Mr. Kane and Mr. Orenstein. 

Having received no response from Mr. Kane to his February 4 email, Mr. Orenstein 

filed a motion for sanctions and motion to compel discovery against the Lonergans on 

February 16. On February 17, Mr. Kane, for the first time, emailed draft responses to Mr. 

Lonergan and requested that Mr. and Mrs. Lonergan review and sign the responses. 

Mr. Kane did not advise the Lonergans of the pending motion for sanctions that had been 

filed against them. On March 4, Mr. Kane emailed Mr. Lonergan and inquired about the 

status of the responses. Again, Mr. Kane failed to advise Mr. Lonergan of the pending 

motion for sanctions. On March 7, Mr. Kane emailed Mr. Lonergan about the discovery 
13

responses and advised that a “motion to compel” had been filed. Mr. Kane stated that he 

wanted to get the discovery filed to “keep from sanctions for non-filing.” 

As of March 7, Mr. Kane had failed to have any direct communications with Mrs. 

Lonergan about the discovery and failed to advise either of the Lonergans that a pending 

motion for sanctions had been filed against them three weeks earlier. 

The Bankruptcy Court scheduled a hearing for March 23, 2015. On March 19, 

Mr. Kane finally provided complete discovery responses to Mr. Orenstein. Mr. Kane filed 

a response to the motion for sanctions on the day before the hearing.

On March 23, the Bankruptcy Court heard the Trustee’s motion for sanctions. 

Mr. Kane appeared on behalf of the Lonergans, who were not present. At the conclusion 

of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Trustee’s motion. After the hearing, 

Mr. Kane failed to advise the Lonergans that sanctions had been entered against them. 

Instead, Mr. Kane sent Mr. Lonergan an email advising him that the Bankruptcy Court had 

granted the motion to compel and requested “the Trustee provide an estimate of the costs 

of preparing the motion and will [sic] us to negotiate, if possible, a reasonable 

reimbursement for the cost of the motion.” On April 17, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court 

entered an Order of Sanctions against the Lonergans in the amount of $3,197.25. Once 

again, Mr. Kane failed to advise Mrs. Lonergan about either the Court’s grant of the motion 

to compel or the sanctions order. 

In the fall of 2015—over a year after the initial case was filed—Mr. Kane advised 

Mr. Lonergan that the Lonergans needed to retain new counsel because the Trustee intended 

to call Mr. Kane as a witness at trial. The Lonergans retained Michael P. Coyle as successor 
14

counsel. When the Lonergans consulted with Mr. Coyle, Mrs. Lonergan learned, for the first 

time, that she was a named defendant in the Adversary Proceeding and that sanctions had 

been entered against her. 

Mr. Coyle recommended that the Lonergans attempt to negotiate a settlement with 

the Trustee. Prior to Mr. Coyle’s involvement in the case there had not been any legitimate 

settlement discussions between Mr. Orenstein and Mr. Kane.9 Mr. Coyle entered his 

appearance and negotiated a settlement with the Trustee prior to trial. The terms of the 

settlement required that the Lonergans and Matrix pay approximately $16,500 and that the 

Lonergans pay an additional $3,197.25 as sanctions associated with the parties’ discovery 

violations. Mr. Kane never reimbursed the Lonergans for the amounts paid toward the 

sanctions. 

Trial proceeded on January 12, 2016, with Mr. Kane as the only defendant. The 

Trustee and Mr. Kane each made opening statements and conducted direct and crossexamination of Mr. Lonergan. During the lunch break, Mr. Kane, for the first time, advised 

Mr. Orenstein that he had filed a personal Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in September of 

2015. Mr. Orenstein immediately advised the bankruptcy judge of Mr. Kane’s Chapter 13 

filing, which required that the proceedings against him be stayed immediately. The 

following exchange occurred with the bankruptcy judge: 

MR. ORENSTEIN: Your Honor, I have to apologize to you and 

everybody else in this courtroom for wasting your time because Mr. Kane 

 

9 Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s finding that he failed to engage in 

legitimate settlement discussions, and contends that he did in fact, have discussions, but to 

no avail. Based upon our independent review of the record, Mr. Kane’s exception to this 

finding is overruled. The hearing judge’s finding is not clearly erroneous. 
15

just informed me that in September[,] he filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy

petition.

THE COURT: Oh, no.

MR. ORENSTEIN: And this case, as a result, is stayed as to him, 

although the trustee was not listed as a creditor and we knew nothing 

about that until just this moment. And you know how much time and 

effort and money we have spent on this because Mr. Kane has, once 

again, thrown us into the deep end. But we cannot, as a matter of law, go 

forward with this trial at this point.

MR. KANE: Let me respond to that. I have been trying to - - first of all, 

for personal privacy reasons, I have been trying to keep that out of any 

and all professional matters. That’s number one for my rationale.

Number two, once I became the sole defendant, and I asked counsel at 

the break, because we haven’t had any discussions since they left me as 

the sole defendant, monetarily, what are they seeking from me. Okay? I

was given a number, okay, and I said that’s not even workable for me. 

The difficulty for me is that I’m trying to, as you can see, from September 

- - I’ll give you the case number if you need it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. KANE: It’s 15-22874. It’s a mortgage issue. I’m trying to work 

out a mortgage issue with the mortgage company, and I’m trying to 

resolve that issue on modification with Wells Fargo. And that’s what 

I’ve been dealing. So[,] on a personal note, I believed, and still do believe 

that the only financial exposure, if there is any in this case, is it relates to 

my former clients, not for me. I’ve always provided professional advice.

THE COURT: It doesn’t matter. You’ve been sued[,] and you should 

have advised the Court that you’re a Chapter 13. People who are - - it 

stays the matter. And he could have made some other decisions, either 

about how he was going to settle it because you’re in Chapter 13, or chose 

not to pursue it, or whatever, or you could have agreed on a claim in the 

Chapter 13 case.

But to have gone forward when there is an automatic stay that goes into 

effect, and to have cause these people and the Court all of this time is - -

MR. KANE: But the Court was also clear, on several days, that you 

wanted this case tried today.

THE COURT: But is wasn’t going to be - -

MR. KANE: And I wasn’t going to let that interfere. 

THE COURT: It can’t be - -

MR. KANE: I didn’t want my personal life to interfere.

THE COURT: It can’t be tried if there’s an automatic stay. Even if I’m 

the judge, and I don’t know that I am in the 13, there is an automatic stay 

that goes into effect, and it can’t be pursued unless they file a motion for 

relief from automatic stay. They can’t do it, ethically.
16

All right. Well, we’re done for today; that’s for sure. Let’s just wrap this 

up.

* * *

THE COURT: Okay. Are they listed as a creditor? They didn’t get 

notice.

MR. KANE: No. 

THE COURT: Oh.

MR. KANE: I list two creditors, Your Honor, the first and second 

mortgage; that’s the only people - -

THE COURT: They’re a - -

MR. KANE: I’m going to have to amend at this point. I understand I’m

going to have to do all of that now that they’re made me a direct point of 

contact in this case. I thought it was peripheral; that’s my perception of 

it. But apparently the trustee doesn’t think so.

THE COURT: Well, it’s not a matter of “apparently the trustee”; it’s the 

law. Read Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

MR. KANE: But I - - you know, honestly, Your Honor, I get where - -

you know, if I get somebody that sues me for a court reporter bill for

$300, I don’t list them on any financial reportings, and I do with any

venue. Those are just minor things. I saw my role, personally, as far as

personal exposure, as minor.

THE COURT: It doesn’t matter; it’s still a claim. It needed to have been

listed.

MR. KANE: All right.

At the attorney grievance hearing, Mr. Kane advanced various reasons for his failure 

to disclose the Adversary Proceeding and list the Trustee as an unsecured creditor in his 

bankruptcy petition. The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane’s reasons for purposely 

omitting the listing of the Adversary Proceeding were not permissible. The hearing judge 

determined that Mr. Kane knowingly and intentionally withheld material information from 

the Bankruptcy Court by failing to identify the Adversary Proceeding. The hearing judge 

found that Mr. Kane was aware that he needed to list the claim. Mr. Kane acknowledged 

the willful nature of his omission to list the Adversary Proceeding in his personal 
17

bankruptcy filing when he advised the Bankruptcy Court that he failed to disclose the claim 

because “I have been trying to keep that out of any and all professional matters. . . .” 

Subsequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the Adversary Proceeding against 

Mr. Kane went forward. The Bankruptcy Court found for Mr. Kane and entered a judgment 

in his favor.

Mr. Kane excepts to the factual finding that he “knowingly and intentionally filed a 

false bankruptcy petition,” claiming that he firmly believed that he did not have to list the 

Adversary Proceeding because it was an “inchoate claim.” Although this may have been 

Mr. Kane’s belief, it was nonetheless incorrect. And the record described above shows 

that Mr. Kane’s omission was intentional. Based upon the facts outlined above, the hearing 

judge’s finding is not clearly erroneous. We overrule Mr. Kane’s exception. 

4. Bar Counsel Investigation into Lonergan Complaint

Mrs. Lonergan filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission in June 

of 2016. Bar Counsel forwarded the complaint to Mr. Kane on September 6 and requested 

that Kane provide a written response within fifteen days. When Mr. Kane did not respond 

to Bar Counsel’s request, Counsel sent a follow-up request asking Mr. Kane to respond 

within ten days. On October 19, 2016, Mr. Kane represented to Bar Counsel that his 

representation of MBS was on a pro bono basis.10

 

10 As will be discussed infra, in the Conclusions of Law relating to Rules 3.3 and 

8.1, the hearing judge found that Mr. Kane “believed he was proceeding on a pro bono

basis given his thought process.” Because the court was not persuaded that there was clear 

and convincing evidence that Mr. Kane knowingly made a false statement, the hearing 

judge found that Mr. Kane did not violate Rule 8.1(a) based upon his testimony regarding 

work done on a pro bono basis. 
18

Bar Counsel requested that within ten days, Mr. Kane provide “additional 

information and documentation” including “copies of all records created and maintained 

for the receipt, maintenance and disbursement of funds from the Lonergans, MBS and 

Matrix,” as well as “copies of cancelled checks and a full accounting of any payments” 

received. Mr. Kane neglected to timely respond to this request.

Mrs. Lonergan provided supplemental information to Bar Counsel at the end of 

October 2016. On November 16, Bar Counsel requested that Mr. Kane respond in writing, 

within seven days, to the new information provided by Mrs. Lonergan. Three weeks later, 

Mr. Kane provided a compact disc containing electronic files related to his representation 

of the Lonergans, MBS, and Matrix. However, the information provided by Mr. Kane did 

not include “records associated with the receipt, maintenance and disbursement of client 

funds” that had been requested by Bar Counsel. Mr. Kane ultimately provided Bar Counsel 

with a photograph of the front of two checks but failed to produce a copy of another check 

in the amount of $1,000 that he received from Matrix.

Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s findings in connection with Bar Counsel’s 

investigation into Mrs. Lonergan’s complaint, arguing that “[t]he Court should have found 

that the record supports a finding that the [R]espondent’s family issues (serious illness of 

his in-laws) delayed his response to Bar Counsel’s inquiries and that the [R]espondent 

ultimately appropriately engaged with Bar Counsel.” Mr. Kane’s exception is overruled.

The hearing judge’s failure to make a specific finding that Mr. Kane’s delayed response 

was caused by his in-laws’ failing health is not clearly erroneous. See Attorney Grievance 

Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 385 (2001) (“Exceptions to the findings of our 
19

hearing judges in attorney discipline matters should be directed to facts that he [or she] 

finds, or facts that he [or she] expressly rejects or expressly refuses to consider.”). As 

discussed infra, as a mitigating factor in Mr. Kane’s favor, the hearing judge found that 

Mr. Kane’s in-laws’ failing health affected Mr. Kane emotionally and required significant 

time and energy for their care. 

Mr. Kane’s Personal Bankruptcy Filings and Tax Returns

1. Serial Bankruptcy Filings

Mr. Kane filed five individual voluntary bankruptcy petitions under Chapters 7 and 

13 between February 26, 2014, and April 4, 2017. Each of the bankruptcy petitions were

filed “on the eve of a foreclosure on his home” and were signed under the penalty of 

perjury. The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane’s “frequent and unsuccessful filings 

constituted an abuse of the bankruptcy process.”

Mr. Kane filed his first Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in February of 2014. The

petition, schedules, and income statement were all deficient and contained incorrect or 

misleading information. Specifically, Mr. Kane reported significantly less money in his 

checking account than his bank records demonstrated. Other items disclosed included 

monthly expenses, household furnishings, wearing apparel, and a vehicle, all of which were 

inconsistently reported on later bankruptcy filings. The Bankruptcy Court denied 

Mr. Kane’s Chapter 13 plan with leave to amend; however, Mr. Kane neglected to file an 

amended plan. In July of 2014, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed this bankruptcy petition. 

When Mr. Kane initiated his second Chapter 13 filing in September of 2015, the 

Adversary Proceeding to which he was a party with the Lonergans and Matrix was pending
20

in Bankruptcy Court. As noted supra, Mr. Kane failed to disclose the Adversary 

Proceeding or list the Trustee as an unsecured creditor. In addition to these omissions, 

Mr. Kane’s petition, schedules, and income statement again were incomplete and contained 

false or misleading information. At the attorney grievance hearing, Mr. Orenstein testified 

that the information that Mr. Kane failed to provide on his schedules included, but was not 

limited to, information relating to his bank account, ownership interest in his law practice, 

and office lease. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed this Chapter 13 petition in April of 2016, 

determining that Mr. Kane had “‘not properly prosecuted [the] action’ either by electing to 

convert it from a Chapter 13 case to another chapter or dismissing the action.” 

Approximately seven weeks later, in June of 2016, Mr. Kane filed a third Chapter 

13 petition. Less than a month later, Mr. Kane filed amended schedules on which he listed 

claims for household goods and furnishings, electronics, and clothes. On Schedule E/F, he 

also listed unsecured creditors whom he had not previously disclosed on his 2014 or 2015 

bankruptcy filings. Additionally, on Schedule J, Mr. Kane listed expenses for “telephone, 

cell phone, internet, satellite and cable; food and housekeeping; clothing and laundry 

and dry cleaning; personal care products and services; medical and dental expenses;

travel expenses; entertainment; charitable contributions and religious donations; and 

insurance[,]” none of which he had listed on his two earlier bankruptcy petitions. This 

petition was dismissed in December of 2016. 

Less than two months later, Mr. Kane filed a fourth bankruptcy petition for Chapter 

7 bankruptcy. However, the same day, Mr. Kane filed a motion requesting that the case be 

converted to a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. This motion was granted. Nonetheless, the petition 
21

was dismissed in February of 2017 due to Mr. Kane’s failure to complete filings required 

by the Bankruptcy Court. 

Once again, less than two months after his last petition was dismissed, Mr. Kane 

filed a fifth Chapter 13 petition in April of 2017. The Chapter 13 Trustee filed a Motion 

to Dismiss with Prejudice for Bad Faith. In Mr. Kane’s response to this motion, he 

admitted that his serial bankruptcy filings were commenced in an effort to obtain a loan 

modification. The Trustee’s motion was granted; however, the order was later vacated 

after Mr. Kane established that he was current on his plan payments. Ultimately, the 

Chapter 13 Plan was denied, and in February of 2018, the Chapter 13 petition was 

dismissed for failure to properly prosecute the action.11

The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane’s frequent and unsuccessful filings 

constituted an abuse of the bankruptcy process. The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane’s 

explanation at trial that “skeleton filings” are permitted in Bankruptcy Court and that he 

filed the petitions “late at night when he was exhausted” does not absolve him from his 

repeated “omissions and inaccuracies in his filings” because they are evidence of “a 

knowing disregard for the accuracy of the multiple petitions filed . . . under oath.”

The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane disclosed to the bankruptcy judge that he 

intentionally does not include what he considers to be minor items when Mr. Kane stated 

 

11 After Bar Counsel filed the Petition for Disciplinary Action, Mr. Kane filed a 

sixth bankruptcy petition in November of 2018. Again, this Chapter 13 petition was 

deficient. The hearing judge took judicial notice of the Bankruptcy Court’s January 10, 

2019, order denying confirmation of the Respondent’s Chapter 13 plan, with leave to 

amend.
22

that, “If I get somebody that sues me for a court reporter bill for $300 I don’t list them on 

any financial reportings, and I do [sic] with any venue. They are just minor things.”

Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s finding that his frequent and unsuccessful 

filings were an abuse of the bankruptcy process. He claims that the filings are an attempt 

“to force a recalcitrant creditor to the negotiating table,” which is a “common practice” and 

the different amounts in various schedules in the bankruptcy filings are explained by the 

fluid nature of a person’s financial situation. We overrule this exception. Based upon our 

review of the record, the hearing judge’s finding is not clearly erroneous. As set forth 

above, Mr. Kane filed multiple bankruptcy filings replete with incomplete and inconsistent 

information, and in each instance, the petition was dismissed. The hearing judge did not 

clearly err in finding that these multiple, serial incomplete filings constituted an abuse of 

the bankruptcy process. 

2. Tax Returns 

During the attorney grievance hearing, Mr. Kane testified that he deducted 100% of 

his communication expenses for his sole proprietorship on his 2014 and 2015 Individual 

Tax Returns, even though his wife and three children, who are not employees, also use 

these services. He also confirmed that he deducted amounts not related to the operation of 

his law practice, including the cost of his FIOS television. In his Findings, the hearing 

judge stated that, “[W]hile the Court acknowledges that the amount involved here is not 

great, that fact is not relevant to this Court’s findings regarding the false statement.” 

Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s findings of fact that information on his tax 

returns is false. Mr. Kane’s exception to the hearing judge’s finding of fact is overruled. 
23

The hearing judge’s finding is not clearly erroneous. Mr. Kane admitted that he deducts 

the full amount of the family cell phone expenses. Whether these deductions rise to the

level a violation of Rule 8.4(b) or (c) is discussed infra when we address the hearing judge’s 

conclusions of law. 

Attorney Trust Account Overdraft

In its Petition, Bar Counsel alleged a violation of Rule 8.1(b) regarding Mr. Kane’s 

response to its investigation into a trust account overdraft matter after Bar Counsel received

notice from Bank of America that Mr. Kane’s trust account had been overdrawn by $4.42. 

While Mr. Kane did not respond to Bar Counsel’s initial request, he eventually answered

and indicated that the error was due to his having inaccurately recorded the amount of some 

checks on separate occasions. Mr. Kane further explained that he wrote a check to a client 

that was “an overpayment to the client of under $5.00. No other client funds in the 

account.” 

After Bar Counsel requested additional information because Mr. Kane had “only 

identified the name, date, amount, status, and ‘value work done’ for each of the identified 

transactions,” Mr. Kane responded that he had “provided this information which is 

sufficient given the nature of these matters. You will need to outline why I need to provide 

anything further beyond this information[.] I do NOT have the time available to retrieve 

information on closed matters for a fishing expedition.”

The hearing judge found that Bar Counsel did not set forth any proposed conclusions 

of law or articulate how Mr. Kane violated Rule 8.1(b) in his response to Bar Counsel. 

Consequently, the hearing judge treated that claim as abandoned by Bar Counsel. No 
24

exceptions were filed by Bar Counsel to the hearing judge’s findings or conclusion on this 

charge. Although Mr. Kane filed an exception, the hearing judge did not find a violation. 

Accordingly, we will not address it further. 

Representation of Charles Arvin

Charles Arvin worked for Lockheed Martin (“Lockheed”) for 34 years. In the 

spring of 2012, Lockheed notified employees it was shutting down its battery laboratory in 

Clarksburg, Maryland. Among those workers affected were Charles Arvin and Sharon 

Sanbower. Ms. Sanbower was a part-time chemical engineer who worked for Lockheed 

for 38 years. Mr. Arvin, a software engineer, earned an annual salary of approximately 

$87,000. Lockheed offered Mr. Arvin a severance package of approximately $50,000. The 

severance package included “several provisions regarding the release of all claims against 

Lockheed with the exception of ‘any claims under applicable workers’ compensation 

statutes.’” Mr. Arvin had to either reject or accept the severance offer within 45 days. 

Mr. Arvin’s last day of employment was June 27, 2012. During Mr. Arvin’s last 

days of employment, he inhaled a harmful electrolyte solution while opening a battery cell. 

Mr. Arvin asserted that this exposure led to a persistent cough, permanent lung damage, 

and the worsening of a preexisting anxiety disorder. 

At the urging of Mr. Arvin’s co-worker, Sharon Sanbower12 Mr. Arvin met with 

Mr. Kane at a Starbucks in July of 2012 to discuss whether he should accept the severance 

 

12 Mr. Arvin had known Ms. Sanbower for nearly 25 years and worked with her in 

the battery laboratory for approximately ten years. Ms. Sanbower was among the workers 

affected by the closing of the battery laboratory. Ms. Sanbower had retained Mr. Kane to 

represent her in a claim related to chemical exposure. Mr. Kane’s representation of Ms. 
25

package offered by Lockheed and the possibility of pursuing a toxic tort claim. Ms. 

Sanbower attended the meeting with Mr. Arvin. 

Mr. Kane told Mr. Arvin that in order to pursue a toxic tort lawsuit against 

Lockheed, he would have to waive any severance offer. Mr. Kane advised Mr. Arvin that 

his recovery in a toxic tort lawsuit would exceed the amount of the severance offer made 

by Lockheed. Mr. Kane also told Mr. Arvin that “I hate to see you take that settlement 

package for the little bit of money you’re going to receive.” He further advised Mr. Arvin 

that “you have a better chance of making more money in this lawsuit than would making 

[sic] in your severance.”

Mr. Kane had no legal or factual basis to support this advice. He had not conducted 

any legal research, nor had he reviewed any of Mr. Arvin’s medical records, and he had 

not consulted with any experts concerning the potential toxic tort claim. Mr. Kane did not 

advise Mr. Arvin of the risks associated with pursuing a toxic tort claim, including the costs 

of litigation. Mr. Kane failed to advise Mr. Arvin that he could accept the severance offer 

and still pursue a worker’s compensation claim. Mr. Kane confirmed no fewer than six 

times at this initial meeting that Mr. Arvin should waive the severance offer. The hearing 

judge found that in reliance on Mr. Kane’s “uninformed advice,” Mr. Arvin waived the 

severance offer and retained Mr. Kane to represent him in pursuing his claim against 

Lockheed. 

 

Sanbower is not a part of the charges that the Attorney Grievance Commission brought 

against Mr. Kane. 
26

Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s finding that he gave Mr. Arvin “uninformed 

advice” and contends that he “gave him the best advice that he could—based upon what he 

knew at the time—that a toxic tort claim would be worth more than the severance package.” 

Mr. Kane further notes that Ms. Sanbower had already come to that conclusion independent 

of his advice. Mr. Kane’s exception is overruled. There is clear and convincing evidence 

in the record that Mr. Kane had no basis in law or in fact for the “advice” that he gave 

Mr. Arvin at that time, nor was it reasonable or appropriate for Mr. Kane to put any weight 

in research undertaken by Ms. Sanbower, a layperson, as it related to her separate matter, 

when advising Mr. Arvin. 

1. Worker’s Compensation Claim

a. Occupational Disease

In July of 2012, Mr. Kane filed the first workers’ compensation claim on behalf of 

Mr. Arvin, arguing that Mr. Arvin’s electrolyte exposure resulted in an occupational 

disease. The claim described the accident as follows: “during closing the battery lab I was 

exposed to toxic chemicals. Causing anxiety and emotional distress with other problems.” 

At a hearing before the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission (“WCC”), 

Mr. Kane argued a “‘hybrid theory’ of liability.” Mr. Kane acknowledged that Mr. Arvin’s 

claim “did not meet the exact criteria of an occupational disease and did not meet the exact 

criteria of an accidental injury,” in part, because Mr. Arvin did not miss a single day of 

work. Mr. Arvin’s claim was denied by the WCC in May of 2013. Mr. Kane filed a request 

for a rehearing, which was denied. 
27

At the attorney grievance hearing, Mr. Kane and Mr. Arvin gave conflicting 

testimony regarding whether Mr. Kane had ever advised Mr. Arvin of his intent to present 

a “novel legal theory in an attempt to advance the law” or that there were any complications 

with his workers’ compensation claim. The hearing judge stated that he was unable to 

determine by “clear and convincing evidence that Kane failed to advise Mr. Arvin of the 

novel hybrid theory.” Bar Counsel did not file any exceptions to this finding. Accordingly, 

we shall not consider it further.

b. First Judicial Review Case

Mr. Kane filed a petition for judicial review of the WCC’s decision in the Circuit 

Court for Frederick County in July of 2013. 

Counsel for Lockheed Martin, Michael Daney, sent discovery requests to Mr. Kane 

in August of 2013. Mr. Kane emailed them to Mr. Arvin, advising him that the responses 

to the discovery requests were due within 30 days. Mr. Arvin replied to Mr. Kane’s email

advising him that he had “no clue what is a discovery request”. Mr. Kane never responded 

to Mr. Arvin’s email, and failed to take any action to complete the discovery responses for 

more than four months. 

In September of 2013, the court entered a scheduling order. In January of 2014, Mr. 

Kane forwarded to Mr. Arvin his proposed responses to Lockheed’s discovery request and 

asked him to review them as Mr. Kane wanted to file them “asap.” Mr. Arvin responded 

by email and provided feedback on January 26, 2014. On January 28, Mr. Kane sent Mr. 

Arvin a final draft of the responses and also emailed Mr. Daney indicating he would have 

discovery responses “before the end of the day.” However, Mr. Kane never followed 
28

through on sending the final responses to Mr. Daney, which led to Lockheed filing a 

Motion for Sanctions, or in the Alternative, to Compel Discovery Responses. Mr. Kane 

failed to advise Mr. Arvin of the motion for sanctions. Mr. Kane finally provided signed 

discovery responses to Mr. Daney on February 10, 2014. 

When Mr. Kane responded to the motion for sanctions, he blamed his delayed 

responses on Mr. Arvin’s “economic and medical constraints” indicating that they were 

impediments to his ability to obtain discovery responses. Mr. Kane also stated that he was 

a sole-practitioner and had no staff, that his caseload had doubled, and that the complexity 

of Mr. Arvin’s case had created additional challenges. The circuit court ultimately found 

the motion for sanctions to be moot. 

Mr. Kane waited until five days before the discovery deadline to serve Lockheed with 

interrogatories. In response to Mr. Kane’s untimely filing of discovery, Lockheed filed a 

Motion for Protective Order. The circuit court granted Lockheed’s motion and ordered “that 

the discovery sought by the Claimant shall not be had.” Mr. Kane failed to advise his client

that he propounded late discovery or that the court had granted a protective order. 

Mr. Kane failed to identify experts in accordance with the court’s scheduling order.

Instead, Mr. Kane attempted to identify three experts in his pretrial statement, which was 

filed six days late. Lockheed filed a series of motions to preclude the testimony of two 

witnesses and to preclude evidence related to an accidental injury. Mr. Kane failed to 

respond to any of the motions, which were later granted by the court. Mr. Kane failed to 

advise Mr. Arvin of the motions or the court’s rulings. Mr. Kane voluntarily dismissed the 

case in June of 2014, claiming that the petition was “premature.” 
29

At the attorney grievance hearing, Mr. Kane argued that because Mr. Daney was 

aware of the experts from the WCC case, he was not bound to designate his experts in 

accordance with the scheduling order in the circuit court case. The hearing judge found 

“no merit” in Mr. Kane’s argument.

c. Accidental Injury Claim

Mr. Kane filed a second workers’ compensation claim on behalf of Mr. Arvin in 

April of 2014 in which he alleged an accidental injury. A hearing was held before the 

WCC, and in June of 2014, the claim was denied.

d. Second Judicial Review Case

Mr. Kane filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Frederick 

County in September of 2014. In October, Lockheed, through Mr. Daney, served 

interrogatories and a request for production of documents on Mr. Kane. In early February 

2015, a scheduling order was entered, which among other things, established a discovery 

deadline and a deadline for disclosing experts. In April of 2015—six months after 

discovery was propounded—Mr. Kane sent Mr. Arvin draft responses for his review. The 

hearing judge did not find any evidence that Mr. Kane ever provided Mr. Arvin’s discovery 

responses to Lockheed. 

Lockheed and Mr. Arvin participated in a mediation in June of 2015 in which 

Lockheed offered Mr. Arvin $10,000 to settle all of his claims. Mr. Kane advised 

Mr. Arvin to reject the settlement offer because the amount was less than Lockheed’s 

original severance offer of $52,000. Notably, at the attorney grievance hearing, Mr. Arvin 

testified that during this mediation, he learned for the first time, and from the mediator, that 
30

he had not been required to waive the initial severance offer in order to pursue a workers’ 

compensation claim. 

One day prior to the discovery deadline, Mr. Kane propounded discovery upon 

Lockheed. Soon thereafter, Lockheed’s counsel filed a motion for a protective order. 

Mr. Kane filed an untimely opposition to the motion and also filed a motion to modify the 

scheduling order. The circuit court granted Lockheed’s motion, and ordered “that the 

discovery sought by the Claimant shall not be had . . . .” The court denied Mr. Kane’s 

motion to amend the scheduling order.

As before, Mr. Kane failed to file expert designations by the deadline established in 

the scheduling order. Once again, Mr. Kane attempted to identify four expert witnesses in 

an untimely pretrial statement. 

Given Mr. Kane’s failure to conduct discovery or identify experts in accordance 

with the court’s scheduling order, Lockheed filed a series of motions to preclude Mr. Arvin 

from presenting witnesses or evidence at trial. Once again, Mr. Kane failed to respond to 

Lockheed’s motions. The circuit court granted Lockheed’s motions. 

Lockheed filed a motion for summary judgment, based in part on Mr. Arvin’s failure 

to identify an expert to “present a complicated medical question of causation.” Mr. Kane 

filed an untimely response the day before the hearing on the motion. The circuit court 

granted Lockheed’s motion for summary judgment. 

Mr. Kane failed to inform Mr. Arvin of the existence of the motions or the fact that 

the court granted the motion for summary judgment. Mr. Kane filed a motion for 

reconsideration, which was denied. 
31

Mr. Kane filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Special Appeals in November of

2015. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision in an unreported 

opinion, Arvin v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 2170, 2017 WL 1034002 (Md. Ct. Spec. 

App. March 17, 2017). 

e. Novelty of Workers’ Compensation Claim

The hearing judge found that because Mr. Arvin’s workers’ compensation claim had

unusual facts that did not conform neatly under either a claim for occupational disease or 

a claim for an accidental injury, Mr. Kane’s attempt to extend or modify the existing law 

with his hybrid theory was made in good faith. He further concluded that even though Mr. 

Kane’s arguments failed, they were not unethical. No exceptions were filed with regard to 

this finding and we shall not consider it further. 

2. Toxic Tort Claim

As noted supra, at the conclusion of their initial meeting in July of 2012, Mr. Arvin 

retained Mr. Kane to pursue a toxic tort claim against Lockheed. The hearing judge 

determined that the statute of limitations relating to this potential claim ran on or before 

July 2015.

The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane “failed to take any meaningful steps to 

advance Mr. Arvin’s interests related to a toxic tort claim against Lockheed.” Mr. Kane 

excepts to the hearing judge’s factual finding that he “did not do any work on the toxic tort 

complaint.” We overrule Mr. Kane’s exception. Based upon the facts described above, 

the hearing judge’s finding is supported by clear and convincing evidence. 
32

The record reveals that Mr. Kane first communicated with Mr. Arvin about the toxic 

tort claim in an email sent on September 9, 2013—over a year after their initial meeting. 

In the email, Mr. Kane stated, “Nothing new and not [sic] trial date set. Working on the 

toxic tort complaint which is separate from the workers comp case.” The hearing judge 

found that “[t]here is no credible evidence that [Mr. Kane] [] did any work on the ‘toxic 

tort complaint’ related to Mr. Arvin’s claim as opposed to Ms. Sanbower’s claim.” It is 

undisputed that a complaint was never filed. 

The second and only other communication in the record from Mr. Kane relating to 

Mr. Arvin’s toxic tort claim was an email from Mr. Kane to Mr. Arvin dated April 25, 

2014, in which Mr. Kane stated: 

Exchanged several emails to with Daney (counsel for LMC). They are eager 

to receive our settlement demand. Would like to get this to Daney by the 

weekend (before Monday). Will prepare a recommended settlement demand 

for your review sometime before Sunday hopefully. They want resolution of 

both workers compensation claims and any other possible claims (toxic tort 

exposure).

There is no evidence that Mr. Kane ever communicated with Lockheed regarding 

Mr. Arvin’s potential toxic tort claim. 

At the attorney grievance hearing, Mr. Kane testified that he determined in April of 

2015 that he could not pursue a toxic tort claim on Mr. Arvin’s behalf. Notwithstanding 

his position, Mr. Kane failed to advise Mr. Arvin that he had determined the toxic tort claim 

could not be pursued, nor did he provide Mr. Arvin with any explanation about his 

reasoning. Mr. Kane failed to present any credible evidence that he undertook any research 

or expended any time evaluating Mr. Arvin’s potential toxic tort claim. Notably, Mr. Kane 
33

failed to advise Mr. Arvin of the relevant statute of limitations for his tort claim in advance 

of the expiration of the deadline and that he would not be filing a complaint. 

3. Bar Counsel’s Investigation into Arvin Complaint

Mr. Arvin filed a complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission against Mr. 

Kane in May of 2017. Mr. Kane failed to respond to Bar Counsel’s first correspondence 

in which they sent him a copy of the complaint and requested that Mr. Kane respond within 

fifteen days. After Bar Counsel sent another letter on July 25 by regular mail and email, 

Mr. Kane responded and indicated he had been “out of the country” and “out of town . . . 

at a workers’ compensation conference. I am digging out obviously.” While Mr. Kane did 

not specifically ask for an extension of time to respond, the hearing judge determined that 

such a request was implied from his email. Mr. Kane again corresponded with Bar Counsel 

on August 7, indicating he was close to completing his responses relating to both the 

Lonergan and Arvin matters, but he had been traveling and was at that time out of town 

visiting elderly in-laws. 

Having received no substantive response, on August 8, Bar Counsel requested that 

Mr. Kane provide written responses within ten days. Mr. Kane responded to Bar Counsel’s 

request by stating that the investigation was “a ridiculous joke of a process.” Eight days 

later, he provided Bar Counsel with a partial substantive response. Approximately a month 

later when Bar Counsel asked Mr. Kane to provide “a copy of the complete client file, 

including but not limited to your retainer agreements, all correspondence, billing invoices 

and timekeeping records” as well as “all financial records relevant to Mr. Arvin maintained 

pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-407(d)[,]” Mr. Kane did not respond.
34

Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s findings in connection Bar Counsel’s 

investigation into Mr. Arvin’s complaint, arguing that “the record supports a finding that 

the [R]espondent’s family issues (serious illness of his in-laws) delayed his response to Bar 

Counsel’s inquiries and that the [R]espondent ultimately appropriately engaged with Bar 

Counsel.” We overrule Mr. Kane’s exception. The hearing judge’s findings with respect 

to Bar Counsel’s investigation are not clearly erroneous.

II. Standard of Review

As noted above, in an attorney discipline matter, this Court reviews for clear error a 

hearing judge’s findings of fact, giving due regard to the hearing judge’s opportunity to assess 

the credibility of the witnesses. Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B). See also Attorney Grievance 

Comm’n v. Dyer, 453 Md. 585, 643, cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 508 (2017). We review a hearing 

judge’s conclusions of law de novo without deference. Md. Rule 19-741(b)(1). This Court 

determines whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that a lawyer violated the

MLRPC. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ucheomumu, 462 Md. 280, 299 (2018); see also 

Md. Rule 19-727(c) (“Bar Counsel has the burden of proving averments of the petition [for 

disciplinary or remedial action] by clear and convincing evidence.”).

III. Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law

From the findings of fact presented above, the hearing judge found by clear and 

convincing evidence that Mr. Kane violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.16, 3.1, 3.3, 

3.4, 8.1, and 8.4.13 

 

13 Following trial, Bar Counsel withdrew the allegation that Mr. Kane violated Rule 

1.15(e). 
35

Rules 1.1 (Competence) and 1.3 (Diligence)

Rule 1.1 requires that an attorney “provide competent representation to a client. 

Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 

preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer 

must also “act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Conduct 

which violates Rule 1.1 will also often violate Rule 1.3. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n 

v. McCulloch, 404 Md. 388, 398 (2008) (finding violations of Rules 1.1 and 1.3 where 

counsel “took a fee and then abandoned the litigation”). The hearing judge found that Mr. 

Kane violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3 in his representation of Mr. Arvin and the Lonergans. We 

uphold these conclusions. 

Arvin Representation

With respect to Mr. Arvin, the hearing judge determined that Mr. Kane’s advice to 

Mr. Arvin regarding his severance agreement violated Rule 1.1 because he lacked the 

requisite knowledge, thoroughness, and preparedness to advise Mr. Arvin with respect to 

his severance and a potential toxic tort claim against Lockheed. Specifically, the hearing 

judge found that at the time that Mr. Kane advised Mr. Arvin to reject the settlement offer, 

he had not reviewed Mr. Arvin’s medical records, nor had he conducted any research 

regarding the viability of Mr. Arvin’s claim or its potential value. Mr. Kane had not 

consulted with any experts or considered the time and expense of tort litigation. At trial, 

Mr. Kane admitted that he relied, at least in part, on Ms. Sanbower, a lay person, in 

determining whether she and Mr. Arvin had a strong claim. The hearing judge found that

Mr. Kane had no reasonable basis to advise Mr. Arvin that he would recover significantly 
36

more money if he pursued a toxic tort lawsuit than if he accepted Lockheed’s severance 

package. Mr. Kane later abandoned the toxic tort claim because he could not establish the 

basis for the cause of action.

“Evidence of a failure to apply the requisite thoroughness and/or preparation in 

representing a client is sufficient alone to support a violation of Rule 1.1.” Attorney 

Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 222 (2012) (quoting Attorney Grievance 

Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33, 54 (2006)). “An attorney may violate [Rule] 1.1, although 

he or she has the adequate knowledge or skill to represent a client, if the attorney fails to 

apply the thoroughness and/or preparation necessary for proper representation.” Attorney

Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163, 179 (2015) (citing Attorney Grievance 

Comm’n v. De La Paz, 418 Md. 534, 553 (2011) (citations omitted)).

The hearing judge also found that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.1 and 1.3 by failing to 

undertake any meaningful investigation into Mr. Arvin’s toxic tort claim, and by failing to 

advise Mr. Arvin that he would not be filing a complaint on his behalf prior to the expiration 

of the statute of limitations. The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane violated Rules 1.1 and 

1.3 in connection with the petitions for judicial review of the decisions of the WCC, by 

repeatedly failing to respond to discovery, and by failing to designate experts in a timely 

fashion, which resulted in the exclusion of witnesses at trial and the entry of summary 

judgment against his client. 

Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s findings that he violated Rule 1.1 and 1.3 

in connection with his representation of Mr. Arvin on the toxic tort claim. Specifically, he 

contends that at his initial meeting with Mr. Arvin and Ms. Sanbower, he made it clear that 
37

Mr. Arvin had a choice—to accept the severance package and waive the claim for a toxic 

tort or to reject the severance (as Ms. Sanbower had done based upon her own independent 

research) and pursue the toxic tort. Mr. Kane asserts that he made it clear that the decision 

was Mr. Arvin’s choice, and that Mr. Kane made no guarantees of success. 

We overrule Mr. Kane’s exception. Mr. Kane’s exception is contradicted by his 

own testimony. At trial, Mr. Kane admitted that when he told Mr. Arvin that his toxic tort 

claim was worth more than his severance package, he had not conducted any research, had 

not reviewed Mr. Arvin’s medical records, and had not spoken with any experts regarding 

Mr. Arvin’s potential claim. As such, the hearing judge correctly found that Mr. Kane’s 

advice was “uninformed” and “had no legal or factual basis.” Clear and convincing 

evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.1. See

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zhang, 440 Md. 128, 158 (2014) (attorney violated 

MLRPC 1.1 when she failed to conduct any legal research or to speak with her client before 

suggesting grounds for annulment). 

Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusion that he violated Rule 1.3 

because he contends that “there is no evidence that the delays in discovery in the circuit 

court caused the failure of the workers’ compensation claim. Those claims failed on their 

merits—not because of discovery issues.” We overrule Mr. Kane’s exception. First, 

whether Mr. Kane’s misconduct caused the failures in Mr. Arvin’s case is not dispositive 

when determining whether an attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct. See

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Singh, ____ Md. _____, Misc. Docket AG No. 6, Sept.

Term, 2018, 2019 WL 3210320, *9 (Md. July 17, 2019) (noting that the phrase “no harm, 
38

no foul” notion of harmless error in the sports context does not apply to the rules of 

professional conduct governing attorneys). Second, even if the “no harm, no foul” 

approach applied in this context, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support Mr. 

Kane’s claim that Mr. Arvin’s case failed on its merits—summary judgment was granted 

against Mr. Arvin because of Mr. Kane’s failure to respond to discovery and failure to 

identify experts in accordance with the court’s scheduling order. There is no evidence in 

the record upon which we could assess the strength of Mr. Arvin’s case. 

Lonergan Representation

The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.1 and 1.3 when he failed 

to act with diligence and promptness in his representation of the Lonergans. Mr. Kane 

failed to act diligently when he failed to disclose any conflict of interest to the Lonergans 

arising out of the fact that he was a named defendant and failed to communicate with Mrs.

Lonergan concerning the fact that she was a named defendant in the Adversary Proceeding. 

Specifically, the hearing judge concluded that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.1 when he delayed 

in preparing discovery responses, which ultimately resulted in sanctions being entered 

against the Lonergans. Clear and convincing evidence supports this conclusion, as it is 

undisputed that the Bankruptcy Court entered a monetary order of sanctions against the 

Lonergans, which they paid, arising from Mr. Kane’s failure to timely respond to 

discovery.14 

 

14 Although Mr. Kane filed an exception to the hearing judge’s conclusions of law 

that he violated Rule 1.1 (Competence), 1.2 (Scope of Representation), and 1.3 (Diligence) 

in connection with his representation of the Lonergans, he admits that his conduct violated

the Rules, stating that in the case of monetary sanctions, he “accepts responsibility and 
39

The hearing judge also concluded that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.1 when he failed 

to identify the conflict of interest between himself, Mr. Lonergan, Mrs. Lonergan, and 

Matrix in the Adversary Proceeding. Clear and convincing evidence supports this 

conclusion. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Framm, 449 Md. 620, 646 (2016) 

(concluding the attorney violated Rule 1.1 where she failed to recognize a conflict of 

interest).

Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of 

Authority Between Client and Attorney)

Rule 1.2 provides in pertinent part that:

. . . an attorney shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives 

of the representation and, when appropriate, shall consult with the client as 

to the means by which they are to be pursued. An attorney may take such 

action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the 

representation . . . .

We have held repeatedly that “[w]hen a lawyer fails to take any steps towards the 

client’s objective, the lawyer necessarily fails to abide by the client’s decision concerning 

that objective.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gage-Cohen, 440 Md. 191, 198 (2014) 

(internal quotations omitted) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 

209, 223 (2012)). Additionally, an attorney violates Rule 1.2 when “he or she fails to 

inform a client of the status of his or her case, thereby denying the client the ability to make 

informed decisions.” Hamilton, 444 Md. at 182. 

 

agrees that his failure to provide prompt discovery supports a violation of [these Rules] [].” 

Mr. Kane also admits that he should have recognized the potential conflict of interest 

arising from his dual role as attorney and a named defendant in an Adversary Proceeding 

with his clients. Because Mr. Kane admits that his conduct in connection with his 

representation of the Lonergans violated these Rules, we overrule his exceptions. 
40

Arvin Representation

With respect to Mr. Arvin, the hearing judge found that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.2 

in his representation by failing to take any meaningful steps toward investigating or 

pursuing a toxic tort claim on Mr. Arvin’s behalf or advising Mr. Arvin regarding the toxic 

tort claim.15 The hearing judge also determined that Mr. Kane failed to communicate his 

conclusion not to pursue the toxic tort claim or advise Mr. Arvin when the statute of 

limitations would run. As such, the hearing judge determined that Mr. Arvin was denied 

the ability to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Clear and convincing 

evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusions.

Lonergan Representation

In finding a violation of Rule 1.2, the hearing judge determined that the Lonergans 

were denied the ability to make informed decisions regarding Mr. Kane’s representation 

because Mr. Kane failed to identify the conflict of interest and withdraw as counsel in the 

Adversary Proceeding. The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.2 when 

he represented Mrs. Lonergan in the Adversary Proceeding without ever communicating 

with her about that matter.16 Mr. Kane could not possibly know Mrs. Lonergan’s objectives 

 

15 Mr. Kane excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusion of law that he violated Rule 

1.2, arguing that he put “both Mr. Arvin and Ms. Sanbower in touch with potential experts.” 

The hearing judge found that “there is no credible evidence that [Mr. Kane] [] did any work 

on the ‘toxic tort complaint’ related to Mr. Arvin’s claim as opposed to Ms. Sanbower’s 

claim.” The hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane failed to take meaningful steps 

toward investigating and pursuing Mr. Arvin’s toxic tort claim is supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, and we overrule Mr. Kane’s exception.

16 Again, while Mr. Kane notes an “exception” to the judge’s conclusion of law, he 

“candidly admits that he could have handled the Lonergan representation in a better fashion” 
41

because she was unaware that she was a named party in the Adversary Proceeding, and 

Mr. Kane never discussed the Adversary Proceeding (including without limitation the entry 

of a sanctions order) with her. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 457 Md. 159, 

215 (2018) (“In order for a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives

of the representation, the client must be able to make informed decisions as to the objectives 

of the representation.” (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shapiro, 441 Md. 367, 380 

(2015))). Clear and convincing evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Kane violated 

Rule 1.2 in his representation of the Lonergans. 

Rule 1.4 (Communication)

Rule 1.4 (Communication) provides, in pertinent in part:

(a) A lawyer shall:

(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with 

respect to which the client’s informed consent . . . is required by these 

Rules;

(2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;

(3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and 

(4) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the attorney’s 

conduct when the attorney knows that the client expects assistance not 

permitted by the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 

or other law. 

(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to 

permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

 

and that “he should have communicated directly with Mrs. Lonergan and not have relied 

solely on Mr. Lonergan to inform his wife of the status of the case.” Given Mr. Kane’s 

admissions and based upon our review of the record, Mr. Kane’s exception is overruled. 
42

We have held that an attorney violates Rule 1.4 “when the attorney fails to communicate 

crucial information about the status of the case [to the client].” Hamilton, 444 Md. at 185 

(citing De La Paz, 418 Md. at 554). 

Arvin Representation

With respect to Mr. Arvin, the hearing judge concluded that Mr. Arvin was unaware 

that he could have pursued the workers’ compensation claim while also taking advantage 

of Lockheed’s severance offer. Mr. Arvin stated that he first learned of this fact at the 

mediation of the workers’ compensation case, well after he rejected the severance.

Moreover, Mr. Kane failed to advise Mr. Arvin that he was not going to pursue the

toxic tort claim or when the statute of limitations would run on such a claim. Rather, 

Mr. Kane simply abandoned the toxic tort claim without advising Mr. Arvin. The hearing 

judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane’s communication, or lack thereof, between himself and 

Mr. Arvin demonstrates a violation of Rule 1.4(a) and (b) is supported by clear and 

convincing evidence.

Mr. Kane has filed an exception to the judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane violated 

Rule 1.4 in the course of his representation of Mr. Arvin. The basis for his exception is 

that there “was no lack of communication with Mr. Arvin about the toxic tort litigation.”

Based upon our independent review of the record, we overrule this exception. There is 

clear and convincing evidence in the record that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.4(a) and (b) in 

connection with his lack of communication with Mr. Arvin about the toxic tort matter. 
43

Lonergan Representation17

With respect to Mr. Lonergan, the hearing judge found that Mr. Kane violated Rule 

1.4(a)(2) and 1.4(b) when he failed to timely provide the client with information about the 

fees and expenses that had allegedly been incurred during the first three years of the 

litigation. The hearing judge also found that Mr. Kane failed to adequately communicate 

with Mr. Lonergan regarding the issuance of sanctions against him and his wife. These 

findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. 

As for Mrs. Lonergan, the hearing judge found that Mr. Kane violated Rule 

1.4(a)(1)–(4) and 1.4(b) when he failed to communicate directly with Mrs. Lonergan after 

the Adversary Proceeding was filed. We agree. At that point, both Lonergans were named 

defendants in the action. Mr. Kane’s continued reliance upon Mr. Lonergan to

communicate with Mrs. Lonergan violated Rule 1.4. He filed pleadings and motions and 

appeared in court on Mrs. Lonergan’s behalf without ever speaking with her about the 

adversary complaint. Mr. Kane never confirmed that he was authorized to represent Mrs. 

Lonergan and act on her behalf. Moreover, Mr. Kane’s awareness of the discord that this 

litigation was causing between the Lonergans, only heightened the need to communicate 

directly with both parties and confirm Mrs. Lonergan’s position.

 

17 Mr. Kane once again notes an exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion of law 

that he violated Rule 1.4 in his representation of the Lonergans. While he styles his 

pleading caption as an exception, no specific exception is pleaded. He admits that he could 

have communicated better with the Lonergans and “accepts responsibility for this lapse in 

representation.” To the extent that Mr. Kane’s pleading contains an exception to the legal 

conclusion of a violation of Rule 1.4 in connection with the Lonergans, it is overruled. 
44

Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest)

A conflict of interest generally disqualifies a lawyer from representing a particular 

client. 

Rule 1.7 specifically states that a conflict of interest exists if “there is a 

significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be 

materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former 

client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.” 

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Powell, 461 Md. 189, 219 (2018) (emphasis original). 

The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Kane violated MLRPC 1.7 in his 

representation of the Lonergans. It is undisputed that Mr. Kane was a named defendant 

along with Mr. Lonergan, Mrs. Lonergan, and Matrix in the Adversary Proceeding filed by 

the Trustee. When Mr. Kane was joined as a defendant with the Lonergans, a conflict of 

interest arose between Mr. Kane and his clients. The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane

would have the very real incentive to lessen his liability, which in turn could increase the 

Lonergans’ obligation. Indeed, the very tension between Mr. Kane and his clients is 

evident from his explanation to the Bankruptcy Court when he was trying to explain his 

failure to list the Adversary Proceeding in his personal bankruptcy. Mr. Kane stated: “I 

believed and still do believe that the only financial exposure, if there is any in this case, is 

it relates to my former clients, not to me.” Mr. Kane simply ignored the significant risk 

that his representation of the Lonergans would be materially limited by his personal interest 

when he was named as a co-defendant with his clients in the Adversary Proceeding 

involving conduct in which he was directly involved and that he had recommended. 
45

The hearing judge also concluded that a potential conflict arose between Mr. and 

Mrs. Lonergan in the Adversary Proceeding. The hearing judge found that Mrs. Lonergan 

was a passive party to the transaction and could have cast blame and responsibility on Mr. 

Lonergan (as well as Mr. Kane). Moreover, Mr. Kane was aware of the discord between 

the Lonergans over the business. Instead of explaining the potential conflict, or even 

advising Mrs. Lonergan that she had been sued, he continued to communicate solely with 

Mr. Lonergan. 

Lastly, there is no evidence in the record that the Lonergans gave their informed

consent to any of the conflicts of interest in writing or otherwise. See Powell, 461 Md. at

219.

The hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.7 in his representation 

of the Lonergans is supported by clear and convincing evidence.

18

 

Rule 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation)

Rule 1.16 provides in pertinent part, that: 

(a) . . . a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has 

commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:[]

the representation will result in violation of the Maryland Lawyer’s

Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

* * *

(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the 

extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as 

 

18 Yet again, in Mr. Kane’s written exceptions, he notes an exception to the hearing 

judge’s conclusion of law finding a violation of Rule 1.7 but states no basis for the 

exception and “candidly admits that he made a mistake” and that “[h]e should have rectified 

the problem earlier.” To the extent that Mr. Kane’s pleading contains an exception to the 

finding of a Rule 1.7 violation, it is overruled. 
46

giving reasonably notice to the client, allowing time for employment 

of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client 

is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that 

has not been earned or incurred . . . . 

Arvin Representation

The hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.16 in his 

representation of Mr. Arvin is supported by clear and convincing evidence. As noted 

supra, Mr. Kane failed to take any meaningful steps towards pursuing a toxic tort claim 

against Lockheed on Mr. Arvin’s behalf and failed to advise him that no action would be 

taken. We have held that an attorney violates Rule 1.16(d) “[w]here a lawyer abandons a 

client without notice through the failure to take meaningful steps in pursuit of the client’s 

interest . . . .” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Costanzo, 432 Md. 233, 255 (2013) (citing 

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 225 (2012) (internal quotations

omitted)).

We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane abandoned Mr. Arvin, 

without notice, as it relates to the toxic tort claim.19 Once Mr. Kane determined that he 

 

19 In Mr. Kane’s exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion that he violated Rule 

1.16 in his representation of Mr. Arvin, Mr. Kane states that he “did not abandon Mr. 

Arvin—he litigated the workers’ compensation claim twice in the Circuit Court and 

appealed the matter to the Court of Special Appeals.” We overrule Mr. Kane’s exception. 

Mr. Kane’s “representation” of Mr. Arvin in the circuit court consisted of Mr. Kane 

voluntarily dismissing one matter, and in the other matter, having summary judgment 

entered against his client because of Mr. Kane’s discovery violations and his failure to 

designate experts. Putting aside Mr. Kane’s wholly inadequate representation of Mr. Arvin 

in the workers’ compensation cases, the hearing judge based his legal conclusion of a Rule 

1.16 violation on the fact that Mr. Kane did not take any meaningful steps to pursue the 

toxic tort claim and failed to advise Mr. Arvin that he would not be filing such a claim in 

advance of the expiration of the statute of limitations. Based upon our independent review 
47

would not pursue a toxic tort claim on Mr. Arvin’s behalf, he was obligated to take steps 

to the extent reasonably practicable to protect Mr. Arvin’s interests. Mr. Kane failed to 

advise Mr. Arvin that he would not be filing a toxic tort claim on his behalf until after the 

expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. 

Lonergan Representation

The hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane violated Rule 1.16 when he 

represented the Lonergans in the Adversary Proceeding in violation of Rule 1.7, as 

described, supra, is also supported by clear and convincing evidence. 

Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions)

Rule 3.1 provides:

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an 

issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which 

includes, for example, a good faith argument for an extension, modification 

or reversal of existing law. A lawyer may nevertheless so defend the 

proceeding as to require that every element of the moving party’s case can 

be established.

The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane violated Rule 3.1 in connection with his 

personal bankruptcy filings. Specifically, the hearing judge found that Mr. Kane’s serial 

bankruptcy filings were designed to delay a foreclosure or frustrate the lender because Mr. 

Kane could not obtain the loan modification that he desired. The hearing judge found that 

each bankruptcy filing was dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to confirm a plan or 

failure to cure deficiencies in the documents submitted. The hearing judge noted that the

 

of the record, there is clear and convincing evidence to support the hearing judge’s finding 

in that regard. 
48

evidence submitted, and Mr. Kane’s own testimony demonstrated that his bankruptcy 

filings were strategic and not intended to result in a successful Chapter 13 plan. Mr. Kane

testified that there was an intent to confirm a plan; however, something always came up. 

The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane’s own filings contradicted his testimony. The 

hearing judge concluded that the filings were not made in good faith as they were designed 

to frustrate and delay the Respondent’s creditors, primarily his mortgagee.

Mr. Kane filed an exception to this conclusion and contends that there is no legal 

basis for the conclusion that his repeated filings were an abuse of the bankruptcy process.

He contends that the filings “were a legitimate effort to force a recalcitrant creditor to the 

negotiating table.” 

The record clearly demonstrates that Mr. Kane has serially filed six bankruptcy 

petitions on the eve of foreclosure, all of which were dismissed by the Bankruptcy Court 

for failure to prosecute or failure to complete the required filings. The hearing judge, who 

had the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, rejected Mr. Kane’s testimony 

that he had a legitimate basis for filing each of his bankruptcy petitions. The hearing 

judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane’s serial bankruptcy filings violate Rule 3.1 is supported 

by clear and convincing evidence, and we overrule Mr. Kane’s exception. 

Rule 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal)

In pertinent part, Rule 3.3(a) provides that: “[a] lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) 

make a false statement of 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[.]”
49

Mr. Kane’s Personal Bankruptcy Petitions

The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Kane violated Rule 3.3(a)(1) as it relates to 

his personal bankruptcy petitions. Specifically, the hearing judge found that Mr. Kane

made a false statement to the Bankruptcy Court when he failed to disclose the Adversary 

Proceeding. The hearing judge noted that Mr. Kane acknowledged the intentional nature 

of this omission when he advised the bankruptcy judge in the Adversary Proceeding that 

he failed to list the Trustee’s claim in his personal bankruptcy petition for “privacy reasons” 

because he was trying to keep “all professional matters” out of his personal bankruptcy. 

Mr. Kane excepts to this conclusion claiming that he “believed—albeit 

incorrectly—that the [Bankruptcy] [] Trustee was making an inchoate claim that did not 

have to be disclosed.” Mr. Kane further contends that he “failed to disclose not for 

nefarious financing reasons but rather not to interfere with his clients’ case.” Mr. Kane’s 

exceptions are overruled. The hearing judge’s finding that Mr. Kane intentionally failed 

to disclose the Adversary Proceeding in which he had been named as a defendant is 

supported by clear and convincing evidence.20

 

20 As part of its Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and at the attorney 

grievance hearing, Bar Counsel also requested a finding that Mr. Kane violated Rule 3.3 

regarding his statement to the Bankruptcy Court that he was representing the parties in the 

Lonergan matter on a pro bono basis. In failing to make this requested finding, the hearing 

judge described in detail the discussions between Mr. Lonergan and Mr. Kane concerning 

the agreed upon flat fee arrangement for the legal services involved in the PNC/Matrix 

litigation, as well as payments made by Mr. Lonergan and his father for the services 

provided up until the bankruptcy. The hearing judge commented that in Mr. Kane’s mind, 

the flat fee arrangement “would fail to fully compensate him for the MBS work performed 

prior to the bankruptcy filing. Thus, he would not receive any compensation for the 

bankruptcy representation. Consequently, the Court cannot find by clear and convincing 

evidence that the statement, when made by Mr. Kane, was intentionally false.” Bar 
50

Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel)

Rule 3.4 provides, in part:

A lawyer shall not:

(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for 

an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make 

a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request 

by an opposing party;

Arvin Representation

The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Kane violated Rule 3.4(c) and (d) in his 

representation of Mr. Arvin. Specifically, the hearing judge found that Mr. Kane failed to 

timely respond to Lockheed’s discovery requests in both circuit court proceedings in violation 

of the Maryland Rules and the circuit court’s scheduling orders. The hearing judge determined 

that Mr. Kane was aware of the deadlines imposed by the Rules and the scheduling order and 

nevertheless disobeyed said deadlines without justification in violation of Rule 3.4(c). See 

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mixter, 441 Md. 416, 472 (2015) (overruling an exception to a 

finding of knowing and intentional disobedience of court orders).

The hearing judge also found that that Mr. Kane violated Rule 3.4(d) when he 

propounded untimely discovery requests on Lockheed (one day before the discovery 

deadline) in the second circuit court matter. In his conclusion of law, the hearing judge 

noted that Mr. Kane had testified that he “really didn’t need that discovery effectively 

 

Counsel did not file an exception to the hearing judge’s finding. In accordance with Rule 

19-741(b)(2), since no exceptions were filed, we will treat the hearing judge’s findings of 

fact on this point as established.
51

because I knew what the case was all about.” Despite this contention, Mr. Kane opted to

propound discovery, one day before the discovery deadline in the second circuit court case,

notwithstanding the fact that the same circuit court in the first workers’ compensation appeal 

had issued a protective order from Mr. Kane’s late filed discovery requests in that case. The

hearing judge held that the only conclusion he could draw from Mr. Kane’s identical 

behavior in the second request was that the untimely discovery was intended to annoy and/or 

burden the opposing party. 

In his exceptions, Mr. Kane asks this Court to overturn the hearing judge’s 

conclusion using the same excuse that he made during the attorney grievance hearing—that 

he did not really need the discovery, that the discovery was not propounded to harass the 

opposing side, and that it was propounded to “simply put the company on record in the 

litigation.”21 We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane violated Rule 

3.4(d) with his untimely discovery requests and overrule Mr. Kane’s exceptions. Regardless 

of Mr. Kane’s statement that he did not “intend to harass” opposing counsel, the act of 

serving discovery one day prior to the discovery deadline on opposing counsel, not once, 

but in two separate cases, has the effect of harassing the opposing party. Mr. Kane’s actions 

necessitated Lockheed’s motion for a protective order—a filing that would have been 

unnecessary had Mr. Kane complied with the court’s scheduling order. 

 

21 Mr. Kane’s excuse that he served untimely discovery simply to put Lockheed “on 

record” in the litigation is nonsensical. Mr. Kane had been litigating this matter with 

Lockheed in not one, but two successive workers’ compensation cases. By the time Mr. 

Kane propounded his second untimely discovery requests, Lockheed was most certainly 

“on record” of the cases that Mr. Kane had filed on his client’s behalf. 
52

Lonergan Representation

The hearing judge also found that Mr. Kane violated Rule 3.4(d) in connection with 

his representation of the Lonergans. As discussed supra, Mr. Kane’s failure to provide

timely discovery responses to the Trustee resulted in a monetary sanctions award against 

the Lonergans. The hearing judge commented that the record in this matter contains several 

instances of Mr. Kane’s disregard for the Rules or the scheduling orders governing 

discovery in civil matters. We agree with the hearing judge and find clear and convincing 

evidence that Mr. Kane violated Rule 3.4(d).22

Rule 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters)

In pertinent part, Rule 8.1(b) provides that a lawyer in connection with a disciplinary 

matter shall not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an 

admissions or disciplinary authority[.]” The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Kane 

violated Rule 8.1(b) as it related to Bar Counsel’s investigation into the both the Arvin 

complaint and the Lonergan complaint.

23 Mr. Kane excepts to this conclusion, contending 

 

22 Once again, Mr. Kane notes an exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion that 

he violated Rule 3.4 in connection with his representation of the Lonergans, but fails to 

provide any support for the exceptions, and “agrees that he was not as prompt as he should 

have been in responding to discovery in the Lonergan adversarial matter and that sanctions 

were imposed as a result.” To the extent that Mr. Kane’s written pleading alleges an 

exception to this particular conclusion of law, it is overruled.

23 In the Lonergan matter, Bar Counsel asserted that Mr. Kane violated Rule 8.1(a) 

when he submitted his October 19, 2016, response to Bar Counsel, wherein he stated that 

he was representing MBS on a pro bono basis. As discussed supra, the hearing judge did

not find that Mr. Kane’s representation was an intentionally and knowingly false statement, 

and therefore did not find that such a representation to Bar Counsel violated Rule 8.1(a). 

Bar Counsel did not file an exception to this finding. 
53

that “[R]espondent’s family issues (serious illness of his in-laws) delayed his response to 

Bar Counsel’s inquiries and the [R]espondent ultimately appropriately engaged with Bar 

Counsel.” There is clear and convincing evidence in the record that Mr. Kane violated Rule 

8.1(b) in connection with both investigations.24 We overrule Mr. Kane’s exception. There 

is clear and convincing evidence in the record that Mr. Kane failed to timely and completely 

respond to Bar Counsel’s requests for information in both investigations. As noted supra, 

Mr. Kane had many excuses for failing to timely respond to Bar Counsel’s requests, 

including that he had been traveling in Ireland and that he had a packed calendar. 

Moreover, Mr. Kane told Bar Counsel that Counsel’s investigation was “a ridiculous joke 

of a process”—which is hardly an appropriate response. 

Rule 8.4 (Misconduct)

Rule 8.4(a) states that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to “violate . . . 

the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.” The hearing judge found that 

because Mr. Kane has violated multiple Rules, there is clear and convincing evidence that 

his conduct has violated Rule 8.4(a). Since we have concluded that Mr. Kane violated 

multiple Rules, we agree that he has violated Rule 8.4(a). 

 

24 Bar Counsel also requested that the hearing judge find that Mr. Kane did not 

timely respond to its July 7, 2017, and July 25, 2017, correspondence in violation of 8.1(b). 

The hearing judge did not find a violation of Rule 8.1(b) arising out of Mr. Kane’s failure 

to respond to these communications, instead finding that Mr. Kane’s emails dated July 25, 

2017, and August 7, 2017, in which he explains why he has not yet responded, could be 

construed as a request for a reasonable extension of time. Bar Counsel did not file an 

exception to this finding of fact, and we shall not consider it further. 
54

Rule 8.4(b) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “commit a 

criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a 

lawyer in other respects[.]” The hearing judge made the following conclusion with respect 

to Mr. Kane’s personal bankruptcy and tax filing: 

The Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) related to his personal bankruptcy and 

tax filings. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a crime to falsify or conceal a material 

fact, or to make a false statement or provide a false document to the 

government or a government agent. Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 

(1998). 18 U.S.C. § 1621 prohibits perjury. Bronston v. United States, 409 

U.S. 352 (1973).

The Court concludes that the Respondent’s conduct violated these criminal 

statutes when he knowingly and intentionally failed to disclose the adversary 

proceeding and list the Trustee as an unsecured creditor in his 2015 

bankruptcy filing and submitted multiple bankruptcy petitions, signed under 

the penalties of perjury, that contained false information or intentionally 

concealed material facts. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Fraidin, 438 Md. 

172 (2014) (attorney violated 8.4(b) when he aided his wife in preparing and 

filing forms and schedules that contained misrepresentations in the United 

States Bankruptcy Court).

The Court also concludes that the Respondent violated 26 U.S.C. § 7206 

which prohibits the filing of false tax returns when he filed a return which he 

knew contained deductions for expenses unrelated to his law practice. The 

fact that the amount of underpayment of tax may be low is immaterial. “The 

purpose of § 7206(1) is not simply to ensure that the taxpayer pay the proper 

amount of taxes—though that is surely one of its goals. Rather, that section 

is intended to ensure also that the taxpayer not make misstatements that could 

hinder the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in carrying out such functions 

as the verification of the accuracy of that return or a related tax return.” 

United States v. Greenberg, 735 F.2d 29, 31 (2d Cir. 1984) (Finding a 

criminal violation were the underpayment of taxes amounted to $48.00). The 

Court concludes, therefore, that the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b). 

(cleaned up). Typically, when this Court finds a violation of Rule 8.4(b), the respondent 

has been charged or convicted of a crime in a separate proceeding. In this case, Mr. Kane 

has not been charged or convicted of a crime. Rather, the hearing judge concluded that 
55

Mr. Kane violated criminal statutes in connection with his personal bankruptcy filings 

when he failed to disclose the Adversary Proceeding or identify the Trustee as an unsecured 

creditor and when Mr. Kane submitted multiple bankruptcy petitions that contained false 

and inconsistent information. The hearing judge further concluded that Mr. Kane violated 

26 U.S.C. § 7206, which prohibits the filing of false tax returns, when he filed tax returns 

which included deductions for cell phone and internet expenses, including family use, and

were unrelated to his law practice. 

Mr. Kane has filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s conclusion of law that he 

violated Rule 8.4(b). Mr. Kane notes that he has not been charged with or convicted of a

federal crime related to his tax returns or his personal bankruptcy filings. Mr. Kane asserts 

that there is no evidence in the record upon which the hearing judge could conclude that 

he committed a federal crime in connection with his bankruptcy filings and tax returns. 

Mr. Kane notes that federal crimes require an element of scienter and it must be proven 

that the defendant committed such crimes “knowingly and willfully.” “Knowingly” is 

defined as “acting intentionally and voluntarily, and not because of ignorance, mistake, 

accident, or carelessness.” Leonard B. Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, 

Criminal, No. 3A-1, 3A-3 (2018). Similarly, “willfully” requires a person to “act with 

knowledge that one’s conduct is unlawful and with the intent to do something the law 

forbids . . . . [T]he conduct was not ‘willful’ if it was due to negligence, inadvertence, or 

mistake.” Id. at 3A-20.

To support his conclusion that Mr. Kane’s conduct in his personal bankruptcy

constituted a criminal action in violation of Rule 8.4(b), the hearing judge cited to our 
56

decision in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Fraidin, 438 Md. 172 (2014). In that case, 

we upheld the hearing judge’s finding that respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) when he 

assisted his wife with the preparation of bankruptcy documents which included false 

statements under oath that she worked for the respondent’s law firm and received a monthly 

income from his law office of $3,000.00 per month, when in fact she was never employed 

by the law firm and never received any wages. Id. at 207. As evidence of her wages, Mrs. 

Fraidin supplied fabricated “paychecks,” which were drawn from the respondent’s IOLTA 

account. Id. at 180. In Fraidin, we upheld the hearing judge’s conclusion that respondent 

utilized his trust account funds to commit bankruptcy fraud by knowingly and intentionally

fabricating paychecks for his wife drawn from his IOLTA account for the sole purpose of 

misrepresenting to the bankruptcy court that his wife was gainfully employed so that his 

wife would qualify for a Chapter 13 reorganization. Id. at 203–06. 

In addition to Fraidin, Bar Counsel also urges us to rely upon Attorney Grievance 

Commission v. Byrd, 408 Md. 449 (2009), where we upheld a finding that respondent 

violated Rule 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) with respect to his misconduct in connection with his 

bankruptcy matter. In Byrd, the respondent’s creditor had filed an involuntary bankruptcy 

action against the respondent, seeking to liquidate assets to pay the creditor’s debt. Id. at 

460. In that case, we found multiple instances of intentional, dishonest misconduct by 

respondent, including willful and intentional failure to cooperate with the bankruptcy trustee, 

and multiple contempt orders entered by the bankruptcy judge over a seven-year time span, 

as well as several orders to compel certain action, which were disregarded by respondent, 
57

and two underlying determinations by the bankruptcy court that the respondent’s misconduct 

was “willful” and constituted “bad faith,” resulting in sanctions. Id. at 482.

The hearing judge in that case found that respondent’s reports to the bankruptcy 

court were false, and that respondent knew they were false when he filed them. Id. at 464. 

In reaching this conclusion, the hearing judge relied upon the record of the bankruptcy 

proceedings, as well as the extensive testimony of the Trustee that as a Chapter 11 debtor, 

and later as a Chapter 13 debtor, respondent failed and refused to file monthly operating 

reports indicating the assets coming in and accounts receivable, and the cash flow and 

expenses of the business, and that respondent’s monthly operating reports were “grossly 

inaccurate, deceptive [] and misleading.” Id. at 481. Based upon the extensive testimony 

of the Trustee, the hearing judge determined that respondent “violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 

(making it a crime to falsify or conceal a material fact, or to make a false statement or 

provide a false document to the government or a government agency) and 18 U.S.C. § 1621 

(prohibiting perjury).” Id. Based upon the evidence, we found clear and convincing 

evidence to support the conclusion that the respondent violated Rule 8.4(b). Id. at 482. 

We also found that, based upon the multiple contempt findings, respondent’s willful 

misconduct in flagrantly disobeying court orders and the rules of the bankruptcy court 

“manifestly involved dishonesty and was prejudicial to the administration of justice” in 

violation of Rule 8.4(c) and (d). Id.

In this case, unlike Fraidin and Byrd, our independent review of the record leads us 

to conclude that while Mr. Kane was incompetent, uninformed, and negligent, his actions 

were not taken with an intent to defraud the Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Kane brought his 
58

personal bankruptcy to the Trustee’s attention at the lunch break on the first day of the 

Adversary Proceeding against him. The colloquy between Mr. Kane, the Trustee, and the 

bankruptcy judge demonstrates that while Mr. Kane’s failure to disclose the matter in his 

bankruptcy petition was uninformed and inconsistent with the requirements of the 

Bankruptcy Code, it was not undertaken with an intent to defraud the Bankruptcy Trustee 

or the Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Kane explained to the bankruptcy judge that he was trying 

to keep his “professional matters” out of his bankruptcy for “personal privacy reasons.” 

He also testified that he did not think he needed to identify the Adversary Proceeding 

because he thought that only his clients had monetary risk and that the claims against him 

were “inchoate claims.” Again, while Mr. Kane’s decision was without legal merit and 

demonstrates his lack of competence on bankruptcy-related matters, we do not find, based 

upon this record, that Mr. Kane had the requisite intent to commit a criminal act. Similarly, 

while the record reflects that Mr. Kane filed serial bankruptcies with schedules containing

incorrect and incomplete information, his conduct lacks a knowing or willful intent to 

engage in bankruptcy fraud.25 

 

25 Our finding that Mr. Kane’s bankruptcy filings fall short of criminal misconduct 

should not be construed as condoning this behavior. As noted supra, we have upheld the 

hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane’s inaccurate, serial filings violated Rule 3.3 

(Candor Toward the Tribunal). To be sure, Mr. Kane’s bankruptcy schedules are replete 

with inaccurate information. For example, on Mr. Kane’s February 2014 bankruptcy 

petition, on Schedule B, he stated that there was $100 in his Bank of America checking 

account when his bank records reflected a balance of $1,239.37 in the account. Mr. Kane 

testified that he was accounting for monies that he knew were already obligated elsewhere. 

The hearing judge noted that notwithstanding Mr. Kane’s explanation, the account always 

stayed above $100 for the relevant period. The hearing judge also correctly noted that Mr. 

Kane’s personal property values and personal expenses changed with each filing, and there 

are unexplained discrepancies in the schedules associated with his serial filings. For 
59

Although we find that Mr. Kane should have disclosed the Adversary Proceeding 

and identified the Trustee as an unsecured creditor and should have been more diligent and 

accurate with his schedules, there is no evidence that his actions rise to the level of criminal 

conduct involved in Fraidin and Byrd. Although Mr. Kane’s filings reflect incompetence

and negligence, we do not find by clear and convincing evidence that his conduct 

constitutes a criminal act.

Similarly, based upon our independent review of the record, we do not find by clear 

and convincing evidence that Mr. Kane’s act of deducting his internet and cell phone 

expense as business expenses, which included family members’ coverage, constitutes a 

criminal act. While the Internal Revenue Service may take a different approach or reach a 

different conclusion, based upon the record before us, we sustain Mr. Kane’s exception

that his cell phone and internet deductions fall short of criminal activity.26

Rule 8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in 

conduct involving dishonestly, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation[.]” The hearing judge 

 

example, the schedules on Mr. Kane’s June 2016 filing identified household goods and 

furnishings valued at $1,500, electronics valued at $600, and clothes valued at $250, and 

also identified office expenses and personal expenses, none of which had been identified 

on his 2014 or 2015 bankruptcy petitions. In comparing Mr. Kane’s serial bankruptcy 

filings, although Mr. Kane filed incomplete and inconsistent schedules, our review of the 

record reveals that these filings, while incompetent and careless, do not evidence an intent 

to defraud creditors or commit bankruptcy fraud. 

26 At oral argument, Mr. Kane’s attorney argued that Mr. Kane uses Turbo Tax, 

which shows that he lacked a criminal intent. He plugs in his expenses and the software 

inserts the deduction. Obviously, Turbo Tax does not independently verify the expenses 

and the individual using the software must accurately enter expenses incurred and properly 

associated with a legitimate business deduction. 
60

concluded that the conduct that he found violated Rule 8.4(b) also constitutes a violation 

of Rule 8.4(c). Mr. Kane has excepted to this conclusion, asserting that the hearing judge’s 

legal conclusion of this violation was based solely upon the conclusion that Mr. Kane 

committed a federal criminal act.27 Mr. Kane argues that he lacked the requisite intent to 

engage in fraudulent or dishonest conduct. We will sustain Mr. Kane’s objection on this 

point. 

As noted above, with respect to Mr. Kane’s bankruptcy filings, while the filings 

were careless and reflect a lack of competence, we do not find by clear and convincing 

evidence that Mr. Kane’s mistakes and inconsistencies were intentionally dishonest 

conduct or were undertaken for the purpose of defrauding or deceiving the Bankruptcy 

Court. 

With respect to his tax deductions, Mr. Kane asserts that he is a sole practitioner 

who operates from a virtual office. Mr. Kane took a deduction on his tax return for his cell 

phone usage, which also included cell phone service of family members. At oral argument,

Mr. Kane’s counsel stated that there is nothing in the record upon which the hearing judge 

could find that taking a cell phone business deduction for his family’s coverage constitutes 

tax fraud, or that the IRS would consider the deduction unacceptable in an audit. Based 

upon the record before us, we do not find clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kane’s 

 

27 In his conclusions of law, the hearing judge did not describe his basis for 

concluding that Mr. Kane violated Rule 8.4(c) other than simply stating that “each of the 

listed violations of Rule 8.4(b) also constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4(c).” 
61

cell phone deduction on his tax returns constitutes intentionally dishonest or fraudulent 

conduct in violation of Rule 8.4(c). 

Rule 8.4(d) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in 

conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.]” The hearing judge concluded 

that Mr. Kane violated Rule 8.4(d) when he failed to disclose the Adversary Proceeding 

and list the Trustee as an unsecured creditor in his 2015 bankruptcy filing because it wasted 

judicial resources, and was therefore prejudicial to the administration of justice. The 

hearing judge also concluded that Mr. Kane’s conduct resulted in the Bankruptcy Court 

wasting a half day of its valuable trial time to conduct a trial in a stayed proceeding. 

Moreover, Mr. Kane’s conduct unnecessarily caused a delay in the Adversary Proceeding,

which could have been avoided by listing the claim in his 2015 bankruptcy petition and 

schedules as is required by the Bankruptcy Code. Mr. Kane filed an exception to this 

conclusion but did not specify any basis for his exception. We overrule the exception. 

Mr. Kane’s failure to identify the Adversary Proceeding on his personal bankruptcy 

certainly caused a waste of judicial resources and delay, which could have been avoided. 

The hearing judge further concluded that Mr. Kane’s overall conduct brings the 

legal profession into disrepute in violation of Rule 8.4(d). We find that the conclusion is 

supported by clear and convincing evidence and affirm the hearing judge’s conclusion. 

Md. Rule 19-407 (Attorney Trust Account Record Keeping)

At the attorney grievance hearing, Bar Counsel contended that Mr. Kane violated 

Md. Rule 19-407 as it relates to his representation of Mr. Arvin. Specifically, Bar Counsel 

argued that Mr. Kane violated the Rule because he either failed to create the record as 
62

required by the Rule or failed to maintain records for the requisite period of time. Although 

the hearing judge concluded that Mr. Kane failed to produce the records at trial, the hearing 

judge was not convinced by clear and convincing evidence that the reason for the failure

to produce the documents (its own separate violation of the Rules) was because Mr. Kane 

has either failed to create or maintain the records, as opposed to his failure to retrieve them.

The hearing judge noted that Mr. Kane testified to difficulty with his computers. Bar 

Counsel did not file an exception to this conclusion. Although Mr. Kane filed an exception, 

stating that, while he could have done a better job of managing his law office and personal 

finances, there was no evidence to support a conclusion that he willfully mismanaged his 

bookkeeping. However, since no such legal conclusion was reached by the hearing judge 

and no violation was found, we overrule Mr. Kane’s exception.

Mitigating Factors 

In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Hodes, we noted that the following may be 

considered as mitigating factors: 

Absence of a prior disciplinary record; absence of a dishonest or selfish 

motive; personal or emotional problems; timely good faith efforts to make 

restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct; full and free disclosure 

to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; 

inexperience in the practice of law; character or reputation; physical or 

mental disability or impairment; delay in disciplinary proceedings; interim 

rehabilitation; imposition of other penalties or sanctions; remorse; and 

finally, remoteness of prior offenses.

441 Md. 136, 209 (2014) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Coppola, 419 Md. 370, 

407 (2011) (citations omitted)). 
63

The hearing judge found that Mr. Kane proved one mitigating factor by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Kane testified that during the time period of this case, 

he has had personal problems with caring for his ailing in-laws with whom he was very 

close. Their failing health and ultimate deaths greatly affected Mr. Kane emotionally and 

required significant amounts of his time and energy for their care. The Court found Mr. 

Kane credible on this point. No exceptions were filed by Bar Counsel to this finding. 

Based upon our independent review of the record, we agree with the hearing judge’s 

finding. 

Aggravating Factors

The hearing judge found clear and convincing evidence that five aggravating factors 

were present: (1) prior discipline; (2) a pattern of misconduct; (3) multiple offenses; (4) 

refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct; and (5) substantial experience in 

the practice of law.28 We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusions, which are 

summarized as follows. 

 

28 We have recognized the following aggravating factors in considering sanctions in 

attorney grievance proceedings:

(1) Prior disciplinary offenses; 

(2) A dishonest or shellfish motive; 

(3) A pattern of misconduct;

(4) Multiple offenses;

(5) Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing 

to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;

(6) Submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices 

during the disciplinary process; 

(7) Refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct; 

(8) Vulnerability of the victim;

(9) Substantial experience in the practice of law; 
64

The hearing judge noted that Mr. Kane received a reprimand from the Attorney 

Grievance Commission on January 18, 2017, for violating Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 

(Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16(d) (Terminating representation), and 3.4(d) 

(Fairness to opposing counsel). The hearing judge noted that in that matter, Mr. Kane 

failed to provide competent and diligent representation, and failed to adequately 

communicate with his client. Specifically, Mr. Kane failed to adhere to discovery 

guidelines, comply with opposing counsel’s discovery requests, and communicate with his 

client regarding the scope and ramifications of his actions. 

Bar Counsel also requested that the hearing judge consider a warning from the 

Attorney Grievance Commission dated August 30, 2016, for alleged violations of Rules 

1.3 (Diligence) and 1.4 (Communication). The hearing judge concluded that it would not 

consider the warning as part of an aggravating factor because the warning explicitly 

provided “[a] warning is not discipline under Maryland Rule 19-700[.]” Bar Counsel 

excepted to the hearing judge’s failure to find Mr. Kane’s prior warning to be an 

aggravating factor under the circumstances. We agree with Bar Counsel and sustain 

Counsel’s exception. Although the warning is not discipline, as set forth below, it 

evidences a pattern of misconduct. 

 

(10) Whether he or she displayed indifference to making restitution; and 

(11) [I]llegal conduct. 

See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 434 Md. 658, 676–77 (2013) (citing 

Standard 9.22 of the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions).
65

The warning that Bar Counsel issued on August 30, 2016, stated that although the 

complaint made against Mr. Kane had been dismissed: 

We did determine, however, that you violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of 

Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4. You violated Rule 1.3 by failing to act 

with reasonable diligence and promptness in pursuing the return of your 

client’s $20,000 deposit made toward the purchase of a home. You violated 

1.4 by failing to keep your client reasonably informed of the status of her 

case and failing to explain the case to the extent reasonably necessary to 

permit her to make informed decisions regarding your representation. We 

are issuing a warning to you for those violations. 

A warning is not discipline . . . but should guide you in the future to avoid a 

complaint of a similar nature that might result in a disciplinary sanction. 

This Court has recognized that a warning is “an admonition against repetition of conduct.” 

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stolarz, 379 Md. 387, 406 (2004). We agree with Bar 

Counsel that the conduct described in the warning is similar to the conduct at issue in the 

Lonergan and Arvin matters. While the warning was not a disciplinary action, it is 

nonetheless evidence of a pattern of misconduct, which is an aggravating factor in 

determining the appropriate sanction. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kirwan, 450 

Md. 447, 463–64 (2016) (agreeing with hearing judge’s conclusion that the attorney’s prior 

warning supported a finding that the attorney had engaged in a pattern of misconduct); 

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hill, 398 Md. 95, 104–05 (2007) (considering the 

attorney’s two prior warnings as “prior grievance history” in determining the appropriate 

sanction to impose); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209, 230 (2006) 

(considering a warning to be “prior history” with the Commission). Accordingly, there is 

clear and convincing evidence that the warning issued to Mr. Kane should be considered 

by the Court as a pattern of misconduct. 
66

In addition to the prior disciplinary action, the hearing judge concluded that Bar 

Counsel had established, by clear and convincing evidence, a pattern of misconduct and 

multiple offenses. The hearing judge noted the multiple rules violated in connection with 

Mr. Kane’s representation of the Lonergans and Mr. Arvin, as well as the violations found

in connection with Mr. Kane’s personal bankruptcy and tax filings. The hearing judge 

found that at the December 2018 hearing, Mr. Kane failed to acknowledge the wrongful 

nature of his conduct, instead maintaining that there was no conflict of interest and that the 

clients should have contacted him if they were uninformed about their cases. The hearing 

judge further noted that Mr. Kane has substantial experience in the practice of law, having 

been admitted in 1983. 

IV. Sanction

The purpose of a sanction in an attorney discipline case is not so much to punish the 

attorney as “to protect the public and the public’s confidence in the legal profession.” 

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Greenleaf, 438 Md. 151, 163 (2014) (quoting Attorney 

Grievance Comm’n v. Worthy, 436 Md. 633, 643 (2014)). The sanction imposed depends 

on the facts and circumstances of each case, and in arriving at an appropriate sanction, we 

“consider the nature of the ethical duties violated in light of any aggravating or mitigating 

circumstances.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Paul, 423 Md. 268, 284 (2011). 

Accordingly, the sanction imposed should be “commensurate with the nature and gravity 

of the violations and the intent with which they were committed.” Attorney Grievance 

Comm’n v. Stein, 373 Md. 531, 537 (2003). 
67

Bar Counsel has recommended that we disbar Mr. Kane from the practice of law. 

In support of this recommendation, Bar Counsel notes that Mr. Kane violated numerous 

Rules in his representation of the Lonergans and Mr. Arvin, as well as Bar Counsel’s 

associated investigation into those complaints, to wit: Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.2 (Scope 

of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer), 1.3 

(Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.7 (Conflict of Interest; General Rule) (as to the 

Lonergans), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing 

Party and Attorney), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) and (d) 

(Misconduct). Bar Counsel also notes Mr. Kane’s violation of Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward 

the Tribunal) and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct) in connection with his personal bankruptcy. 

Bar Counsel contends that in addition to Mr. Kane’s misconduct, there are substantial 

aggravating factors, including prior misconduct, Mr. Kane’s substantial experience in the 

practice of law, and his refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. 

To support their recommended sanction of disbarment, Bar Counsel relies upon the 

hearing judge’s findings that Mr. Kane violated Rule 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) in connection with 

his bankruptcy filings and tax deduction for cell phone expenses. Bar Counsel relies upon 

Fraidin, 438 Md. 171, and Byrd, 408 Md. 449. As noted supra, we sustained Mr. Kane’s 

exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Kane’s conduct in his personal 

bankruptcy and his tax filings violated Rule 8.4(b) and (c). At oral argument, in response 

to the Court’s questions, Bar Counsel admitted that if the Court were only to consider the 

misconduct in the Lonergan and Arvin cases, Bar Counsel would recommend an indefinite 

suspension. Bar Counsel stated that the “recommendation for disbarment is based on the 
68

conduct in the Lonergan and Arvin matters, compiled with the Respondent’s personal 

bankruptcy filings and tax returns.” 

Mr. Kane contends that the facts of this case do not support disbarment as Mr. Kane’s 

conduct in his bankruptcy and tax filings were neither criminal, nor intentionally dishonest. 

Mr. Kane notes that cases where we have determined that the respondents have tax problems,

but do not involve willful and intentional tax fraud, have not resulted in disbarment. Mr. 

Kane relies upon Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gavin, 350 Md. 176 (1998), in which the 

Court imposed a reprimand where the respondent failed to timely file his tax returns and 

failed to rectify his tax delinquencies. Mr. Kane also directs us to Attorney Grievance 

Comm’n v. Worthy, 436 Md. 633 (2014), where the Court imposed a six-month suspension 

for two separate convictions of failure to file tax returns amounting to over $70,000 in unpaid 

taxes. Mr. Kane asserts that he did not willfully evade paying taxes—rather, he took some 

minor deductions that might arguably seem questionable. Mr. Kane asserts that this conduct 

was not criminal and does not support disbarment. Mr. Kane further asserts that there is 

insufficient evidence to conclude that he knowingly and willfully committed fraud when he 

filled out his bankruptcy schedules and filed his income taxes. He states that there is no 

violation of Rule 8.4(b) or (c), although he admits that the evidence supports a finding that 

he acted out of ignorance, mistake, carelessness, or negligence. 

With respect to the findings associated with his representation of the Lonergans and 

Mr. Arvin, Mr. Kane argues that the case law supports either a reprimand or a “short 

suspension.” Mr. Kane contends the facts of this case are more similar to Attorney 

Grievance Commission v. Cohen, 361 Md. 161 (2000), where we imposed an indefinite 
69

suspension after finding violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) and (d) for 

failing to keep clients informed regarding their cases, lack of competence, and making false 

statements during a disciplinary investigation. 

In light of our sustaining Mr. Kane’s exceptions to the Rule 8.4(b) and (c) 

conclusions of law, we agree that the violations in this matter support the imposition of an 

indefinite suspension. Our decisions in prior attorney discipline cases support suspending 

Mr. Kane indefinitely, with the right to apply for reinstatement. In cases similar to Mr. 

Kane’s where the attorney’s disciplinary actions do not involve dishonesty, the sanction 

has often been indefinite suspension. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kirwan, 450 Md. 

447, 466 (2016); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Green, 441 Md. 80, 101–102 

(2014) (collecting cases). Indefinite suspension ensures that Mr. Kane is not permitted to 

practice law until this Court is satisfied that he is able to do so consistent with the MLRPC. 

We have reiterated that indefinite suspension is not permanent, so Mr. Kane may apply for 

reinstatement under Maryland Rule 19-752. However, we decline to set a minimum length 

for this suspension because there is nothing in the record that would allow this Court to 

“divine an appropriate minimum ‘sit-out’ period.” Kirwan, 450 Md. at 467, quoting Green, 

441 Md. at 102. We would also note that while we did not find a Rule 8.4(b) or (c) violation 

with respect to Mr. Kane’s bankruptcy filings and tax filings, any future filings by 

Mr. Kane would be considered by the Court as part of any consideration on reinstatement. 

The suspension shall begin 30 days after the date on which this opinion is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT 

SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED 

BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, 
70

INCLUDING COSTS OF ALL 

TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO 

MARYLAND RULE 19-709(d) FOR 

WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS 

ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 

COMMISSION AGAINST EUGENE 

IGNATIUS KANE, JR.