Opinion ID: 2317184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Charges Against Joel Hyatt

Text: To be subject to discipline under the BV rules, a person must be an attorney. Thus, Rule BV2 a provides that the Attorney Grievance Commission shall supervise and administer the discipline and inactive status of attorneys. ... Rule BV3 b (i) states that the Commission has the power and duty to recommend to this Court procedural and administrative rules relating to the disciplinary system affecting attorneys. Rule BV6 a 1 provides that [e]very complaint that an attorney has committed an act of misconduct or that he is incompetent shall be filed with and recorded by the Bar Counsel. Rule BV7 c provides that the Review Board may dismiss the complaint against, reprimand, or direct Bar Counsel to file charges against, an attorney. Rule BV9 states that [c]harges against an attorney shall be filed by Bar Counsel in this Court. (Emphasis added throughout.) The term attorney is defined for purposes of the disciplinary rules in BV1 a: `Attorney' means any person admitted by the Court of Appeals to practice law. For purposes of discipline or inactive status, the term also includes a member of the bar of any other state, district, or territory of the United States who is employed as counsel in any case pending before any judicial tribunal or Orphans' Court sitting in this State, or before any administrative agency of this State.... The record in this case reveals that Joel Hyatt is not an attorney as that term is used in the BV rules. Hyatt is a member of the Ohio bar. He has never been admitted to practice law in Maryland. The record fails to disclose that he has ever been employed as counsel in any case pending in this State. Bar Counsel conceded that the name Joel Hyatt has never, to his knowledge, appeared on any pleadings filed in any court in this State. Because Hyatt is not an attorney as that term is defined in Rule BV1, this Court has no jurisdiction over him for purposes of disciplinary action under the BV rules. [5] Hyatt, apparently desirous of a decision on the merits of the advertising issue, submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court. We are not concerned here, however, with personal jurisdiction over Joel Hyatt. Rather, what the BV rules make evident is that this Court and the Attorney Grievance Commission have no subject matter jurisdiction with respect to disciplinary proceedings against someone who is not an attorney within the meaning of the BV rules. As we have stated so frequently in the past, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties. Kawamura v. State, 299 Md. 276, 282 n. 4, 473 A.2d 438 (1984), and cases there cited. Cf. In the Mtr. of Hyatt Legal Services, 97 A.D.2d 983, 468 N.Y.S.2d 778 (1983). We must dismiss the charges against Joel Hyatt for lack of jurisdiction. CHARGES DISMISSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.