Opinion ID: 2278921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The respondent argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case sub judice because, under the Maryland Rules, there is no procedure for the Commission to direct Bar Counsel to file a petition for disciplinary or remedial action. We disagree. Maryland Rule 16-711 codifies and defines the Attorney Grievance Commission. Of note is subsection (h)(9) of that rule, [12] which provides the authority for the Commission to bring an action against an attorney. Bar Counsel is appointed by the Attorney Grievance Commission and serves with the approval of the Court of Appeals. Md. Rule 16-712(a). Bar Counsel has the authority, subject to the supervision of the Commission, to file and prosecute petitions for disciplinary and remedial actions in the name of the Commission. Md. Rule 16-712(b)(5). The Peer Review Panel is established by Maryland Rule 16-742, and the process by which the Panel deliberates is outlined in Maryland Rule 16-743. Of important note here is sub-paragraph (e), stating: (e) Recommendation. The Peer Review Panel may recommend to the Commission that a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action be filed or make any recommendation to the Commission that Bar Counsel may make under Rule 16-734(a), (b), or (c). The Panel shall accompany its recommendations with a brief explanatory statement. Md. Rule 16-743(e) (emphasis added). The language of the Rule clearly states that the findings of the Panel are recommendations to the Commission. The Commission is not under any obligation to follow the findings of the Panel. Moreover, the deliberations, speech, writings, and conduct that occurs before the Panel is confidential, privileged and not subject to discovery. Md. Rule 16-723(a); [13] See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kinnane, 390 Md. 324, 335, 888 A.2d 1178, 1185 (2005) (an attorney was disbarred for criminal conduct involving a $70,000 retainer for future work, and the hearing court refused to enter into evidence the report of the Peer Review Panel. We affirmed the hearing court's decision, ruling that the Peer Review Panel's report is indeed confidential). Lastly, we examine the Commission's authority to bring an action against an attorney. Maryland Rule 16-751(a)(1) provides that: Upon approval or direction of the Commission, Bar Counsel shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals. Respondent argues that the Commission does not have the power to direct Bar Counsel to file a petition for disciplinary or remedial action if the Panel votes to dismiss any charges of professional misconduct. We disagree. To determine the intent of the Court in adopting a section of the Maryland Rules, this Court has held that we will apply the same methods and principles that we use when analyzing a statute. Johnson v. State, 360 Md. 250, 264, 757 A.2d 796, 804 (2000); see State v. Romulus, 315 Md. 526, 533, 555 A.2d 494, 497 (1989). In order to effectuate the purpose and objectives of the rule, we look to its plain text. Johnson, 360 Md. at 264, 757 A.2d at 804. Pursuant to this standard of review, it is unnecessary, as the respondent suggests, to look to the legislative history of Maryland Rule 16-751(a)(1). If the language of the rule is plain and unambiguous, then it is not necessary to consider other resources in order to arrive at a meaning for the rule. Johnson, 360 Md. at 264-65, 757 A.2d at 804. (If the words of the rule are plain and unambiguous, our inquiry ordinarily ceases and we need not venture outside the text of the rule.). The language approval or direction is clear and unambiguous and we therefore need not consider the Rules Committee report. The Commission may direct Bar Counsel to file a petition against an attorney. Although the Panel serves a legitimate and important function, its conclusions are merely recommendations under the statutory scheme. The language of Maryland Rule 16-743(e) states that [t]he Peer Review Panel may recommend . . . (emphasis added). This language is again clear and unambiguous. A recommendation is mere advice and is not mandatory. By way of example, we held in Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kinnane that the Panel's findings are only recommendations, stating: Where there is no more than a recommendatory function, one that is not binding and certainly not dispositive, there is even more reason to `insulate' Peer Review Panel Reports from subsequent disclosure at later stages of the attorney discipline process. 390 Md. 324, 338, 888 A.2d 1178, 1187 (2005). The Commission was not bound to the recommendations of the Panel and has the authority to proceed with charges if it so desires. We have previously held that the content of the Panel's deliberations are confidential. Id. at 333-34, 888 A.2d at 1184. Chief Judge Bell, writing for the court, noted: [P]ursuant to Maryland Rule 16-723, certain matters pertaining to the Peer Review process are confidential. Section (b)(2) of that Rule list `the records and proceedings of a Peer Review Panel' as among such matters. The Report of the Peer Review Panel qualifies as records and `proceedings [that] are confidential and not open to public inspection [whose] contents may not be revealed by the Commission, the staff of the Commission, Bar Counsel, the staff and investigators of the Office of Bar Counsel, members of the Peer Review Committee, or any attorney involved in the proceeding.' Id. at 336, 888 A.2d at 1185. We also stressed that the deliberations of the Panel are confidential in Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Lee, stating: Despite the common sense appeal of permitting use of statements made during the Peer Review process to expose later inconsistencies or intentional misrepresentations, we conclude that the better course is to declaim, borrowing and mutating somewhat a currently popular advertising slogan, `what happens in Peer Review stays in Peer Review.' 387 Md. 89, 113, 874 A.2d 897, 911 (2005). This Court has noted that the substance of deliberations discussed by the Panel is confidential and cannot be used in attorney grievance proceedings. The Commission was not under any obligation to follow the advice of the Panel. The Commission was within its authority to direct Bar Counsel to file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against an attorney that the Commission believed did not abide by Maryland's Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. This is true regardless of the Panel's recommendations. The Court of Appeals has original and complete jurisdiction over all attorney disciplinary matters arising from the conduct of a member of the Maryland State Bar. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Reinhardt, 391 Md. 209, 220, 892 A.2d 533, 539 (2006) ([T]his Court has original and complete jurisdiction in attorney discipline matters); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Maignan, 390 Md. 287, 292, 888 A.2d 344, 347 (2005) (Original jurisdiction over attorney discipline matters resides in the Court of Appeals. We determine, ultimately, whether an attorney has committed the misconduct charged by the Attorney Grievance Commission.); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. James, 385 Md. 637, 654, 870 A.2d 229, 239 (2005) (In proceedings involving attorney discipline, this Court has original and complete jurisdiction). This Court is the ultimate arbiter of any claims concerning attorney misconduct in the State of Maryland, and the rules and procedures governing an Attorney Grievance action are predicated upon the Court of Appeals having jurisdiction to hear such a case. Therefore, the respondent's assertion that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the case sub judice, is without merit. We reject respondent's view concerning jurisdiction, affirming that the Court of Appeals does indeed have original and complete jurisdiction over all attorney grievance matters within the State of Maryland.