Court Opinion

ID: 9382847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 20:05:48.714866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.036132
License: Public Domain

Solon Phillips v. Alyssa Chang, et al., No. 482, September Term, 2022. Opinion by
Harrell, J.

ATTORNEYS AND LEGAL SERVICES – POWER TO REGULATE AND
CONTROL IN GENERAL

ATTORNEYS AND LEGAL SERVICES – POWER TO ADMIT AND LICENSE

COURTS – EXCLUSIVE OR CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of Maryland possesses exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice
of law. That includes not only the decision whether to admit an applicant, but also the
process by which he or she qualifies for admission. A local character committee’s
examination of an applicant is a part of that process. Consequently, any alleged tortious
conduct that occurs as part of that examination is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court to address. Appellant could not circumvent that exclusive jurisdiction by
suing the members of a local character committee personally in a circuit court for the
allegedly tortious conduct of not recommending his admission to the Bar of Maryland. The
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County correctly ruled it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case.
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
Case No.: CAL2116864
                                                                               REPORTED

                                                                      IN THE APPELLATE COURT

                                                                            OF MARYLAND*

                                                                                 No. 482

                                                                          September Term, 2022

                                                                ______________________________________

                                                                            SOLON PHILLIPS

                                                                                     v.

                                                                        ALYSSA CHANG, ET AL.
                                                                ______________________________________

                                                                     Friedman,
                                                                     Albright,
                                                                     Harrell, Glenn T., Jr.,
                                                                        (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),

                                                                                  JJ.
                                                                ______________________________________
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this
document is authentic.
                                                                          Opinion by Harrell, J.
                2023-03-28                                      ______________________________________
                15:11-04:00

Gregory Hilton, Clerk                                                Filed: March 28, 2023

*At the 8 November 2022, general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional
amendment changing the name of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland to the
Appellate Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on 14 December 2022.
       Volunteer Maryland attorneys, serving on local character committees, play an

important role in vetting Maryland Bar applicants. Unfortunately, if an ultimately

unsuccessful applicant takes umbrage at the local character committee’s handling of, and

recommendation regarding, his or her application, the applicant might seek legal redress

against the local character committee member or members. Although there exists strong

indication to believe that such a civil claim brought in a circuit court lacked a jurisdictional

basis to proceed, we could find no reported Maryland case holding explicitly that local

character committee members were immune from such an action.1 This case fills that void.

                                      BACKGROUND

       Solon Phillips, appellant, applied for admission to the Bar of Maryland 3 times in

the last 15 years. He withdrew voluntarily his first application. The Supreme Court of

Maryland2 denied his second because he “failed to meet his burden of proving that he

possesses the good moral character and fitness for the practice of law.” In re Phillips, 457

Md. 113, 131 (2017). The present case flows from his third application. Although Phillips

withdrew his latest application before resolution of this appeal, the record reflects that he

       1
         There are, however, two unreported federal-court opinions, both of which reach
the same conclusion we do here: that such cases are outside their jurisdiction. See Martin
v. Court of Appeals of Md., No. 88-1749, 1989 WL 21402, at *1 (4th Cir. Mar. 7, 1989);
Sibley v. Hergenroeder, Civil Action No. DKC 2006-1222, 2006 WL 3354137, at *3-5
(D. Md. Nov. 17, 2006).
       2
       On 14 December 2022, the name of the Court of Appeals was changed to the
Supreme Court of Maryland.
at least believed it would fail for the same reason the Supreme Court denied his second

application.3

       Acting on this belief, Phillips sued Alyssa Chang, Brent Ahalt, and Arthur Horne,

appellees and volunteer members of the Character Committee for the Fourth Appellate

Judicial Circuit (collectively, “the Committee Members”), in the Circuit Court for Prince

George’s County. In a complaint that begins by analogizing the Committee Members to

Adolf Hitler and southern slave owners, Phillips alleged that they committed a tortious act

against him when they found that he “failed to meet his burden that he presently possesses

the requisite moral character and fitness to practice law in Maryland.”

       Phillips’s complaint advanced two counts. The first, titled “Violation of Md Rule

Attorneys, 19-204, Character Review,” alleged that the Committee Members “violated”

the provisions outlined in Maryland Rule 19-204(a). It also alleged that the Committee

Members’ “findings shock the conscience—literally because there is no record or pattern

of unscrupulous behavior, but on the contrary, the record is filled with patterns spanning

over 30 years of [Phillips] consistently helping men, women, and children—even as an

attorney.”

       The second count, titled “Gross Negligence,” alleged that the Committee Members

“failed to perform a manifest duty in a total disregard to [Phillips’s] life” when, “[w]ith a

       3
        With limited exception, “the proceedings before . . . a Character Committee, and
the Board [of Law Examiners], including related papers, evidence, and information, are
confidential and shall not be open to public inspection or subject to court process or
compulsory disclosure.” Md. Rule 19-105(a). The facts pertaining to Phillips’s application
are mined from his circuit court complaint in the present case.
                                             2
straight moral face, they issued an immoral finding that has absolutely no connection to

the record before them or reality.” (Emphasis in original.) Both counts complain only of

matters related to the Committee Members’ roles as members of the character committee

and their acts as such related to Phillips’s Bar application.

       Phillips did not request any specific relief in his complaint. Instead, he “le[ft] it to

the [circuit court] to decide how [the Committee Members] should recompense [him] for

the damages they have caused him.”

       The Committee Members moved to dismiss Phillips’s complaint on three grounds:

(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) failure to state a claim for which relief could be

granted; and (3) judicial immunity. After supplemental briefing and a hearing, the circuit

court granted the Committee Members’ motion because each ground independently

justified dismissal. This appeal followed.

                                       DISCUSSION

       We review de novo a circuit court’s decision to dismiss a complaint for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction. Unger v. Berger, 214 Md. App. 426, 432 (2013). Dismissal on

this ground is proper when “the facts and allegations [in the complaint] establish a lack of

subject[-]matter jurisdiction.” Id.

       The Supreme Court of Maryland has “exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of,

and admission to, the practice of law.” In re Application of Kimmer, 392 Md. 251, 269

(2006). “That exclusivity has existed unabated and unassailed since 1898.” Id. at 278. In

the exercise of that exclusive jurisdiction, the Court adopted also rules governing the

necessary standards and procedures for admission to the Bar of Maryland. Among these

                                              3
are procedures related to examining each applicant’s character. Md. Rules 19-204, 19-205.

As part of those procedures, the Court appoints a State Board of Law Examiners and a

character committee for each state appellate circuit to review each applicant’s character.

Md. Rules 19-102, 19-103.

       When character-related issues arise, they are examined separately by the Supreme

Court, the applicable character committee, and the Board. A committee’s examination of

an applicant’s character is governed, in part, by Rule 19-204(a):

   (a) Investigation and Report of Character Committee.

   (1) On receipt of a completed character questionnaire forwarded by the Board
       pursuant to Rule 19-205(d), the Character Committee, in accordance with
       procedural guidelines established by Board Rule, shall (A) interview the
       applicant (B) consider the facts stated in the character questionnaire and the
       submissions made by the applicant’s references, and make any further
       investigation it finds necessary or desirable, which may include verification
       of facts asserted by the applicant or the applicant’s references, (C) evaluate
       the applicant’s character and fitness for the practice of law, and (D) transmit
       to the Board a report of its investigation and a recommendation as to the
       approval or denial of the application for admission.

   (2) If the Committee concludes that there may be grounds for recommending
       denial of the application, it shall notify the applicant in writing and schedule
       a hearing. The hearing shall be recorded verbatim. The applicant shall have
       the right to testify, to present other testimony and evidence, and to be
       represented by an attorney. The Committee shall prepare a report and
       recommendation setting forth findings of fact on which the recommendation
       is based and a statement supporting the conclusion. A transcript of the
       hearing shall be transmitted by the Committee to the Board along with the
       Committee’s report. The Committee shall transmit a copy of its report to the
       applicant, and a copy of the hearing transcript shall be furnished to the
       applicant upon payment of reasonable costs.

Md. Rule 19-204(a).

                                              4
       Acting under this Rule, local character committees provide an invaluable service to

the Bar of Maryland and public at large. No duty ranks higher than the obligation to ensure

that applicants “possess the requisite moral character fitness to conduct the affairs of others

both in and out of court.” Application of Allan S., 282 Md. 683, 689 (1978). And “[n]o

attribute in a lawyer is more important than good moral character; indeed, it is absolutely

essential to the preservation of our legal system and the integrity of the courts.” Id. Thus,

a committee’s report and recommendation are indispensable parts of the bar-admission

process. Consequently, disputes arising from the formulation of a committee’s report and

recommendation are solely within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

       Yet, Phillips insists that his suit falls outside this exclusive jurisdiction because it

“is not over ‘the bar[-]admission process’” itself. He contends, “[h]is complaint concerns

gross negligence, intentional tortious acts, and violations of Maryland law.” Phillips cannot

elude, however, the fact that the allegedly tortious acts he pleads occurred as part of the

bar-admission process. That alone places this case squarely within the Supreme Court’s

exclusive jurisdiction. See Kimmer, 392 Md. at 278.

       As the circuit court recognized correctly, In re Application of Kimmer controls

here.4 The issue in Kimmer was whether the circuit court possessed subject-matter

jurisdiction to order an applicant be granted accommodation under the Americans with

Disability Act when taking the bar exam. Id. at 254-55. The substance of the applicant’s

       4
        The defendants in Kimmer sought a preliminary injunction and/or restraining order
directed to the State Board of Law Examiners. Kimmer, 392 Md. at 259-60. The suit did
not name as defendants or implicate the duties of any local character committee members.
                                              5
argument there is the same as Phillips’s—his case was not about the bar-admission process,

but rather “he merely used [an] appropriate legal process to obtain ‘valid enforcement of

his [legal] rights[.]’” Id. at 270. The Supreme Court rebuffed this argument. The Court

observed that permitting circuit courts to decide any issue “in the bar[-]admission context,

. . . would be participating in the undermining of [its] jurisdiction[.]” Id. at 278. It refused

explicitly to do so. Id.

       To avoid the same result, Phillips attempts to distinguish this case from Kimmer by

arguing that the captions are different. This superficial distinction is wholly unpersuasive.

See Att’y Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Malone, 477 Md. 225, 271 n.16 (2022) (“[T]he

nature of a filing is determined by its substance, rather than its caption.”). Kimmer holds

that the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction covers not only the decision whether to

admit an applicant, but also the process by which he or she may qualify for admission.

Kimmer, 392 Md. at 269. That process includes a character committee’s examination. See

Md. Rules 19-204, 19-205. It follows, then, that any alleged tortious conduct that occurs

as part of that examination is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. See

Kimmer, 392 Md. at 278.

       In essence, the applicant in Kimmer and Phillips both sought to use other laws—the

ADA there, and state tort law here—as a Trojan horse to smuggle their complaints about

bar-admission-related matters into a circuit court. The Supreme Court stated clearly that it

has “no intention of relinquishing [its jurisdiction] to any degree or extent.” Id. The circuit

court here recognized correctly that allowing an applicant to sue personally the members

of a local character committee for acts performed as part of that role would be participating

                                               6
in the undermining of the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. It did not err by refusing

to do so.5

                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
                                                 COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S
                                                 COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO
                                                 BE PAID BY APPELLANT.

       5
         Because we affirm based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, we need not
address the remaining grounds for the circuit court’s ruling. See Forster v. State, Off. of
Pub. Def., 426 Md. 565, 580-81 (2012).
                                             7