Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Clevenger

Barbera, C.J. Jurisdiction is not a flashy or glamorous area of the law. What it lacks in luster, however, it makes up for in fundamental importance in our legal system. As a threshold issue, one of significant constitutional dimension, jurisdiction must be addressed before a cause of action may proceed. This case began when the Appellee, Ty Clevenger, submitted to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland a complaint alleging professional misconduct by three Maryland-barred attorneys while they were representing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Office of Bar Counsel thereafter informed Mr. Clevenger that it would not undertake an investigation of the allegations in his complaint because he had no personal knowledge of the allegations presented and was not an aggrieved party or client. Mr. Clevenger filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, seeking to compel Bar Counsel to open an investigation into the alleged misconduct of the named attorneys. The Attorney Grievance Commission and Bar Counsel (collectively, "the Commission") filed motions to dismiss the petition and to seal the case to protect the confidentiality of the complaint and responses. Mr. Clevenger opposed both motions.

The circuit court granted the motion to seal and denied the Commission's motion to dismiss the petition. Following a hearing on the merits of the mandamus petition, the circuit court ordered the Commission to investigate the allegations presented in the complaint. The circuit court also vacated its previous order sealing the case. We granted a writ of certiorari to determine whether, before reaching the merits of the case, the circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for writ of mandamus.

For the reasons that follow, we hold that because this Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters, of which Bar Counsel's decision to investigate a complaint is a part, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to consider and grant the mandamus petition and to order Bar Counsel to conduct an investigation of the allegations in Mr. Clevenger's complaint. I. Facts and Procedural History A. The Initial Complaints Mr. Clevenger is a Texas-barred attorney residing in New York. On September 1, 2016, he sent a letter to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland. In the letter, he alleged that three Maryland attorneys who had worked for former Secretary of State Clinton had engaged in inappropriate conduct that violated the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct.

Specifically, Mr. Clevenger alleged that the attorneys violated Rules 19-308.3, 19-303.4(a), and 19-308.4(c) by destroying evidence related to ongoing federal investigations, failing to report the misconduct of the other attorneys, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty. The allegations appeared to Bar Counsel to be based solely on information derived from publicly available sources. On September 7, 2016, Mr. Clevenger sent a second letter, supplementing his complaint with additional information that he obtained from publicly available sources and alleging a further rule violation by one of the attorneys. Nearly three weeks later, Deputy Bar Counsel Raymond A. Hein sent a letter to Mr. Clevenger declining to conduct an investigation.

Mr. Hein's letter provided the following: It appears that you have no personal knowledge of the allegations presented in your correspondence, nor are you a personally aggrieved client or party possessing material information that would assist this office in reviewing such allegations. Under these circumstances, we decline to conduct an investigation of the named attorneys with you designated as the complainant. The Maryland Rules grant Bar Counsel authority to open a complaint on Bar Counsel's own initiative. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-707(b), the records of an investigation by Bar Counsel, including the existence and content of any complaint or response, are confidential.

In accordance with that rule, we are unable to provide you with additional information. By letter dated October 17, 2016, Mr. Clevenger replied, asserting that Bar Counsel's actions failed to comply with Maryland law because, in his view, Bar Counsel was required by rule to conduct an investigation. Mr. Clevenger also stated his belief that he had grounds to seek mandamus relief from the Court of Appeals. On October 24, 2016, Mr. Hein responded that Bar Counsel could not provide Mr. Clevenger with any further information.

B. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus On December 20, 2016, Mr. Clevenger, proceeding without the assistance of a Maryland-barred attorney, filed in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County a Petition for Writ of Mandamus ("Petition"). He sought to have the circuit court compel Bar Counsel to conduct an investigation, arguing that then-effective Maryland Rule 19-711 required Bar Counsel to investigate every complaint that was not facially frivolous or unfounded. The Commission moved to dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction, among other grounds. It asserted that the Court of Appeals retains original and complete jurisdiction over all attorney disciplinary matters.

The circuit court denied the Commission's motion to dismiss on July 25, 2017. On September 11, 2017, the court held a hearing on the merits. After hearing argument, the circuit court found that it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Petition because it was not yet an attorney disciplinary matter and, thus, was not within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The judge further ruled that Rule 19-711 required Bar Counsel to investigate every complaint that was not frivolous, and Bar Counsel had made no claim or showing that Mr. Clevenger's complaint was frivolous.

At the close of the hearing, the circuit court indicated that it would order Bar Counsel to conduct an investigation. By a written order dated September 22, 2017, the court granted the Petition and ordered the Commission to investigate the allegations presented in Mr. Clevenger's complaint. C. The Appeal The Commission noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals and a separate appeal to this Court. The Commission also filed a petition for writ of certiorari and a motion to stay the circuit judge's order.

Mr. Clevenger submitted a cross-petition. We granted the Commission's petition, denied Mr. Clevenger's cross-petition, and granted the motion to stay. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Clevenger , 456 Md. 254 , 173 A.3d 154 (2017).

II

Discussion A. The Parties' Contentions The Commission argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider a mandamus petition related to attorney discipline. 1 The Commission begins with several bedrock principles: First, "the power which a court possesses to hear and determine cases" is prescribed by "applicable constitutional and statutory pronouncements." First Federated Commodity Tr. Corp. v. Comm'r of Sec. , 272 Md. 329 , 335, 322 A.2d 539 (1974) (citations omitted). Second, "[i]f, by the law that defines the authority of the court, a judicial body is given the power to render a judgment over that class of cases within which a particular case falls, the court has subject matter [or fundamental] jurisdiction." John A. v. Bd. of Educ. for Howard Cty. , 400 Md. 363 , 388, 929 A.2d 136 (2007) (citing First Federated Commodity Tr. Corp. , 272 Md. at 335 , 322 A.2d 539 ).

Third, where a particular court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over a subject matter, no claim arising out of that subject matter or "class of controversies" may be heard by a different court. First Federated Commodity Tr. Corp. , 272 Md. at 335 , 322 A.2d 539 . The Commission notes that the Maryland Constitution empowers circuit courts to "hear and decide all cases at law and in equity," except cases in which "by law jurisdiction has been limited or conferred exclusively upon another tribunal." St. Joseph Med.

Ctr., Inc. v. Turnbull , 432 Md. 259 , 274, 68 A.3d 823 (2013) (quoting First Federated Commodity Tr. Corp. , 272 Md. at 335 , 322 A.2d 539 ) ); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 1-501 . Regulation of matters pertaining to attorney discipline, the Commission argues, has been conferred exclusively upon the Court of Appeals, so circuit courts are powerless to hear those matters.

The Commission looks to In re Application of Kimmer , 392 Md. 251 , 896 A.2d 1006 (2006), and Attorney Grievance Commission v. Pak , 400 Md. 567 , 929 A.2d 546 (2007), to make the point. Since 1898, "the Court of Appeals has had exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of, and admission to, the practice of law," Kimmer , 392 Md. at 269 , 896 A.2d 1006 , and "has original and complete jurisdiction over all attorney disciplinary matters arising from the conduct of a member of the Maryland State Bar," Pak , 400 Md. at 599-600 , 929 A.2d 546 . In the Commission's view, "the investigation of a complaint alleging professional misconduct necessarily concerns an 'attorney disciplinary matter ... arising from the conduct of a member of the Maryland State Bar' " because Bar Counsel's investigation is a "necessary predicate" either to the Commission taking action or to a disciplinary proceeding in the Court of Appeals. See I n re Application of Allan S. , 282 Md. 683 , 689, 387 A.2d 271 (1978) ("Upon this Court falls the primary and ultimate responsibility for regulating the practice of law and the conduct and admission of attorneys in this State.").

The Commission argues that this Court's "pervasive regulation of attorney conduct through its rulemaking authority" is further evidence that this Court's exclusive jurisdiction extends beyond merely rendering decisions in attorney disciplinary matters. The Commission points out that this Court has promulgated rules relating to the practice of law and legal ethics, created the Commission to administer attorney discipline, and vested Bar Counsel with exclusive responsibility to investigate and prosecute complaints of ethical rule violations. The Commission concludes that because the Court of Appeals is the sole entity responsible for regulating the practice of law, controlling bar admissions, disciplining attorneys, and promulgating rules governing those areas, the circuit court necessarily impinged on that jurisdiction by entertaining a mandamus action concerning attorney discipline. Mr. Clevenger does not dispute that this Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary proceedings.

Rather, he asserts that because Bar Counsel declined to conduct an investigation, no attorney disciplinary proceeding ever commenced. And, according to Mr. Clevenger, even if Bar Counsel had investigated his complaint, that action still would not constitute an attorney disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Clevenger appears to argue that an attorney disciplinary proceeding only commences upon Bar Counsel's filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals under Maryland Rule 19-721. Mr. Clevenger avers that because no such petition was filed, the circuit court appropriately ordered Bar Counsel to investigate.

Mr. Clevenger further argues that the Commission mischaracterizes the Kimmer decision. The Commission, Mr. Clevenger argues, misreads Kimmer to mean that "the Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction over anything remotely related to admission or practice." Mr. Clevenger suggests that the Kimmer plaintiff sought a trial court order "that would effectively compel his admission to the bar." Here, by contrast, Mr. Clevenger sought merely to compel Bar Counsel to comply with a mandatory procedural rule that would not initiate an attorney disciplinary proceeding. B. Analysis It is beyond question that this Court has original and complete jurisdiction over attorney