Attorney Grievance v. Sloane

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Louis Sloane, AG No. 37, September Term, 2021. Opinion by Hotten, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE –– SANCTION –– INDEFINITE SUSPENSION –– The Supreme Court of Maryland indefinitely suspended Respondent, Richard Louis Sloane, from the practice of law in Maryland with the right to apply for reinstatement after six months. The Court held that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-303.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions); 19-303.2 (Expediting Litigation); 19-303.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal); 19-303.4(c) and (d) (Fairness to the Opposing Party and Attorney); 19-304.4(a) (Respect for Rights of Third Persons); and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). These violations stemmed from Respondent’s conduct in a domestic matter involving divorce and custody.

In that case, Respondent obstructed two depositions, filed frivolous objections to standard discovery requests, and misled both the circuit court and opposing counsel throughout the pendency of the litigation. During hearings, Respondent misrepresented the case’s history to the circuit court. Respondent did not exhibit remorse or accept responsibility for his conduct, despite several orders directing his client to pay attorney’s fees in the aggregate amount of $20,350. Thus, Respondent’s conduct warranted indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement after six months.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. C-15-CV-21-000242 Argued: December 5, 2022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND* AG No. 37 September Term, 2021 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. RICHARD LOUIS SLOANE Fader, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ. Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this Opinion by Hotten, J. document is authentic. Fader, C.J., Booth and Gould, JJ., concur and 2023-03-02 13:00-05:00 dissent. Gregory Hilton, Clerk Filed: March 2, 2023 * During the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of Maryland.

The name change took effect on December 14, 2022. On November 1, 2021, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, through Bar Counsel (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Richard Louis Sloane (“Respondent”) with this Court under Md. Rule 19-721(a)(1).1 On November 2, 2021, we designated the Honorable Bibi M. Berry (“hearing judge”) of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to conduct a hearing and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The hearing judge held an evidentiary hearing on May 23 and 24, 2022. In an opinion dated August 5, 2022, the hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated the following Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”): 19-303.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions); 19- 303.2 (Expediting Litigation); 19-303.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal); 19-303.4(c) and (d) (Fairness to the Opposing Party and Attorney); 19-304.4(a) (Respect for Rights of Third Persons); and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct).

We concur and indefinitely suspend Respondent from the practice of law in Maryland with the right to apply for reinstatement after six months. I. Findings of Fact We summarize the hearing judge’s factual findings, which were established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 17, 2003. At all relevant times, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in 1 Md. Rule 19-721(a)(1) provides: “Upon approval or direction of the Commission, Bar Counsel, on behalf of the Commission, shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the [Supreme Court].” Montgomery County, Maryland.

His practice focused on employment law, family law, civil litigation, and mediation. A. Background On January 11, 2018, Sarah Deneroff, through Mandy Miliman, Esq., filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against Daniel Kolat, in which she sought custody of their two minor children, child support, alimony, and division of marital property.2 On February 9, 2018, Ms. Miliman requested discovery from Mr. Kolat. On March 1, 2018, Respondent entered his appearance on behalf of Mr. Kolat and filed an answer to the complaint. At Respondent’s request, Ms. Miliman agreed to extend the deadline to respond to discovery to April 25, 2018.

However, Respondent failed to timely provide responses to the outstanding discovery, allowing the deadline to pass. As a result of the discovery violation, on April 26, 2018, Ms. Miliman cancelled the mediation scheduled for May 16, 2018 and, instead, noted Mr. Kolat’s deposition for that day. On April 30, 2018, Ms. Miliman wrote to Respondent, stating that if she did not receive Mr. Kolat’s completed discovery responses by the end of the week, she would “be forced to file a motion with the court.” On May 8, 2018, Respondent and Ms. Miliman attended a scheduling hearing. After the hearing, the circuit court issued a Scheduling Order, setting discovery deadlines of July 31, 2018 for custody and child support matters, and March 8, 2019 for remaining issues.

The Scheduling Order set a pendente lite hearing on child support and access for August 2 Deneroff v. Kolat, Case No. 150496FL. 2 10, 2018, as well as a merits hearing on January 8 and 9, 2019. The same day as the scheduling hearing, Ms. Miliman served Respondent with a Motion to Compel and Request for Attorneys’ Fees and filed a copy with the circuit court. Shortly before May 16, 2018, Ms. Miliman cancelled Mr. Kolat’s deposition, requesting that it be rescheduled because she still had not received discovery responses and her grandmother had recently passed away. In his response to Ms. Miliman, Respondent expressed his condolences and then stated, “[i]t’s a shame – worse, in fact – that your insatiable greed continues to waste resources that could benefit our clients’ children.” Mr. Kolat’s deposition was ultimately rescheduled for July 10, 2018.

On June 6, 2018, the circuit court granted Ms. Miliman’s Motion to Compel and ordered Respondent to satisfy outstanding discovery responses within ten days. The circuit court reserved ruling on Ms. Miliman’s request for attorney’s fees. On June 15, 2018, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman his discovery responses, to which Ms. Miliman spent “hours sorting, indexing, and labeling” because they were disorganized, missing documents, contained duplicates, and lacked labels or categorizations as required under Md. Rule 2-422(d).3 Additionally, Respondent objected to nineteen interrogatories, including standard form interrogatories and slight variations thereof, as “overly broad and unduly burdensome[]” even when they were “straightforward” and sought “simple and 3 Maryland Rule 2-422(d)(1)(B) requires a party to produce discovery materials “in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable.” 3 relevant information.”4 Respondent also asserted a “physician/patient” privilege, which does not exist under Maryland law. On June 18, 2018, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman the Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories.

On June 22, 2018, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman the Defendant’s First Set of Document Requests and also requested dates in July for Ms. Deneroff’s deposition. Ms. Miliman advised that she was not available in July, but provided several dates in August on which she was available. Respondent did not reply or note Ms. Deneroff’s deposition. On June 28, 2018, Ms. Miliman filed a Motion for Sanctions, Request for Attorney’s Fees, and Request for a Hearing based on Mr. Kolat’s deficient discovery responses.

On July 10, 2018, Ms. Miliman took Mr. Kolat’s deposition. During the deposition, Respondent provided Ms. Miliman with a copy of Mr. Kolat’s prior discovery responses, which had not been supplemented, claiming that the “alleged error ha[d] been cured.” Respondent requested that Ms. Miliman withdraw her pending motion, asserting that it was moot. Ms. Miliman disagreed. Respondent “engaged in obstructionist behavior by making baseless objections [and] speaking objections, [as well as] answering for Mr. Kolat[.]”5 4 Respondent frivolously objected to interrogatories regarding employment; bank account information; assets and liabilities; treatment for health conditions; expenses; and parental attributes and weaknesses. 5 Black’s Law Dictionary defines “speaking objection” as “[a]n objection that contains more information (often in the form of argument) than needed by the judge to sustain or overrule it.” Objection, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (emphasis added); see Md. Disc.

Guideline 9(d) (“Objections in the presence of the witness which are used to suggest an answer to the witness are presumptively improper.”). 4 Respondent also “encouraged Mr. Kolat’s refusal to respond to Ms. Miliman’s reasonable inquiries[.]” As a result, Ms. Miliman ended the deposition after an hour. Thereafter, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman on July 12, 2018, requesting dates for Ms. Deneroff’s deposition and discovery responses. In her reply, Ms. Miliman advised that she was unwilling to schedule Ms. Deneroff’s deposition until she took Mr. Kolat’s deposition again and the court ruled on her Motion for Sanctions. Ms. Miliman further stated that Respondent’s discovery requests were not properly served, but she would provide an update regarding discovery within the next week.

On July 18, 2018, Ms. Miliman filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, based on Respondent’s and Mr. Kolat’s obstructive behavior during the deposition. On July 31, 2018, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman a Notice of Oral Deposition and Deposition Duces Tecum to depose Ms. Deneroff on August 29, 2018 and also sent seventy-five document requests regarding custody-related matters, despite discovery on those matters being closed. The following day, Ms. Miliman reiterated that she would not attend the deposition, pending a ruling on her motion by the circuit court. Then, on August 3, 2018, Ms. Miliman filed a Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition, Motion for Protective Order, Motion to Quash Subpoena, and Request for Attorney’s Fees, requesting that Mr. Kolat’s deposition be scheduled before Ms. Deneroff’s deposition.

On August 8, 2018, Ms. Miliman served Ms. Deneroff’s Answers to Interrogatories. On August 9, 2018, she provided a link to Ms. Deneroff’s document production. That same day, Respondent filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion for Sanctions, Request for Attorney’s Fees, and Oppositions to Ms. Deneroff’s pending motions. In his motions, 5 Respondent claimed that Ms. Miliman refused “to respond timely and fully” to his discovery requests, and that she was unwilling to attend Ms. Deneroff’s deposition.

Pursuant to Md. Rule 2-431,6 Respondent certified that his good-faith efforts to resolve the discovery dispute occurred on “July 10, July 12, July 23, August 1, and August 3, 2018.” On September 6, 2018, Respondent filed a “Renewed and Amended” motion that parroted his August 9, 2018 Motion to Compel. Ms. Miliman filed her opposition on September 13, 2018, including a request for attorney’s fees. On September 21, 2018, the Honorable Cynthia Callahan held a hearing on Ms. Miliman’s pending discovery motions. Respondent deflected blame to Ms. Miliman, arguing that the “hearing boils down to [] the pot calling the kettle black.” Judge Callahan described Respondent’s conduct during the deposition as “a complete and total disregard of what the laws say and what the rules say and what the rules governing behavior of lawyers say.” Judge Callahan described Respondent’s objections to discovery as “not legitimate.” During the hearing, the parties rescheduled the depositions of Mr. Kolat and Ms. Deneroff for October 4, 2018 and October 9, 2018, and Judge Callahan “ordered that the depositions take place at the courthouse in case court intervention was required.” Judge Callahan further ordered Mr. Kolat to reproduce all discovery by October 1, 2018 and pay $5,000 in attorney’s fees to Ms. Miliman.

Judge Callahan noted that she could “use [Md. 6 Under Md. Rule 2-431, a court may decline to consider a discovery dispute, “unless the attorney seeking action by the court has filed a certificate describing the good faith attempts to” resolve the dispute with opposing counsel and “certifying that they are unable to reach agreement on the disputed issues. The certificate shall include the date, time, and circumstances of each discussion or attempted discussion.” 6 Rule] 1-341 as the basis of” her ruling,7 but, in exercising her discretion, she opted to use Md. Rule 2-433(d)8 instead. On September 30, 2018, Respondent provided some of the outstanding discovery materials, which contained similar frivolous objections and assertions as his June 15, 2018 production. As a result, Ms. Miliman filed her Second Motion for Sanctions and Request for Attorney’s Fees on October 4, 2018.

That same day, Ms. Miliman took Mr. Kolat’s deposition at the circuit court. The second deposition proceeded the same way as the first with Respondent making speaking objections9 and instructing Mr. Kolat not to answer questions about his own bank statements. As a result, Ms. Miliman contacted Judge Callahan, who explained the distinction between discovery and trial objections to Respondent. Undeterred, Respondent made approximately 277 objections during Mr. Kolat’s second deposition, many of which lacked a “discernible basis.” On November 9, 2018, Judge Callahan held a hearing on the outstanding motions.

Anne Laynor, Esq., appeared on Ms. Miliman’s behalf during the hearing because Ms. Miliman was on maternity leave. Respondent sought Ms. Deneroff’s certified driving record and diary, but Judge Callahan denied his request. Judge Callahan did not view the 7 Under Md. Rule 1-341(a), the circuit court may order a party who “maintain[s] . . . any proceeding [] in bad faith or without substantial justification” to pay the adverse party’s costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees. 8 Md. Rule 2-433(d) authorizes a court, after granting a discovery motion, to order a party, their attorney, or both to pay the moving party’s reasonable costs and expenses. 9 The hearing judge listed the following examples: assumes facts not in evidence, mischaracterizes testimony, and document speaks for itself. 7 driving record as relevant and noted that an in camera review would be “the only practical way” to produce the diary if it was relevant. Judge Callahan denied Respondent’s August 9, 2018 motion as moot and granted his September 6, 2018 motion in part, ordering that the parties exchange additional financial documents and copies of their social media posts.

Judge Callahan reserved ruling on attorney’s fees and ordered that the parties provide “an accounting of amounts and source of funds for fees and other costs through November 30, 2018[.]” On November 15, 2018, Ms. Laynor emailed documents to Respondent pursuant to Judge Callahan’s order, and, upon Respondent’s request, supplemented them on November 26, 2018. On November 30, 2018, Ms. Laynor filed a Supplemental Memorandum in support of her October 4, 2018 motion, which included an itemization of attorney’s fees. That same day, Respondent filed an Amended Affidavit of Fees and Costs, but his accounting did not indicate the source of funds. He filed the accounting on December 31, 2018.

On December 27, 2018, Respondent filed a Motion to Continue, seeking to postpone the custody merits hearing scheduled for January 8 and 9, 2019. On December 28, 2018, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman and Ms. Laynor inquiring about their availability for a continuance hearing. Both Ms. Laynor and Ms. Miliman emailed Respondent to clarify whether the circuit court asked for their availability. Respondent answered: “Yes.” On December 31, 2018, Ms. Miliman contacted chambers to provide her availability for the alleged continuance hearing, but was advised that the court had made no such request.

Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman stating that “[she] misunderstood[,]” and that “[he] never 8 was guaranteed a hearing.” Ms. Miliman opposed the continuance, and the court denied Respondent’s motion. Following the custody merits hearing, the circuit court awarded sole legal custody to Ms. Deneroff and shared physical custody to both parties. On January 25, 2019, the Honorable John M. Maloney conducted a hearing to address Ms. Miliman’s outstanding requests for interim fees and sanctions. That morning, Respondent filed: (1) a Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion for Sanctions, Request for Attorney’s Fees, and Request for a Hearing; (2) an opposition to Ms. Deneroff’s motion for sanctions; and (3) an Emergency Motion to Consolidate Motions for Attorney’s Fees.

In the renewed motion, Respondent asserted that he made “at least” five good-faith attempts to resolve the discovery disputes. Respondent also argued that Judge Callahan “concluded that [Ms. Deneroff’s] motions were a colossal waste of time [] and . . . ordered that [Ms. Deneroff] make herself available to be deposed.” Respondent claimed that Ms. Deneroff had failed to produce her certified driving record or diary. According to Respondent, Judge Callahan “opined that [Ms. Deneroff’s] diary should be subject to an in camera inspection[.]” Respondent also indicated that he had “renew[ed] [his] request for this in camera inspection[,]” despite never previously filing such a request. Lastly, Respondent erroneously stated that Maryland law recognizes a physician-patient privilege.

Respondent requested that Judge Maloney consider his renewed motion in light of his emergency motion, in which he requested that the circuit court consolidate and consider “both parties’ respective motions for attorney’s fees in a single hearing.” After Respondent claimed that a case manager advised him to file the emergency motion, Judge Maloney called the case manager into the courtroom to get clarification on the situation. When 9 questioned, the case manager stated that she did not instruct Respondent to file an emergency motion. Judge Maloney declined to consider Respondent’s motions, but allowed him to orally oppose Ms. Miliman’s pending motions. During the January 25, 2019 hearing, Respondent misrepresented the case’s history.

He asserted that Judge Callahan opined that Ms. Deneroff’s diary should be subject to an in camera review and that she found Ms. Deneroff had engaged in a “scorched earth approach” during discovery. Judge Maloney noted that Respondent’s claims were “quite a leap[]” and found his “behavior at the deposition pretty reprehensible” and without “any justification whatsoever[.]” Judge Maloney ordered Mr. Kolat to pay Ms. Miliman $5,000 in attorney’s fees and another $5,000 in interim attorney’s fees. On February 14, 2019, Spencer M. Hecht, Esq., co-counsel for Mr. Kolat, withdrew Respondent’s emergency motion. Issues of marital property remained outstanding following the custody hearing.

On March 4, 2019, Ms. Miliman contacted Mr. Hecht, and they agreed to exchange the documents needed to complete the Joint Statement of Marital and Non-Marital Property under Md. Rule 9-207 (“Joint Statement”).10 However, the document exchange did not occur because Mr. Hecht withdrew as co-counsel on March 22, 2019. 10 Md. Rule 9-207(a) provides: “When a monetary award or other relief pursuant to Code, Family Law Article, § 8-205 is an issue, the parties shall file a joint statement listing all property owned by one or both of them.” Md. Rule 9-207(b) provides the form for joint statements, Md. Rule 9-207(c) governs timing and related procedures, and Md. Rule 9- 207(d) governs sanctions. 10 On March 25, 2019, Ms. Miliman emailed Respondent a draft Joint Statement, requesting that Respondent provide his client’s information and advising that she would file her own Joint Statement if she did not receive Respondent’s input. On March 29, 2019, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman, requesting an inventory of Ms. Deneroff’s credit card points, but he did not address the Joint Statement. Later that day, Ms. Miliman filed Ms. Deneroff’s portion of the Joint Statement with a line advising the court that Respondent failed to respond to her request for a draft Joint Statement. Respondent filed his own Joint Statement, and, without Ms. Miliman’s consent, altered Ms. Deneroff’s information.

For example, he listed items as marital property which had been listed as non-marital property. On May 3, 2019, Magistrate Holly A. Whittier held a settlement conference and directed the parties to file a Joint Statement by July 12, 2019. On May 28, 2019, Respondent filed a Renewed and Amended Motion for Sanctions and Request for Interim Attorney’s Fees, which “reiterated the same frivolous arguments and misstatements” made in his withdrawn emergency motion from January 25, 2019. Ms. Miliman opposed the motion and requested attorney’s fees.

On June 20 and 27, 2019, Ms. Miliman emailed Respondent concerning the Joint Statement, but received no response. Respondent did not address the Joint Statement until July 7, 2019, when he emailed Ms. Miliman a copy of the Joint Statement that he had filed on March 29, 2019, and listed changes to his client’s portion of the Joint Statement. On July 8, 2019, Ms. Miliman incorporated Mr. Kolat’s information into the draft and emailed it to Respondent for review and signature. On July 10, 2019, Respondent returned a signed Joint Statement for filing, but he had altered Ms. Deneroff’s information by changing 11 property descriptions and removing items.

Ms. Miliman responded by sending an unaltered Joint Statement and advised Respondent that it was only appropriate for him to alter Mr. Kolat’s information. Respondent did not answer. Thereafter, Ms. Miliman filed a separate Joint Statement on July 15, 2019. Again, Respondent filed a separate Joint Statement altering Ms. Deneroff’s portion without Ms. Miliman’s consent.

On July 19, 2019, the Honorable Sharon V. Burrell held a hearing regarding Respondent’s Renewed and Amended Motion for Sanctions and Interim Attorney’s Fees, which he filed on May 28, 2019. Respondent argued that Ms. Deneroff had “ongoing and blatant deficiencies,” the circuit court had deemed Ms. Deneroff’s prior motions “moot or otherwise improper,” the circuit court scheduled Ms. Deneroff’s deposition because she refused to cooperate, and Ms. Deneroff had not produced her diary. Judge Burrell determined that Respondent misrepresented “what’s happened in this court.” Judge Burrell found that Ms. Deneroff had provided all outstanding discovery and that Respondent failed to properly request an in camera review of the diary by filing a motion. Judge Burrell denied Respondent’s motion and ordered Mr. Kolat to pay Ms. Miliman’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,350.

On or about September 12, 2019, the parties settled all outstanding matters. B. Procedural History On November 1, 2021, Petitioner filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action with this Court. On November 2, 2021, we referred the matter to the Honorable Bibi M. Berry of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Respondent was served on January 20, 2022 and filed his Answer to the Petition for Disciplinary or 12 Remedial Action on February 4, 2022, in which he denied violating the MARPC.

The hearing judge held an evidentiary hearing on May 23 and 24, 2022. Petitioner called Ms. Miliman to testify and presented evidence which the court admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 70. Respondent testified on his own behalf and called Marc Hershkowitz, John DeLeo, David Schoenholtz, and Towanda Brown as character witnesses. Respondent presented letters from two additional character witnesses, Katina N. Grays, Esq., and Raphael J. Cohen, Esq., which were admitted by stipulation as part of Respondent’s Exhibits.

Respondent also called Ms. Deneroff. The hearing judge issued her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on August 5, 2022. Petitioner filed its Recommendation for Sanction on September 22, 2022, urging that Respondent be disbarred. Respondent filed Recommendations and Exceptions to Findings and Conclusions of Law, recommending a six-month suspension.

On October 7, 2022, Respondent filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s Recommendation, and Petitioner filed a Response to Respondent’s Exceptions.

II

Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law The hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated the following MARPC: 19-303.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions); 19-303.2 (Expediting Litigation); 19-303.3(a)(1) (Candor Toward the Tribunal); 19-303.4(c) and (d) (Fairness to the Opposing Party and Attorney); 19-304.4(a) (Respect for Rights of Third Persons; and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct). 13 III. Standard of Review “In attorney discipline proceedings, ‘this Court has original and complete jurisdiction and conducts an independent review of the record.’” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. O’Neill, 477 Md. 632, 658 , 271 A.3d 792, 807 (2022) (citation omitted). Respondent filed exceptions, which requires this Court to “determine whether the findings of fact have been proved by” clear and convincing evidence. Id., 271 A.3d at 807 (citing Md. Rule 19- 740(b)(2)(B) and Md. Rule 19-727(c)).

This Court “shall give due regard to the opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of witnesses.” Md. Rule 19- 740(b)(2)(B). Additionally, we review factual findings for clear error and will not disturb them where they are supported by “any competent evidence[.]” O’Neill, 477 Md. at 658, 271 A.3d at 808 (citation omitted). We review de novo the hearing judge’s legal conclusions. Id. at 658–59, 271 A.3d at 808 (citing Md. Rule 19-740(b)(1)).

IV

Discussion Respondent filed numerous exceptions under Md. Rule 19-728(b)11 to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Petitioner filed none. We address Respondent’s exceptions below. 11 Md. Rule 19-728(b) provides: Within 30 days after service of the notice required by section (a) of this Rule, each party may file (1) exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the hearing judge, (2) recommendations concerning the appropriate disposition under Rule 19-740(c), and (3) a statement of costs to which the party may be entitled under Rule 19-709. 14 A. Exceptions to the Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact 1. Respondent’s Requests for an In Camera Review The hearing judge found that Respondent “intentionally misrepresented the history of the case” by misrepresenting Judge Callahan’s statements regarding the in camera review.

The hearing judge also found that Respondent had not requested an in camera review of Ms. Deneroff’s diary before he “renew[ed]” his request on January 25, 2019. Respondent asserts that he requested an in camera review “at least four times”: in open court on November 9, 2018 and July 19, 2019, and in motions filed on January 25, 2019 and May 28, 2019. The question is whether Respondent requested an in camera review before January 25, 2019. Respondent neither requested an in camera review during the November 9, 2018 hearing, nor did he file a motion requesting an in camera review thereafter.

Respondent’s exception to this finding also fails to address the central issue, which is that he falsely asserted that Judge Callahan stated that an in camera review was needed. Therefore, we overrule this exception because the hearing judge had an adequate evidentiary basis to conclude that Respondent had not filed a request for an in camera review before January 25, 2019. 2. Respondent’s “Speaking Objections” The hearing judge found that Respondent made “speaking objections” during Mr. Kolat’s deposition on October 4, 2018. Respondent excepts to this finding and argues that he did not make “speaking objections” and, if he did, they were not numerous.

During Mr. Kolat’s first deposition on July 10, 2018, Respondent made a myriad of speaking objections, which Mr. Kolat assumed substituted for his own answers or he parroted in his 15 responses. Respondent made similar speaking objections during Mr. Kolat’s second deposition on October 4, 2018. Accordingly, we overrule this exception because the hearing judge had a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that Respondent reprised the same obstructive tactics during Mr. Kolat’s second deposition. 3. Ms. Miliman’s August 3, 2018 Motion to Strike Deposition and Related Motions In Ms. Miliman’s August 3, 2018 motions, she indicated that before additional depositions were scheduled, court intervention was needed because the discovery deadline had passed, Mr. Kolat’s discovery responses were deficient, and Respondent had exhibited “hostile” and “aggressive” behavior during Mr. Kolat’s first deposition on July 10, 2018.

The hearing judge found that Respondent behaved in a “hostile” manner during Mr. Kolat’s first deposition. Respondent takes exception to this finding, arguing that none of the other judges that he appeared before while representing Mr. Kolat had found that he exhibited hostile behavior. Additionally, the hearing judge found that Ms. Deneroff had agreed to have her deposition taken, but Ms. Miliman wanted to take Mr. Kolat’s deposition first. Respondent asserts that Ms. Deneroff did not “agree” to have her deposition taken; rather, Judge Callahan ordered her to do so.

Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, there is evidence reflecting that he exhibited hostile behavior. On May 28, 2018, after learning that Ms. Miliman’s grandmother had passed away, Respondent emailed Ms. Miliman: “It’s a shame – worse, in fact – that your insatiable greed continues to waste resources that could benefit our clients’ children.” Additionally, Respondent’s obstructive behavior during the Kolat depositions and his 16 deflection of responsibility for his actions are evidence of the hostility he demonstrated toward Ms. Miliman. Furthermore, Ms. Miliman never opposed scheduling Ms. Deneroff’s deposition. Ms. Miliman wished to take Mr. Kolat’s deposition first because Respondent’s obstructive behavior compelled her to prematurely end Mr. Kolat’s first deposition.

Judge Callahan scheduled both parties’ depositions to avoid “any difficulties down the road[,]” which rendered Ms. Miliman’s Motion to Strike moot because she received her requested relief. Therefore, the hearing judge had a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that Respondent acted in a “hostile” manner, and that Ms. Miliman agreed to schedule Ms. Deneroff’s deposition. 4. Respondent’s Initial Discovery Production on June 15, 2018 The hearing judge found that Respondent’s document production on June 15, 2018 was in a “state of disorganization” because it was missing documents and labels. Respondent argues that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the production was “missing documents” or disorganized.

Respondent further asserts that, even if his initial production was deficient, he had supplemented his responses. Ms. Miliman “credibly” testified during the evidentiary hearing that Mr. Kolat’s initial production “was a document dump . . . just completely scrambled[,]” and, as a result, required hours of sorting. The hearing judge was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, and we defer to her findings. Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Miller, 467 Md. 176, 195 , 223 A.3d 976, 987 (2020); Md. Rule 19-740(b)(2)(B).

It is immaterial whether Respondent “supplemented” his discovery responses because this finding concerns his initial production on June 15, 2018. Assuming, arguendo, that Respondent’s “supplements” are relevant, Judge Callahan 17 stated that Respondent’s “supplements” were nonresponsive. Accordingly, we overrule Respondent’s exception because the hearing judge had a sufficient evidentiary basis to find that Respondent’s initial production was deficient and disorganized. B. Conclusions of Law The hearing judge found that Respondent violated the following MARPC: 19-303.1; 19-303.2; 19-303.3(a)(1); 19-303.4(c) and (d); 19-304.4(a); and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d).

We agree and, for the most part, overrule Respondent’s exceptions. 1. MARPC 19-303.1 – Meritorious Claims and Contentions MARPC 19-303.1 provides: An attorney 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,[12] which includes, for example, a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. An attorney may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the moving party’s case be established. The hearing judge found that Respondent violated MARPC 19-303.1 through his motions and arguments during hearings.

Specifically, the hearing judge found that Respondent’s August 9, 2018 motion was frivolous because he failed to properly serve his discovery requests, and he inquired about outstanding discovery before it was due.13 The hearing judge found that Respondent’s September 6, 2018 and January 25, 2019 motions were 12 Black’s Law Dictionary defines “frivolous” as “[l]acking a legal basis or legal merit; manifestly insufficient as a matter of law.” Frivolous, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). 13 Although there is no evidence that Respondent properly served Ms. Miliman with his discovery requests, Ms. Miliman did not raise the issue before the circuit court and, instead, acknowledged that she would respond to discovery. 18 frivolous because he “failed to make any effort to resolve any perceived discovery dispute[,]” and falsely certified that he made “at least five” such efforts. The hearing judge also found that, even after Judge Callahan addressed the issue, Respondent argued that Ms. Deneroff failed to produce a certified copy of her driving record and diary in his January 25, 2019 and May 28, 2019 motions and during the July 19, 2019 hearing. The hearing judge further ruled that Respondent falsely asserted, once more, that he made “at least five” good-faith efforts to obtain outstanding discovery, despite not having communicated with Ms. Miliman or Ms. Laynor. Lastly, the hearing judge found that Respondent asserted in the July 19, 2019 hearing that Ms. Deneroff failed to produce her driving record or diary.

Respondent excepts to this finding. He argues that Ms. Miliman’s late discovery responses justified his August 9, 2018 motion. Respondent also contends that Md. Rule 2- 431 does not prohibit good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes before the thirty-day deadline. Respondent argues that his September 6, 2018 Renewed and Amended Motion to Compel was not frivolous and was granted in part because Ms. Miliman failed to provide timely or complete discovery responses.

Respondent maintains that his January 25, 2019 Renewed Motion to Compel, May 28, 2019 Renewed and Amended Motion for Sanctions, and arguments during the July 19, 2019 hearing were appropriate because he sought documents related to the Yeshiva of Greater Washington (“Yeshiva”), Mr. Kolat’s employer. Respondent asserted that Ms. Miliman failed to fully produce documents she received from Yeshiva pursuant to a subpoena that she had issued to them. Those missing documents included three paystubs and Mr. Kolat’s W-2s from 2016 and 2017. 19 We agree with the hearing judge. Respondent’s conduct is similar in kind, if not in quantity, to the attorney in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mixter, 441 Md. 416 , 109 A.3d 1 (2015).

In that case, the hearing judge found that the attorney filed sixty-two frivolous motions to compel or hold in contempt against non-party witnesses based on invalid subpoenas. Id. at 442 , 109 A.3d at 17 . The attorney falsely asserted that the subpoenas were served “on or about” the date they were issued, rather than providing an actual date of service. Id., 109 A.3d at 17 .

Additionally, the hearing judge found that the attorney falsely certified in fifteen cases that he engaged in good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes because he failed to make such efforts, the filings were premature, or he otherwise failed to comply with the Maryland Rules. Id. at 453 , 109 A.3d at 24 . Here, Respondent’s efforts to resolve the alleged discovery dispute in his August 9, 2018 and September 6, 2018 motions occurred while Ms. Miliman still had time to respond. Therefore, similar to the certifications in Mixter, there was no discovery dispute to resolve and any “efforts” to do so during that time were premature.

Respondent did not communicate with Ms. Miliman concerning any deficiency raised in his September 6, 2018 motion. He repeated his baseless claims of making “at least” five good-faith efforts in his subsequent motions. Thus, like the attorney in Mixter, Respondent made frivolous certifications under Md. Rule 2-431. Respondent’s focus on documents related to Yeshiva is unavailing because Judge Callahan and Judge Burrell stated that Mr. Kolat had access to those records.

There was no legal basis for Respondent to raise the issue of Ms. Deneroff’s driving record and diary after Judge Callahan ruled on the matter. He also attempted to “renew[]” a request for an in camera review in his January 25, 2019 motion, despite never 20 previously filing any such request. Therefore, we overrule this exception and hold that Respondent violated MARPC 19-303.1. 2. MARPC 19-303.2 – Expediting Litigation MARPC 19-303.2 provides: “An attorney shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.” Comment 1 provides, in relevant part: “Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” Comment 1 further provides that “[t]he question is whether a competent attorney acting in good faith would regard the course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay.” We have found MARPC 19-303.2 violations where an attorney delayed a case, “did very little to advance his own client’s claim[,]” “totally failed to participate in discovery[,]” and filed “meritless motions.” Mixter, 441 Md. at 512–13, 109 A.3d at 59 .

The hearing judge found that Respondent violated MARPC 19-303.2 when he filed frivolous motions, obstructed Mr. Kolat’s depositions, and failed to cooperate during discovery. Respondent did not except to this finding. We concur with