## Facts

- Bradford Jay Barneys was admitted in the District of Columbia, New York, and Connecticut, but was not admitted to practice law in Maryland.
- In August 1996, he opened a law office in Maryland and used professional materials that did not disclose jurisdictional limits, leading others to believe he was authorized to practice in Maryland.
- During 1997–1998, he practiced law in Maryland, including representing clients in Maryland courts without Maryland admission or pro hac vice authorization.
- In a separate episode, he assisted a client, Santiago Sanchez, in obtaining release on a $150,000 bond by dealing with a bail-bond company.
- Barneys led the bail-bond company to believe he represented Sanchez in a workers’ compensation matter and promised to withhold $15,000 from an expected settlement to pay the company if it posted the bond.
- He did not inform the lawyer actually handling the workers’ compensation matter of the promised payment arrangement.
- The settlement proceeds were paid to Sanchez without any withholding; the bail-bond company did not receive the $15,000.
- Sanchez failed to appear for trial, and the bail-bond company forfeited the $150,000 bond.
- The bail-bond company’s complaint triggered disciplinary proceedings alleging unauthorized practice, misleading communications, and dishonesty.

## Issues

1. What sanction is appropriate for an out-of-state lawyer who knowingly engaged in a sustained course of unauthorized practice in Maryland while holding himself out as authorized.
2. Whether dishonest misrepresentations to a third party in connection with a bail-bond arrangement, causing substantial financial loss, warrant disbarment rather than a lesser sanction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland imposed disbarment.
- The court accepted the hearing judge’s findings that Barneys committed all charged violations, including unauthorized practice and related misrepresentations.
- The court rejected the requested lesser sanction (a temporary bar on seeking Maryland admission), finding it inadequate given the seriousness, duration, and harm.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney discipline is primarily protective: it aims to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession and the administration of justice.
- Knowingly operating a Maryland law office, holding oneself out as authorized, and appearing in Maryland matters without admission constitutes serious unauthorized practice and supports severe sanctions.
- Misrepresentations to third parties concerning representation, settlements, or promised payments violate duties of truthfulness and may constitute dishonest conduct warranting disbarment, especially when they cause substantial financial harm.
- A repeated course of unauthorized practice and dishonesty is treated more severely than an isolated lapse; remorse does not outweigh sustained misconduct and significant harm.

## Conclusion

Maryland’s highest court disbarred Barneys because he knowingly and repeatedly practiced law in Maryland without admission, held himself out as authorized, and engaged in dishonest misrepresentations in a bail-bond transaction that caused major financial loss and undermined confidence in the legal profession.


Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Barneys, 370 Md. 566, 805 A.2d 1040 (Md. 2002)