## Facts

- Craig Kimmel and Robert Silverman were founding partners of a Pennsylvania firm that ran a high-volume automobile warranty (“lemon law”) practice and opened an office in Maryland.
- Neither partner was admitted in Maryland, but the firm provided legal services to Maryland clients through the Maryland office.
- The firm hired a Maryland-admitted attorney, Robin Katz, to establish and run the Maryland office; for most of her employment, she was the only on-site employee.
- Katz had limited experience with contested civil litigation and received no on-site attorney or paralegal support; supervision and staff support were largely remote.
- The partners emphasized increased volume and filings; Katz repeatedly reported being overwhelmed and requested help, but staffing and in-person supervision were not increased during the developing problems.
- The firm relied on a computerized case-management and deadline-tracking system, but Katz—overburdened—failed to input some matters and began missing deadlines.
- Numerous Maryland client matters were dismissed with prejudice (about 47 cases), causing clients to lose their claims.
- Katz concealed the extent of the failures for a period and resigned due to workload and distress.
- After her resignation, the firm discovered disorganized files, hired Maryland attorneys to address remaining matters, and pursued remedial settlements or compensation for affected clients.
- After Katz’s departure, the partners unreasonably delayed responding to at least one client’s inquiries about the status of the client’s matter.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland had disciplinary authority over lawyers not admitted in Maryland who provided or offered to provide legal services in the state through a Maryland office.
2. Whether the partners violated MRPC 5.1 by failing to implement and maintain reasonable supervisory measures and by inadequately supervising Katz given the workload and her experience.
3. Whether the partners violated MRPC 1.4 by failing to keep a client reasonably informed and to respond promptly to reasonable requests for information after Katz resigned.
4. What sanction was appropriate for supervisory and communication violations that caused widespread client harm.

## Decision

- Maryland had disciplinary authority over the respondents under MRPC 8.5(a)(2) because they provided or offered to provide legal services in Maryland; respondents conceded jurisdiction.
- Both respondents violated MRPC 5.1 by failing to ensure reasonable supervisory measures and adequate oversight of the Maryland office and Katz.
- Both respondents violated MRPC 1.4 by unreasonably delaying responses to a client’s inquiries and failing to keep the client reasonably informed.
- The Court imposed indefinite suspension from practicing law in Maryland, with eligibility to apply for reinstatement no sooner than 90 days.

## Legal Principles

- Under MRPC 8.5(a)(2), a lawyer not admitted in Maryland is subject to Maryland discipline when the lawyer provides or offers to provide legal services in the state.
- Under MRPC 5.1, law-firm partners and managers must make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures providing reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to professional-conduct rules.
- MRPC 5.1 requires supervision tailored to the associate’s experience, the jurisdiction’s procedural demands, and the practice’s workload; remote oversight and technological systems do not substitute for effective monitoring and intervention.
- When partners receive warning signs (e.g., repeated requests for help and increasing workload risk), failing to adjust staffing, procedures, or oversight can constitute a supervisory violation, especially when client matters are lost.
- Under MRPC 1.4, lawyers must keep clients reasonably informed and promptly respond to reasonable requests for information, including during staffing transitions and office crises.
- For sanction, widespread client harm and sustained supervisory breakdown are aggravating factors; remedial efforts and lack of prior discipline may mitigate but do not preclude suspension.

## Conclusion

Maryland disciplined out-of-state law-firm partners for a sustained failure to supervise a Maryland associate in a high-volume practice and for delayed client communication after the associate’s departure, imposing an indefinite suspension with reinstatement eligibility after 90 days.


Att’y Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Kimmel, 955 A.2d 269 (Md. 2008)