Background
Julian Arnold Haffner, an attorney licensed in Maryland, was found to have violated the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Rules of Professional Conduct. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed a petition for disciplinary or remedial action against Haffner, seeking a 60-day suspension pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-737(f), which governs reciprocal discipline imposed on Maryland attorneys who have been disciplined by another jurisdiction or tribunal.
The Supreme Court of Maryland issued an order to show cause, and both parties submitted responses. The proceeding was handled as a corresponding discipline matter, meaning Maryland imposed sanctions mirroring those warranted by the underlying USPTO violations rather than conducting an independent evidentiary hearing on the merits.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland ordered that Haffner be suspended from the practice of law in Maryland for 60 days, to be followed by one year of probation. The discipline was imposed as corresponding discipline for his violations of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Court directed the Clerk to provide notice of the order in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761, which governs notification procedures when an attorney is disciplined.
Key Takeaways
- Maryland imposed reciprocal discipline on an attorney sanctioned by the USPTO, resulting in a 60-day suspension followed by one year of probation.
- The proceeding was initiated under Maryland Rule 19-737(f), the mechanism for corresponding discipline when a Maryland lawyer is disciplined by another jurisdiction or professional tribunal.
- The order serves as a reminder that USPTO disciplinary findings can trigger separate state bar consequences for patent practitioners licensed in Maryland.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates that attorneys who practice before federal agencies such as the USPTO remain subject to discipline not only by that agency but also by the state bars in which they are licensed. A sanction imposed by a federal tribunal can set off a chain of reciprocal proceedings in every state where the attorney holds a license.
For patent practitioners in Maryland, the decision underscores the importance of compliance with USPTO ethics rules, as violations can result in dual exposure — federal agency discipline plus state suspension and probationary terms that directly affect the attorney’s broader law practice.