Background
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland brought disciplinary proceedings against Keith Ryan Havens, a Maryland attorney, based on alleged violations of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and related Maryland Rules. The parties ultimately reached agreement and submitted a joint petition proposing a negotiated sanction.
The violations at issue included Rules 19-301.1 (competence), 19-301.3 (diligence), and 19-301.15 (safekeeping property), as well as Maryland Rules 19-407 and 19-408, which govern attorney trust account record-keeping and prohibited transactions. The joint petition proposed a six-month suspension stayed in favor of one year of probation under agreed terms and conditions.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland accepted the parties’ joint petition and ordered that Havens be suspended from the practice of law in Maryland for six months. The court stayed that suspension for a period of one year, subject to the terms and conditions of the parties’ probation agreement.
The court further ordered Havens to pay $1,135.30 to the Attorney Grievance Commission within ninety days of the order as reimbursement for the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. Justice Gould did not participate in the matter.
Key Takeaways
- The court imposed a six-month suspension but stayed it entirely in favor of a one-year probationary period, reflecting the parties’ negotiated resolution.
- Violations spanned competence, diligence, and trust account obligations — Rules 19-301.1, 19-301.3, 19-301.15, 19-407, and 19-408.
- Havens must reimburse the Commission $1,135.30 in costs within 90 days as a condition of the order.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the Supreme Court of Maryland’s willingness to accept negotiated, stayed suspensions in attorney discipline cases where the parties agree on terms and probationary conditions provide adequate protection of the public. The stayed sanction preserves the attorney’s ability to practice while holding a more severe consequence in reserve should probation terms be violated.
The combination of trust account rule violations (Rules 19-407 and 19-408) with core competence and diligence failures signals that the underlying conduct likely involved client fund mismanagement alongside neglect — a pattern that Maryland courts treat seriously even when mitigating circumstances support a negotiated outcome.