Maryland’s top court will review order directing investigation of Clinton attorneys

On Friday, the Maryland Court of Appeals posted two more certiorari grants. One is Attorney Grievance Commission v. Clevenger. When the trial court ruled in September, Chase Cook of the Capital Gazette described the ruling under review:

Circuit Court Judge Paul F. Harris Jr. ruled Monday after a short hearing in Annapolis that the Attorney Grievance Commission and Office of Bar Counsel Maryland Office of Bar Counsel must investigate attorneys David E. Kendall, Cheryl D. Mills and Heather Samuelson. All three are licensed to practice in Maryland and could face professional sanctions if the commission determines there are guilty of misconduct.

Ty Clevenger, a Texas attorney who lives in New York, filed the complaint, saying they deleted thousands of emails related to a private email server Clinton used during her time as Secretary of State. He argued they engaged in misconduct by destroying evidence.

In granting review, the Court of Appeals bypassed the Court of Special Appeals. The full list of certiorari grants, including questions presented, appears after the jump.

Attorney Grievance Commission, et al. v. Ty Clevenger– Case No. 63, September Term, 2017

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the trial court err in issuing a writ of mandamus directing Petitioner to investigate a complaint against three members of the Maryland Bar where exclusive jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary matters is vested in the Court of Appeals and Bar Counsel has discretion to determine whether an investigation is warranted? 2) Did the trial court err in vacating its prior order sealing the proceedings where Md. Rule 19-711 expressly provides that all attorney disciplinary complaints and investigations are confidential unless and until formal charges are brought against an attorney?

William Louis Kranz v. State of Maryland– Case No. 64, September Term, 2017

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Where the trial court had jurisdiction over Petitioner’s post-conviction petition and rendered a valid judgment from which Petitioner, while he was in custody, sought timely appellate review under MD Code Ann., Crim. Proc § 7-109, did CSA err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal on the basis that it had been divested of appellate jurisdiction, after having granted Petitioner’s application for leave to appeal and appellate briefing was complete, because during the three-year long pendency of his application for leave to appeal Petitioner was no longer imprisoned or on parole or probation?