Show cause hearing held May 5, 2023.

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND*

Misc. No. 29

September Term, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NEO KAMOHELO MONERI FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND

Fader, C.J. Watts Hotten Booth Biran Gould Eaves,

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials JJ. Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic.

2023-06-02 09:21-04:00 Order Hotten, J., dissents.

Gregory Hilton, Clerk Filed: May 31, 2023

* During the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022. * IN THE * IN THE MATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT APPLICATION OF NEO * KAMOHELO MONERI FOR OF MARYLAND ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF * MARYLAND Misc. No. 29 * September Term, 2022 *

ORDER

The Court having considered the favorable recommendations of the Character

Committee for the Seventh Appellate Judicial Circuit and the State Board of Law

Examiners concerning the application of Neo Kamohelo Moneri for admission to the Bar

of Maryland, it is this 31st day of May 2023, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, a majority

of the Court concurring,

ORDERED that the favorable recommendations of the Character Committee for the

Seventh Appellate Judicial Circuit and State Board of Law Examiners are accepted, and it

is further

ORDERED that the applicant shall be admitted to the Bar upon taking the oath

prescribed by the statute.

/s/ Matthew J. Fader Chief Justice IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

Misc. No. 29

September Term, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NEO KAMOHELO MONERI FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND

Fader, C.J. Watts Hotten Booth Biran Gould Eaves,

JJ.

Dissent to the Order by Hotten, J.

Filed: May 31, 2023 Attorneys enjoy a distinct position of trust and confidence that carries the significant responsibility and obligation to be caretakers for the system of justice that is essential to the continuing existence of a civilized society. Each attorney, therefore, as a custodian of the system of justice, must be conscious of this responsibility and exhibit traits that reflect a personal responsibility to recognize, honor, and enhance the rule of law in this society.

Md. Att’ys’ Rules of Prof. Conduct App’x 19-B (emphasis added).

Respectfully, I dissent from the majority. I am not persuaded that Mr. Moneri has

demonstrated the requisite character and fitness to practice law in Maryland. The conduct

reflected in the record suggests a self-centered and reckless disregard for the property

interests of others, the law and legal process.1 Such traits are inconsistent with the requisite

character and fitness to practice law.

We expect attorneys who practice law to exemplify the highest virtues of character,

honesty, and integrity. Those qualities serve as the underpinnings for our profession and

have been the hallmark of the careers of many distinguished members of our Bar. Matter

of Knight, 464 Md. 118, 120–21, 211 A.3d 265, 266 (2019) (“No attribute in a lawyer is

more important than good moral character; indeed, it is absolutely essential to the

preservation of our legal system and the integrity of the courts.” (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted)). The practice of law is a privilege. This privilege is a sacred trust,

the acceptance of which is accompanied by a measure of responsibility. Attorneys are

entrusted with safeguarding client funds, confidences, the responsibility to comply with the

law and timely adhere to court appearances. See, e.g., Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Ficker,

1 In its Report and Recommendation, the Character Committee recognized that Mr. Moneri knew what “he was doing . . . to be wrong,” but believed he could “negate the wrongfulness of [his] conduct[]” by “remedy[ing] [his] wrongdoing quickly[.]” 477 Md. 537, 566, 271 A.3d 227, 244 (2022) (citation omitted) (“Competent representation

. . . requires the attorney’s presence at any court proceeding for which he or she was

retained, absent an acceptable explanation for that attorney’s absence.” (emphasis added)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Jones, 428 Md. 457, 469, 52 A.3d 76, 83 (2012) (“It has been our long-held . . . position that the

entrustment to [attorneys] of the money and property of others involves a responsibility of

the highest order, and further, that [a]ppropriating any part of those funds to their own use

and benefit without clear authority to do so cannot be tolerated.” (emphasis added)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

On the day the Court scheduled the hearing to consider Mr. Moneri’s application

for admission, he appeared an hour late, presenting no excuse or explanation for his

tardiness. During his remarks to the Court, he acknowledged appreciation for the wrongful

nature of his conduct yet offered no excuse or explanation for it. What a disappointing

reflection regarding the importance of respecting the privilege to practice law. One can

hope that Mr. Moneri dedicates himself to ensuring that the behaviors which caused

concerns regarding his character and fitness to enter this noble legal profession, do not

repeat themselves. Only if he takes this humbling moment to heart and practices law

consistent with the high standards applicable to this profession, will he do well.

Accordingly, I dissent.

2