On Tuesday, October 14, 2025, a Maine Grievance Commission accepted a stipulated report concerning attorney Mark A. Kearns, resulting in a reprimand and order for reimbursement to a former client. The decision, stemming from a formal disciplinary charge, followed a hearing on September 22, 2025, where Kearns appeared pro se. Deputy Bar Counsel Suzanne E. Thompson represented the Board of Overseers of the Bar.

The case is entitled “Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Mark A. Kearns,” with case no. #24-101.

The case originated from a complaint filed on March 21, 2024, by P.J., a former client of Kearns, who alleged misconduct. The Grievance Commission, after reviewing Kearns’ actions, found probable cause to believe he had violated Maine Bar Rules, leading to the formal disciplinary proceedings.

The core of the complaint involved Kearns’s representation of P.J. in a foreclosure matter that began in 2014. While the foreclosure case concluded with a dismissal stipulation, the underlying debt remained. In 2016, Kearns agreed to represent P.J. in relation to the bank’s continued pursuit of the debt. The situation evolved in May 2020 when P.J., seeking affordable housing, approached Kearns for assistance in drafting a letter for a lender. Kearns then advised P.J. about another client, R.M., who was interested in issuing a private mortgage. Kearns subsequently arranged a private mortgage loan for P.J. with R.M.

The Commission found that Kearns had represented both P.J., the borrower, and R.M., the lender, in the mortgage loan transaction. He charged P.J. a fee for legal work done for both parties, without obtaining informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both clients, a violation of Maine Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7.

Further complicating matters, after P.J. suffered a stroke in January 2021, the original mortgage holder obtained judgments on the enforcement action and P.J.’s counterclaim in August 2022. Kearns filed an appeal, which was denied in May 2023. Subsequently, Kearns informed P.J. that the initial three-year interest rate on her loan from R.M. was expiring and inquired about her ability to make payments. When P.J. asked if R.M. would extend the loan at the same rate, Kearns informed her that R.M. would only extend it at a higher interest rate.

The Commission also found that Kearns initially suggested pursuing specific actions in Federal Court as a contingency plan, but later declined to file any future claims on P.J.’s behalf.

During the investigation, Kearns denied charging a fee for arranging the private loan transaction. However, evidence showed that P.J. was charged one percent of the loan amount ($3300) as a base fee, in addition to other fees exceeding $2,000. The Commission determined these fees were unreasonable, violating M.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a). They also found that Kearns provided false information or failed to disclose necessary facts during the investigation, violating M.R. Prof. Conduct 8.1.

Kearns admitted to violating Maine Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5, 1.7, 8.1(b), and 8.4(a). In addition to the reprimand, the Commission ordered Kearns to reimburse P.J. $2,000 for overcharged attorney fees. The order does not prevent P.J. from pursuing other legal remedies against Kearns.

The Disposition states:

“Accordingly, the Commission accepts the agreement of the parties as modified, including Attorney Kearns’ separately executed waiver of the right to file a Petition for Review, and concludes that the appropriate disposition of this case is a REPRIMAND to Mark A. Kearns, Esq., pursuant to M. Bar R. 13(e)(10)(D) and 21(a)(b).”

According to Avvo.com, Mr. Kearns is an attorney in Huntington Beach, California. He attended the University of Maine School of Law, graduating in 1981. He acquired his law license in Maine in the same year.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.