On Wednesday, December 4, 2024, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility issued a report and recommendation concerning attorney Kevin J. McCants, following allegations of misconduct related to his bar membership reactivation applications. The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee concluded that McCants had violated multiple Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended a nine-month suspension from practicing law.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Kevin J. McCants,” with case no. 23-BD-052.
The case against McCants arose when he sought to reactivate his membership in the bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Disciplinary Counsel accused him of falsely denying any prior disciplinary actions by a court. Evidence presented during the hearing indicated that McCants had been disciplined three times: first by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2015, again by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 2019, and once more by the D.C. Circuit in 2021.
The Disciplinary Counsel alleged that McCants failed to disclose this history of discipline in his reactivation applications submitted in 2016, 2022, and 2023, thus violating several Maryland Rules. Specifically, these included knowingly making false statements to a tribunal, failing to disclose prior discipline in connection with bar admission, engaging in dishonesty, and acting in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In response to the allegations, McCants denied wrongdoing, asserting that any inaccuracies in his applications were unintentional mistakes rather than deliberate falsehoods. However, the Hearing Committee found that the Disciplinary Counsel had proven all four rule violations by clear and convincing evidence.
The procedural history of the case began on October 20, 2023, when Disciplinary Counsel served McCants with a Specification of Charges. After McCants filed his answer on November 9, 2023, a hearing was conducted on February 28, 2024. During the hearing, Disciplinary Counsel presented evidence and called witnesses, including the Chief Deputy Clerk of the Maryland federal court and McCants himself. McCants did not call any witnesses in his defense.
The committee determined that McCants’ testimony was inconsistent and often evasive. They noted that he had falsely answered questions on his 2016 reactivation application regarding his disciplinary history, specifically denying that he had ever been disciplined by any court. This claim was contradicted by his prior disciplinary records.
In 2015, McCants received a public reprimand from the D.C. Circuit for representing a client incompetently and failing to maintain proper communication with that client. In 2019, he was suspended for 90 days by the D.C. Court of Appeals, a suspension that was stayed in favor of one year of probation. The D.C. Circuit subsequently imposed reciprocal discipline in 2021.
The committee also highlighted that during his 2022 and 2023 reactivation applications, McCants continued to omit details about his past disciplinary actions. In his 2022 application, while he acknowledged pending disciplinary proceedings, he failed to provide any specifics about his prior suspensions.
In its findings, the Hearing Committee emphasized that the District of Maryland requires complete truthfulness from applicants regarding their disciplinary history to assess their fitness to practice law. It was determined that McCants’ repeated failures to disclose this information undermined the integrity of the application process.
The committee recommended that McCants be suspended from practicing law for nine months, with the stipulation that he must demonstrate his fitness to practice before being reinstated. This recommendation was based on the severity of the violations and the deceptive nature of his applications.
According to avvo.com, Mr. McCants is a criminal defense attorney in Washington, District of Columbia. He acquired his law license in the District of Columbia in 2005.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
