The Rawlings-Blake administration said it had fired Glen Keith Allen, 65, a contract employee who had worked on complex litigation for the city since February. The city began investigating Allen’s background after the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that he had a history of supporting the neo-Nazi National Alliance.
The real story – underreported – behind this is that Glen Keith Allen and his City-side boss George Nilson had both worked at mega-firm DLA Piper during different periods. Allen still (as of August 20) has a Client Protection Fund mailing address at DLA Piper’s Mount Washington office with the Maryland courts for his law license. How a firm like DLA Piper – ironically, headquartered in its Baltimore office just over the City line at the edge of a predominantly Jewish and African-American neighborhood – had a neo-Nazi funder on its payroll is a horrifying mystery.
This well-publicized embarrassment to the city of Baltimore also cost George Nilson his job as city solicitor.
Maryland Lawyers’ Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(e) designates as misconduct the knowing manifestation:
by words or conduct when acting in a professional capacity bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status when such action is prejudicial to the administration of justice, provided, however, that legitimate advocacy is not a violation of this section.
There is a good argument that funding a group like the neo-Nazi National Alliance with one’s personal funds doesn’t constitute action in a “professional capacity.” A Southern Poverty Law Center report indicates that Glen Allen not only acted at various times as an attorney for the National Alliance but on at least one occasion donated $500.00 of his own money to the organization.
The representation of neo-Nazis or an alliance of neo-Nazis does not constitute endorsement of neo-Nazi views; MLRPC 1.2(b): An attorney’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities. However, do donating one’s own funds to neo-Nazis and then acting as their attorney in another context constitute, together, a manifestation of an 8..4(e) violation?
The following comment is offered in my personal, not professional, capacity. I do not see how one can reconcile the Maryland Attorney’s Oath (Md. Code Ann., BO § 10-212) with personal support for the views of Nazism, white supremacy or the German Third Reich:
I do solemnly (swear) (affirm) that I will at all times demean myself fairly and honorably as an attorney and practitioner at law; that I will bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the laws and Constitution thereof, and that I will bear true allegiance to the United States, and that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution, laws and government thereof as the supreme law of the land; any law, or ordinance of this or any state to the contrary notwithstanding.