In re: Mark Anthony Key

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 12

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-9502

In re: MARK ANTHONY KEY,

Respondent.

On Notice to Show Cause Before the Fourth Circuit Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline.

Argued: January 28, 2026 Decided: July 28, 2026

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Suspension from practice imposed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Anthony Key, KEY LAW OFFICE, PC, New Hill, North Carolina, as Respondent. Carmen Hoyme Bannon, NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, Raleigh, North Carolina, as Prosecuting Counsel.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 12

PER CURIAM:

This matter comes before this Court’s Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline on

Notices to Show Cause entered on February 15, 2023, and March 10, 2023.

This Court’s first notice to show cause issued at the direction of the Standing Panel

on Attorney Discipline after Respondent Mark Anthony Key failed to timely file required

documents in this Court in multiple cases. Upon receipt of notice that Respondent had been

suspended from practice by the North Carolina State Bar for misconduct unrelated to that

encompassed by the first notice, this Court issued a second notice, ordering Respondent to

show cause why this Court should not impose reciprocal discipline identical to that

imposed by the North Carolina State Bar.

On April 10, 2023, Respondent filed a combined response to the Court’s show cause

notices, by which he requested a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 46(g)(9). Respondent

noted that he had appealed the North Carolina disciplinary order and asked that this Court

refrain from any disciplinary action prior to a decision by the North Carolina Court of

Appeals. This Court placed the matter in abeyance until the completion of all proceedings

in North Carolina. On June 23, 2025, the Court appointed Bar Counsel for the North

Carolina State Bar as prosecuting counsel in this proceeding, issued a briefing schedule,

and directed the Clerk to schedule oral argument.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 3 of 12

I.

A.

On February 15, 2023, this Court issued a notice requiring Respondent to show

cause why he should not be disciplined for failure to timely file required documents in

multiple cases in the Fourth Circuit.

Respondent first came to the attention of the Standing Panel on Attorney Discipline

during his representation of the appellant in United States v. Quentin Tavaris Bryant,

Fourth Circuit No. 22-4590. Respondent filed a notice of appeal in that case on October

18, 2022, and the Clerk’s Office issued a docketing notice the next day requiring the filing

of an appearance form and docketing statement. Respondent failed to file either document,

and the Clerk’s Office issued a follow-up notice on November 16, 2022, reminding

Respondent of his obligation to file the documents, and Local Rule 45 notices on November

22, 2022, and December 8, 2022, warning that the appeal could be dismissed if the

deficiency was not cured. Respondent did not respond.

The Clerk’s Office staff left several messages for Respondent which were not

returned. The final call resulted in a message that Respondent’s voicemail was full. On

January 5, 2023, the Clerk of Court emailed Respondent reminding him of his

responsibility to file an appearance form and docketing statement. On January 9, 2023, the

Clerk’s Office issued a status of counsel notice to both Appellant and Respondent,

requiring return of the status of counsel form no later than January 17, 2023.

Again, Respondent failed to file the required documents. On February 9, 2023, the

Clerk’s Office issued a Local Rule 45 notice to both Appellant and Respondent indicating

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 4 of 12

that the case would be subject to dismissal if the existing deficiencies were not cured. The

appellant, acting pro se, eventually returned the status of counsel forms and new counsel

was appointed under the Criminal Justice Act.

Respondent has a history of failing to file required documents in this Court. United

States v. Miguel Hutchinson, Fourth Circuit No. 21-4570, was dismissed under Local Rule

45 after Respondent failed to file an appearance form and docketing statement, and this

Court issued a notice to Respondent warning of potential attorney discipline under Local

Rule 46 for failure to satisfy fee requirements in United States v. Derrick Lee Daye, Fourth

Circuit No. 23-4028.

B.

On September 30, 2021, the North Carolina State Bar initiated disciplinary action

by filing a complaint against Respondent. A hearing panel of the Disciplinary Hearing

Commission (DHC) of the North Carolina State Bar conducted a seven-day trial beginning

on November 28, 2022. On February 20, 2023, the DHC issued its order finding and

concluding that Respondent had committed multiple violations of the North Carolina Rules

of Professional Conduct, including by engaging in criminal activity consisting of federal

and state tax violations and mortgage fraud, by failing to communicate with a client and

safeguard her confidential information, by displaying disrespect for the court in a criminal

trial, and by making false statements of material fact during the State Bar’s misconduct

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 5 of 12

investigation. 1 The DHC imposed a five-year suspension from practice, set certain

conditions for reinstatement, and provided that Respondent may seek a stay of the balance

of the suspension after three years if he complied with specified conditions.

The parties cross-appealed from the DHC’s disciplinary order, with the Respondent

arguing that the DHC erred in finding any misconduct and the State Bar arguing that the

DHC erred in failing to consider certain aggravating factors when deciding the severity of

discipline to be imposed. In an opinion filed June 18, 2024, the North Carolina Court of

Appeals found no error in the DHC’s findings of misconduct but agreed with the State Bar

that the DHC had erred in determining the appropriate discipline. The Court of Appeals

vacated the portion of the order suspending Respondent’s law license and remanded the

matter to the DHC for further proceedings.

On November 21 and 22, 2024, the DHC conducted post-remand proceedings to

determine the appropriate discipline in light of the Court of Appeals’ opinion. By order

dated February 27, 2025, the DHC entered an order reimposing the same discipline that it

previously ordered, suspending Respondent’s law license for five years, imposing

1 The DHC concluded Respondent had engaged in conduct violating the following North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); Rule 8.4(b) (criminal acts reflecting adversely on the lawyer’s trustworthiness or fitness); Rule 1.15-2(a), (b), (f), (g), (k), (n) (various trust accounting requirements); Rule 1.15-3(d)(1) and (2) (reconciliations of general trust accounts); Rule 1.4(a) and (b) (client communication); Rule 1.6(a) (confidentiality); Rule 1.16(a) and (d) (failure to withdraw when terminated and protect client’s interests upon termination of representation); Rule 3.5(a)(4)(B) (conduct intended to disrupt tribunal); Rule 8.1(a) (failure to respond to inquiry from disciplinary authority); and Rule 8.1(b) (false statements in connection with disciplinary matter).

5 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 6 of 12

conditions for reinstatement, and allowing Respondent to seek a stay of the balance of the

suspension after three years if he complied with specified conditions.

II.

A.

Rule 46(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

A court of appeals may discipline an attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with any court rule. First, however, the court must afford the attorney reasonable notice, an opportunity to show cause to the contrary, and, if requested, a hearing.

This Court’s Local Rule 46(g)(1)(c) further states that a member of the bar of the

Fourth Circuit may be disciplined for “conduct with respect to this Court which violates

the rules of professional conduct or responsibility in effect in the state or other jurisdiction

in which the attorney maintains his or her principal office, the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, the local rules of this Court, or orders or other instructions of this Court.” The

standard of proof in attorney discipline matters is clear and convincing evidence. In re

Liotti, 667 F.3d 419, 426 (4th Cir. 2011).

Respondent claims that he did not receive this Court’s docketing notice or any of

the Court’s subsequent follow-up notices in Bryant. Nor, he says, did he receive the Clerk’s

email reminding him of his responsibilities or any of the voicemails left by Clerk’s Office

staff. With regard to the notices and email, Respondent opines that the Clerk’s Office may

have used an old email address. Court records indicate, however, that at least the Clerk’s

email was sent to the address identified by Respondent as correct.

6 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 7 of 12

Regarding Daye, Respondent notes that he did not file the notice of appeal in that

case and states he was unaware any appeal was pending. In the Hutchinson matter,

Respondent states that, although he filed the notice of appeal, he had informed the

Appellant that he would not represent him on appeal.

Respondent’s office is in North Carolina. Therefore, that state’s rules of professional

conduct apply. Rule 1.3 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct requires that

a lawyer “act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”

This Court’s Local Rule 3(b) provides that “counsel filing a notice of

appeal . . . must complete a docketing statement . . . and file it with the Clerk of the Court

of Appeals within 14 days of docketing of the appeal,” and that failure to do so “will cause

the Court to initiate the process for dismissing a case under Local Rule 45.”

Respondent was obligated to complete and file a docketing statement in the cases

for which he filed a notice of appeal by operation of Local Rule 3(b). Although the court

issues docketing notices pointing out the requirement, the obligation exists independent of

the notice. Accordingly, there is no need for this Court to weigh the credibility of

Respondent’s claims related to whether he received the Court’s notices, the Clerk’s email,

or staff’s voicemails in Bryant and Hutchinson. Respondent’s failure to complete and file

the docketing statements in those cases violated Local Rule 3(b) regardless of whether he

received the docketing notice or any subsequent communication. Respondent’s failure to

complete and file the required documents—the potential penalty for which includes

dismissal of the appeal under Local Rule 45—likewise displays a lack of diligence and

promptness in violation of Rule 1.3 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.

7 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 8 of 12

We conclude that Respondent’s failure to timely file required documents in this

Court constitutes disciplinable misconduct.

B.

We now turn to the question of reciprocal discipline. Rule 46(b)(1)(A) of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “a member of the court’s bar is subject to

suspension or disbarment by the court if the member . . . has been suspended or disbarred

from practice in any other court.” When imposing discipline based on a state court’s action,

we presume that discipline identical to that imposed by the state court is appropriate. 4th

Cir. R. 46(g) (rules of disciplinary enforcement). And although state disciplinary decisions

do not bind federal courts, “they are entitled to great respect.” Wrighten v. United States,

550 F.2d 990, 991 (4th Cir. 1977) (citing In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 547, rehearing denied,

391 U.S. 961 (1968)). Therefore, we will impose the presumptive discipline so long as

three requirements are met: “(1) the state must have given the attorney notice of the charges

and an opportunity to be heard; (2) the evidence must support the findings made; and

(3) there must be no other ‘grave reason’ for ignoring the actions taken.” Id. (citing Selling

v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917)).

Respondent advances two primary arguments, correlating with the first two Selling

requirements—that the process by which the DHC reached its findings of fact and

conclusions of law was so deficient that it deprived him of due process and that the DHC

lacked sufficient evidence to support its conclusions of law. Regarding the final Selling

requirement, Respondent argues that the discipline imposed by the DHC is too harsh and

8 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 9 of 12

that imposition of identical reciprocal discipline by this Court would amount to a grave

injustice.

Respondent’s arguments are unavailing. We begin with the first Selling

requirement—whether Respondent received notice of the charges against him and an

opportunity to be heard. Respondent claims that he was not informed of the identity of the

employees for whom he was accused of failing to pay taxes or of the clients whose

entrusted funds he failed to deliver, and that he had no opportunity to conduct discovery to

clarify the charges against him and prepare for his defense. The record tells a different

story.

Attorney discipline proceedings in North Carolina are conducted by the DHC, a

body created by statute to adjudicate attorney discipline and disability matters. N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 84-28.1 (2025). The DHC is empowered to “hold hearings in discipline, incapacity

and disability matters, make findings of fact and conclusions of law after these hearings,

enter orders necessary to carry out the duties delegated to it by the [North Carolina State

Bar] Council, and tax the costs to an attorney who is disciplined or is found to be

incapacitated or disabled, and comply with the requirements of this Chapter.” Id.

§ 84-28.1(b). Proceedings before the DHC must “conform as nearly as practicable with the

requirements of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and for trial of nonjury civil

cases in the superior courts.” 27 N.C. Admin. Code 1B.0114(a). A notice pleading standard

applies—the State Bar’s complaint must “allege the charges with sufficient precision to

clearly apprise the defendant of the conduct which is the subject of the complaint.” Id. at

1B.0115(b). Discovery is available to the parties according to the North Carolina Rules of

9 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 10 of 12

Civil Procedure, id. at 1B.0115(h), and admissibility of evidence is governed by the rules

of evidence applicable in the superior court of North Carolina, id. at 1B.0114(g).

At argument, Respondent stated that he had no opportunity to conduct discovery

and thus was left without notice of the specific charges against him and without the ability

to launch an adequate defense. In reality, Respondent submitted two sets of interrogatories

and document requests, to which the State Bar responded by providing thorough answers

and producing extensive relevant documents. When pressed, Respondent conceded that the

State Bar had produced certain documents but argued that the State Bar had failed to

respond to any interrogatory beyond objecting on the basis of attorney client privilege,

leaving Respondent unable to ascertain the information he needed related to the identities

of the relevant employees and clients.

Respondent’s characterization of the State Bar’s response to his interrogatories is

belied by the record. The State Bar answered each interrogatory either substantively or with

an objection. The answers and documents produced were sufficient to apprise Respondent

of the identities of the relevant employees and clients. To the extent Respondent believed

the answers to be nonresponsive or incomplete, he could have pursued the matter through

motions practice. He did not.

We are satisfied that Respondent had notice of the charges against him and access

to discovery, of which he fully availed himself. The seven-day DHC hearing, at which

Respondent presented evidence and witnesses, personally testified, and cross-examined the

10 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 11 of 12

State Bar’s witnesses, provided ample opportunity for him to be heard. We find no want of

due process in the DHC’s proceedings. 2

Respondent’s claims related to the sufficiency of the evidence in the DHC

proceedings are equally unconvincing. Far from the “infirmity of proof” that would be

required for this Court to depart from the discipline imposed by the DHC, the record here

is replete with evidence showing Respondent’s misconduct. Selling, 243 U.S. at 51. The

North Carolina Court of Appeals found as much in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion,

which meticulously addressed each of Respondent’s objections to the DHC’s findings and

conclusions. We will not rehash each argument here. Suffice it to say that Respondent has

presented no compelling reason why this Court should reject the conclusions of the North

Carolina court.

Finally, we cannot agree that imposition of identical discipline to that imposed in

North Carolina would work a “grave injustice.” Respondent’s arguments on this point are

premised on the idea that he is, at most, liable for a few misdemeanor violations related to

his failure to timely file his tax returns and minor instances of trust account commingling.

Having rejected that premise, we see no injustice in imposing identical reciprocal

discipline.

2 The Court notes with disapproval Respondent’s inaccurate and misleading statements regarding the State Bar’s answers to interrogatories and observes that a material misrepresentation to the Court during attorney discipline proceedings may constitute an independent violation of the relevant rules of professional conduct rising to the level of disciplinable misconduct. See, e.g., North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions). The Court declines to pursue the matter, however, and does not consider Respondent’s misleading statements as a factor in its decision today.

11 USCA4 Appeal: 23-9502 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/28/2026 Pg: 12 of 12

III.

Upon consideration of the briefing and oral arguments in this matter, we find no

want of due process, infirmity of proof, or other grave reason which would preclude giving

the decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar its

presumptive effect under this Court’s Local Rule 46(g) and the Supreme Court’s decision

in Selling. The Court therefore suspends Mark Anthony Key from practice before the

Fourth Circuit until such time as he is reinstated to practice by the North Carolina State

Bar.

In light of our decision to impose reciprocal discipline suspending Respondent from

practice in the Fourth Circuit, the Court declines to impose additional discipline related to

Respondent’s failure to timely file documents in this Court.

SO ORDERED