Whether the Due Process Clause requires constitutional procedural safeguards in state bar disciplinary proceedings against attorneys, notwithstanding a court's special relationship with the legal profession

to this Court, especially given the novel position of the Maryland Bar Counsel, i.e., that disciplinary proceedings for lawyers, do not require constitutional due process because of the special relationship between the court and lawyers: Obviously, this theory has no support in the caselaw and, would if accepted by the 4‘ circuit it would raise new constitutional questions. Clearly, there are no guarantees that this matter would be resolved at the federal level by early 2026, but there might be enough clarity to proceed in an informed manner. B. Appellant Exercised Due Diligence This Application was filed with this Court over 10 days prior to what would have been the statutory filing deadline. schedule a proforma hearing before the Maryland Supreme Court within days. -3 WHEREFORE, Applicant Pisner applies to this Court for a sixty (60) day extension, under this Court’s Rule 13.5, from what would be the ninety (90) day deadline (November 18, 2025) for filing a Petition for Certiorari, with this Court, which would be the first business day after January 17, 2026. Respectfully submitted, Lh LET Gary Pisner, Esq. Pro Se 10561 Assembly Dr. Fairfax, VA.22030 Tel:703-597-6447 Fax:1-866-268-1771 E-mail: gpisner@aptes.com CERTIFICATION Applicant Gary Pisner, pro se, has served a copy of this 762-word application on counsel of record—the Maryland Bar Counsel, on November 3, 2025, by mail. E-FILED Gregory Hilton, Clerk, EXHIBIT A Supreme Court of Maryland 7/14/2025 4:11 PM Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gary Pisner, AG No. 23, September Term, 2023. Opinion by Killough, J. ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT -— DISCIPLINE — DISBARMENT -— Respondent Gary Pisner violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), 1.15 (Safekeeping Property), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney), and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). These violations arose from Respondent’s representation of himself in various matters relating to the Marion E. Pisner Revocable Trust in which he engaged in the intentional misappropriation of trust assets, failed to comply with court orders, and engaged in a persistent pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation, causing harm to others, and burdening the judicial system. The Supreme Court of Maryland ordered that Respondent be disbarred.