Misconduct In Attorney’s Own Divorce Warrants Disbarment

Disbarment was imposed by the Maryland Court of Appeals for an attorney’s  series of falsehoods in her own divorce

There is a saying, sometimes attributed to Abraham Lincoln, that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. A corollary, perhaps, is that such a client has a lawyer who may be blinded by self-interest to the standards of professional conduct. This case concerns an attorney who represented herself for a time in her own divorce litigation, and who made some unfortunate choices that included misrepresentations to the court, a mortgage lender, and others, and the deceptive alteration of draft settlement documents for her own advantage. As a result, she loses her license to practice law in Maryland.

Her husband was incarcerated from 2002 to 2005. The attorney held his power of attorney.

The Commission alleged that Ms. Trye had fraudulently re-titled the property to encumber it with loans for her own benefit. Based on the testimony of both Mr. and Ms. Trye, the hearing judge concluded that they were both trying to re-finance the Idylwood Road property at a time when Mr. Trye was in prison and that the POAs and title transfers were related to that effort. The hearing judge concluded that there was no evidence of fraud on Ms. Trye’s part in the creation of the POAs and the deeds – in particular, that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the transfer of title to the Idylwood Road property to Ms. Trye alone was fraudulent.

The court found a number of other falsehoods and dishonest conduct.

In the divorce

The hearing judge found that Ms. Trye knowingly made false statements to the circuit court during the June 6, 2013 hearing. Specifically, Ms. Trye misrepresented to the court that she had not receive subpoenaed documents from E-Mortgage Corporation and that she did not subpoena documents from Bank of America. In addition, Ms. Trye purposefully failed to comply with discovery requests and discovery orders and purposefully failed to comply with the court’s order to attend the deposition on July 19, 2013. 

The court declined to find that she had violated Rule 4.2 in the divorce based on the broader consequences of such a finding

From the time she filed her divorce case in June 2012 through August 2013, Ms. Trye represented herself in that case. Throughout 2013, Mr. Hamburg represented Mr. Trye in the divorce litigation. Although she was aware that Mr. Trye had retained counsel, Ms. Trye sent several text messages and spoke with Mr. Trye on numerous occasions regarding the divorce case. The hearing judge found that she did so, even after Mr. Hamburg requested that she terminate direct communication with his client about the litigation. The hearing judge specifically referred to the meeting that Ms. Trye initiated with Mr. Trye on October 3, 2013 when she gave him the envelope with altered settlement drafts. Ms. Trye does not appear to deny that she communicated with Mr. Trye without the presence of his counsel. Rather, she argues that the communications that took place were authorized by Mr. Hamburg – or at least did not come within the category of subjects that Mr. Hamburg had forbidden her to discuss with his client.

The court found the instance cited by the hearing judge did not violate the Rule

We decline…to find a violation of MLRPC 4.2 on a somewhat different ground [than consent of the attorney]. The only specific incident cited by the hearing judge to illustrate how Ms. Trye had violated Mr. Hamburg’s instruction not to communicate directly with his client about the divorce litigation was her meeting with Mr. Trye on the evening of October 3, 2013. At that meeting, she talked with Mr. Trye about the divorce and gave him the signed documents to take to court the next day. But, by that time, Ms. Trye had retained Mr. Butler for the case and presumably was no longer representing herself – i.e., she was no longer acting in a representational capacity that is the premise of MLRPC 4.2. Thus, finding a violation of MLRPC 4.2 based on the October 3 meeting alone would suggest that an individual who is a member of the bar, even when not acting in a representational capacity in a case, is restricted from directly communicating with other parties who are represented by a lawyer.

Such a holding could have significant consequences beyond this case. Direct communication between parties, without the intermediation of their lawyers, is often a bad idea, regardless of whether any of the parties is a lawyer. On the other hand, direct communication between the principals – leaving the lawyers out of the room – is sometimes the path to settlement of a dispute. Under the principle implicitly embraced by the hearing judge, the latter option would never be available if one or more of the parties happened to be a member of the bar, even if not acting in that capacity in the dispute. We hesitate to say that Rule 4.2 always forbids such communication.

…the issue has not been briefed in this case and the record is not clear on whether, and to what extent, Ms. Trye continued to act as an attorney in her divorce case after Mr. Butler entered the case. We do not further resolve the application of MLRPC 4.2 here, but decline to find a violation of that rule on this record. At the end of the day, our disposition of this charge does not affect the disposition of this case.

It matters not because

Ms. Trye’s false statements in the circuit court, which were part of a pattern of dishonesty and intentional misrepresentation, warrant disbarment. Ms. Trye made multiple intentional misrepresentations, including misrepresenting the Idylwood Road property as her primary residence on a loan modification application, misrepresenting her compliance with discovery during a court hearing, and misrepresenting the basis for her knowledge of a client’s military status. Most egregiously, Ms. Trye deceitfully attempted to alter the agreed custody terms of a settlement agreement and consent order and conceal the alteration from the opposing party for her own advantage.

Disbarment is ordinarily the appropriate sanction for intentional dishonest conduct.

(Mike Frisch)