Dishonesty Draws Maryland Disbarment

The Maryland Court of Appeals further clarified its sanction analysis in cases involving dishonesty in a recent disbarment case

In our recent decision in Attorney Grievance Commission v. Collins, 477 Md. 482, 529-530 (2022), we reexamined when intentional dishonest conduct would warrant disbarment under the standard set forth in Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 367. There, we analyzed AGC cases post-Vanderlinde and observed that disbarment has generally been warranted in cases where intentional dishonest conduct has also been accompanied by “theft, fraud, harm to a client or third party, or the intentional misappropriation of funds.” Id. at 530.

With this in mind, we turn to the specific facts and circumstances of Ms. Proctor’s case. As previously stated, she engaged in conduct involving intentional dishonesty, including lying to her clients, Bar Counsel, and the tribunal. Due to this behavior alone, disbarment is generally warranted. See Hamilton, 444 Md. at 200; Lane, 367 Md. at 647; Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 418. Ms. Proctor’s misconduct directly harmed her clients. Her clients lost claims and defenses due to her serial neglect, paid unreasonable fees, and were deprived of important information necessary to make informed decisions about their cases. Our review of prior attorney misconduct cases informs us that Ms. Proctor’s actions align with the cases in which we have imposed the sanction of disbarment. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McCarthy, 473 Md. 462, 507 (2021) (disbarring an attorney who engaged in self-serving, dishonest behavior that resulted in harm to his client); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Armstrong, 471 Md. 537, 608-09, 612 (2020) (disbarring an attorney who got his client’s case dismissed with prejudice due to the attorney’s failure to respond to discovery, and causing a different client to be deported by missing a filing deadline for asylum); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Miller, 467 Md. 176, 237-38 (2020) (disbarring an attorney who made misrepresentations that resulted in harm to her client); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147, 180 (2010) (disbarring an attorney who harmed his client by concealing that he missed the statute of limitations to file a client’s case).

Ms. Proctor further failed to demonstrate any “compelling extenuating circumstances” to justify a sanction less than disbarment. Collins, 477 Md. at 530; Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 413-14. Her allegations that she was having emotional difficulties as a result of the complaint filed by Ms. Belfast and that the filing affected her representation in her other client matters did not satisfy the standard. Ms. Proctor neither produced any evidence at trial to support this assertion nor did she offer any mitigating factors. See Bonner, 477 Md. at 617. Accordingly, we determine that disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

(Mike Frisch)