A Great-Niece

The Maryland Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended a non-admitted attorney with the right to seek reinstatement in 90 days

Mr. Trezevant, an attorney who lives in Washington, D.C., is not admitted to the Maryland Bar. Beginning in March 2021, Mr. Trezevant represented his great-niece in her child’s custody case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Mr. Trezevant did not inform the attorney that he replaced that he was not barred in Maryland. Mr. Trezevant appeared at a hearing without advising the court that he was not licensed to practice law in Maryland, and without seeking admission pro hac vice. In subsequent communications with opposing counsel and in a later circuit court proceeding, Mr. Trezevant knowingly and intentionally claimed, falsely, that he had orally moved for admission pro hac vice at the prior hearing, and that his motion had been granted. He then falsely told Bar Counsel that he had never practiced law in Maryland and that he had made his role clear to the court in the child custody case.

The Supreme Court of Maryland concluded that an indefinite suspension with the right to petition for reinstatement in 90 days was the appropriate sanction.

The great niece was fourteen when she gave birth.

Unauthorized practice

We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Trezevant violated Rule 5.5(a). Although it is impossible to “craft an all-encompassing definition” for the practice of law, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jackson, 477 Md. 174, 200–01, 200 n.11 (2022) (cleaned up), there can be little doubt that an attorney does so where an attorney agrees to provide legal representation to a client, and then appears in court and communicates with opposing counsel and advocates on the client’s behalf. Making arguments on behalf of a client in open court requires legal knowledge and skill and is the quintessential practice of law.

Candor to tribunal

We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Trezevant twice violated Rule 3.3(a)(1). First, “he appeared at the April 1[ ] hearing on behalf of C.A. and intentionally omitted, with the intent to deceive, the fact that he was not licensed to practice law in Maryland.” Second, he appeared at the May 3 hearing and “knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to Judge Bailey that Magistrate Paliath granted his oral motion to appear pro hac vice during the April 1[ ] hearing.” As should be clear by now, Mr. Trezevant was not admitted to the Maryland Bar and was not specially admitted during the April hearing.

Sanction

With Harris-Smith, Hunt, and Mooney in mind, we conclude that Mr. Trezevant’s unauthorized practice of law, misrepresentations to the court, opposing counsel, and Bar Counsel, together with the presence of the aggravating factors described above, warrant an indefinite suspension with the right to petition for reinstatement after 90 days.

(Mike Frisch)