A Close Call

The Maryland Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended an attorney

The Supreme Court of Maryland sanctioned an attorney with an indefinite suspension for repeatedly filing retaliatory meritless claims against his ex-wife, her new husband, her attorneys, and judges who ruled against him; filing meritless appeals; repeating failed arguments; and ignoring rulings. Because such actions took place in tribunals in the State of Washington, the Supreme Court found that the attorney’s conduct violated Washington Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions) and 8.4 (Misconduct)

Justice Gould authored the court’s opinion.

Background facts

Mr. Whitted married Lori Jordan in 1985. They had three children, all born between 1993 and 1998.

Mr. Whitted was admitted to the Bar of the State of Maryland on June 21, 1995. Before that, he practiced law in Georgia. He is also admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts. Mr. Whitted currently resides in Montgomery County, Maryland.

The divorce

At some point, the family moved to Fulton County, Georgia. In 2006, Mr. Whitted filed for a divorce in the Superior Court of Fulton County. On November 13, 2007, the court issued a Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce. The court awarded the parties joint legal custody of their children, physical custody to Ms. Jordan, and reasonable visitation to Mr. Whitted. The court ordered Mr. Whitted to pay child support in the amount of $1,735.93 per month and awarded him $55,000 from Ms. Jordan’s 401(k) retirement plan. Mr. Whitted was directed to provide Ms. Jordan with an account into which the retirement funds would be transferred. At that time, Mr. Whitted was employed as an Assistant County Attorney for DeKalb County, Georgia.

Mr. Whitted chronically failed to pay child support, and in 2010, Ms. Jordan asked the Superior Court of Fulton County to hold him in contempt, alleging arrearages of $15,075.26. The court determined that Mr. Whitted owed $12,307.93 and, in addition to his regular monthly payment, ordered him to pay $1,000 per month until the arrearages were fully paid.

Later

In late 2011, Mr. Whitted began working for the Prince George’s County Attorney as an Assistant County Attorney. Meanwhile, in the summer of 2012, the Jordans moved with the children to King County, Washington.

Between 2010 and 2016, Mr. Whitted made no child support payments. On June 14, 2016, Ms. Jordan, through her attorney, Stacey Smythe, filed to register the Georgia divorce decree in the Superior Court of Washington for King County and to collect unpaid child support.

Litigation in Washington State – where he had sued his ex-wife, her present spouse and her lawyers – led to sanctions and declaring him a vexatious litigant.

On May 2, 2018, Mr. Whitted sued Ms. Jordan, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Smythe, Ms. Smythe’s law partner, and Ms. Smythe’s employer in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The court here rejected a host of factual and legal contentions

That no court in Washington specifically and expressly found that Mr. Whitted violated WRPC 3.1 does not matter. First, those cases were not disciplinary matters; thus whether Mr. Whitted violated the WRPC was not at issue. Second, whether he violated this rule is a legal conclusion for this Court to make based on the evidence admitted at the hearing. Third, as shown above, Mr. Whitted was repeatedly sanctioned for frivolous and vexatious litigation.

In sum, having independently examined the record, we find that the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Whitted violated WRPC 3.1 was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The court sustained findings of other rule violations.

Sanction

Whether Mr. Whitted’s conduct merits disbarment is a close call. Mr. Whitted fails to grasp the nature and extent of his misuse of the judicial system that persisted for over a decade in multiple forums. Mr. Whitted has engaged in a relentless pursuit of Ms. Jordan, Mr. Jordan, and Ms. Jordan’s attorneys. Many times, he lost at the trial court level, lost on appeal, and then tried to relitigate the fully adjudicated issues in future proceedings. He has violated multiple court orders, including orders to pay child support and orders to pay sanctions. And he even attempted to relitigate the same matters in this disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Whitted’s conduct shows a disdain for the judicial system. The Commission’s request for disbarment is reasonable.

We note, however, that Mr. Whitted’s conduct, though egregious and harmful, was cabined to his pro se representations. There is no suggestion of misconduct by Mr. Whitted in any professional capacity. That fact, combined with the lack of any prior discipline and his character and reputation, leads us to conclude that although Mr. Whitted should be sidelined, a sanction short of disbarment is warranted. Accordingly, effective immediately, Mr. Whitted is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Maryland.

Oral argument is linked here. (Mike Frisch)