A four-month suspension imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland was affirmed in an unpublished opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Tristan Wade Gillespie appeals the district court’s order imposing a four-month suspension on his ability to practice law. We will vacate a district court’s disciplinary order “only when the conduct of the district court was irregular or was flagrantly improper.” In re Morrissey, 305 F.3d 211, 218 (4th Cir. 2002). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error because, as the district court concluded, Gillespie made misrepresentations to defendants and to the court in numerous civil actions he filed asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 to 12189. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. In re Gillespie, No. 1:21-mc-00014 (D. Md. Aug. 7, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

The court had vacated and remanded an earlier six-month suspension

We conclude that the district court failed to provide adequate notice to Gillespie of its intent to rely on the adequacy of his communication with, and representation of, his clients as part of its determination of whether to discipline him. Our review of the record reveals that the disciplinary panel first expressed concerns about the scarcity of Gillespie’s communications with his clients at an evidentiary hearing. However, neither the disciplinary panel nor the district court ever explicitly notified Gillespie that this conduct could subject him to discipline. Moreover, given the lack of notice, Gillespie did not have an opportunity to respond to this client-focused charge before the panel’s recommendation. Because “charges [may not be] amended on the basis of testimony of the accused,” In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. at 551, we cannot find harmless the district court’s failure to provide Gillespie with adequate notice that his communications with his clients, or the lack thereof, were a subject of potential discipline.*

From the Report and Recommendation for the six-month suspension

Pending before this three-judge Panel of this Court’s Disciplinary and Admissions Committee (the “Panel”) is attorney Tristan W. Gillespie’s alleged breach of the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct in more than 600 cases filed on behalf of two clients with disabilities. In these cases, Gillespie has sued defendant hotels for failing to provide sufficient
information through on-line reservation systems regarding room and hotel accommodations for patrons with disabilities, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Gillespie’s conduct before this Court and others has prompted this investigation into whether Gillespie has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning candor to the tribunal, the duty to keep his clients reasonably informed, and candor during settlement negotiations. After a full investigation and an evidentiary hearing, the Panel recommends that Gillespie be suspended for six months from the Bar of this Court, with the right thereafter to petition for reinstatement.

The matter drew a one-year suspension and until further order as reciprocal discipline  from the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department.

The severity of respondent’s misconduct warrants a one-year suspension.  Respondent handled hundreds of ADA tester cases in which he repeatedly submitted false fee applications to the Maryland and other federal courts in which he inflated the amount of work he had performed.  In addition, respondent repeatedly made false statements in settlement negotiations with opposing counsel by representing that his clients were entitled to compensation via payments representing attorneys’ fees for which they would otherwise be responsible when such was not the case.  Also, as noted, respondent failed to correct materially inaccurate testimony given by his client to the court in one of the ADA cases.

(Mike Frisch)