192 A.3d 656
Md.2018Background
- Respondent Jeneba Jalloh Ghatt (Maryland bar) allowed her firm’s Citibank attorney trust account to serve as the designated escrow for transactions orchestrated by Strategic Capital / Zion Capital; she executed two escrow agreements (one for a $500,000 deposit) but did not personally verify a promised “sub-account.”
- James Yates wired $500,000 to the Ghatt Law Group trust account as an advance fee to secure financing for Grove Plaza, LLC; Ghatt shortly thereafter wired almost all of those funds out (to Strategic Capital and Zion Capital) and kept only a small remainder.
- Ghatt sent a “Confirmation of Deposit” and a “Letter of Authorization” asserting she had personally verified a Citi Private Bank sub-account containing the funds; no such sub-account existed and she never confirmed it with Citibank.
- When Yates demanded return of funds after the loan failed to fund, Ghatt provided misleading statements and a screenshot implying the funds (or linked assets) existed and threatened withdrawal of complaints as a condition of release; she also misled Bar Counsel with a similar screen capture and delayed production of bank records.
- The hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Ghatt misused the trust account (commingling and unauthorized disbursements), made intentional misrepresentations to a tribunal and to Bar Counsel, and otherwise violated multiple MLRPC rules and Maryland statutes; the Court of Appeals independently reviewed and affirmed those conclusions and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Attorney Grievance) | Defendant's Argument (Ghatt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ghatt violated MLRPC 1.15 (safekeeping/property; commingling; improper disbursements) | Ghatt failed to verify the promised sub-account, disbursed trust funds to unauthorized recipients, used the trust account for personal withdrawals, and did not account for funds. | Ghatt insisted she acted under the express escrow agreements and followed instructions from Strategic Capital; she claimed she was misled and not initially complicit. | Court held Ghatt violated MLRPC 1.15(a),(b),(d),(e); commingling and prohibited transactions also established. |
| Whether Ghatt violated MLRPC 3.3 (candor to tribunal) by her disclosures in Utah litigation | Bar Counsel: Ghatt knowingly made false statements that she never controlled the funds and that Citibank was responsible for returning them. | Ghatt claimed lack of knowledge and reliance on others, and that she was not in control. | Court held Ghatt knowingly made false statements to the Utah court and violated MLRPC 3.3. |
| Whether Ghatt violated MLRPC 8.1 (false statements in disciplinary matters) | Bar Counsel: Ghatt submitted misleading screenshots and delayed/failed to produce requested bank records, falsely claiming funds were available in her account. | Ghatt said screenshots came from her brother’s linked account and she lacked access; she disputed culpability. | Court held Ghatt violated MLRPC 8.1 by making false statements and failing timely to provide records. |
| Whether Ghatt engaged in misconduct under MLRPC 8.4 and violated Maryland trust statutes (BOP §§ 10‑306, 10‑606) | Bar Counsel: Ghatt engaged in deceit, misappropriation of entrusted funds, and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice. | Ghatt argued absence of intent to defraud and requested a reprimand. | Court held Ghatt violated MLRPC 8.4(a)–(d) and BOP §§ 10‑306/10‑606; misconduct and misuse of trust money established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Joseph, 422 Md. 670 (judge may adopt a party’s proposed findings if they reflect the judge’s independent findings)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376 (intentional dishonesty and misappropriation ordinarily warrant disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Cherry‑Mahoi, 388 Md. 124 (misappropriation of entrusted funds warrants disbarment absent compelling circumstances)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Johnson, 409 Md. 470 (attorney who signs documents undertaking fiduciary duties assumes responsibility to safeguard funds)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185 (absence of prior discipline is generally not compelling mitigation against disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Jacobs, 459 Md. 291 (purpose of sanction is protection of the public and confidence in the profession)