Attorney Grievance Commission v. Shephard
119 A.3d 765
Md.2015Background
- Tawana D. Shephard, admitted in VA (1993) and DC (2006) but not Maryland, served as "Managing Attorney" at Glenmore Law Firm (Beltsville, MD) while working with a nonlawyer owner and various contract attorneys.
- Shephard opened and was sole signatory on Glenmore attorney trust accounts, oversaw accounting staff, signed retainer letters and "Cease and Desist" letters, and met with Maryland clients; her Maryland Bar application was pending.
- Multiple Glenmore clients paid substantial fees for mortgage-modification and foreclosure-defense services that were not performed, and several fee payments were not deposited into the attorney trust account.
- Shephard claimed limited involvement and relied on a Memorandum describing her as an independent contractor; the hearing judge found she held herself out as the firm’s managing attorney and had managerial responsibilities.
- The hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence violations of numerous MLRPC provisions and Maryland trust-account rules; the Court of Appeals largely affirmed these findings and imposed disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Shephard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shephard violated competence and safekeeping rules by failing to maintain client funds in trust (MLRPC 1.1, 1.15, Md. Rule 16-606.1) | Shephard, as sole authority over trust accounts, failed to ensure unearned fees were deposited into the trust, maintain records, or refund unearned fees. | Shephard argued she instructed staff, attempted corrections, did not personally misappropriate funds, and was an independent contractor not vicariously liable. | Court held she violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.15(a),(c),(d), and Md. Rule 16-606.1; her supervisory role made her responsible. |
| Whether Shephard failed to provide promised services, communicate, and act diligently (MLRPC 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5) | Bar Counsel: Shephard signed retainer letters, met clients, billed fees, but failed to perform or supervise the work and failed to keep clients informed. | Shephard: Clients retained the firm, not her personally; she did not personally perform or control all matters. | Court held she personally held herself out to clients and thus violated 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), and 1.5(a). |
| Whether Shephard violated supervisory rules re: nonlawyer assistants (MLRPC 5.3) and partners (MLRPC 5.1) | Bar Counsel: Shephard had direct supervisory authority over nonlawyer staff handling trust accounts and failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure compliance. | Shephard claimed limited supervisory role and that other attorneys and staff were independent contractors. | Court held she violated 5.3 for failure to supervise nonlawyer assistants; the court declined to find a 5.1 violation because it found insufficient evidence she supervised other lawyers. |
| Whether Shephard engaged in unauthorized practice of law (MLRPC 5.5) and misconduct (MLRPC 8.4(d)) by holding herself out and meeting clients in MD | Bar Counsel: By maintaining an office, meeting clients, signing retainer and demand letters, using Maryland letterhead without disclosure, she practiced in Maryland without admission and misled the public. | Shephard: Her practice was incidental or federal (bankruptcy) and clients retained the firm; she did not perform state-court appearances. | Court held she engaged in unauthorized practice (5.5) and violated 8.4(d) for conduct prejudicial to administration of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barton, 442 Md. 91 (Court’s deference to hearing judge on credibility and supervisory obligations)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kimmel, 405 Md. 647 (managing attorneys must implement supervisory measures; firm responsibility to clients)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Alsafty, 379 Md. 1 (unauthorized practice from holding out as Maryland attorney; disbarment in aggravated cases)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barneys, 370 Md. 566 (disbarment for unlicensed practice plus dishonest conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harris-Smith, 356 Md. 72 (meeting clients in MD and prescreening can constitute unauthorized practice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Johnson, 363 Md. 598 (practicing or advising clients from a Maryland office without state license is unauthorized practice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gage-Cohen, 440 Md. 191 (fee charged for no work is unreasonable; competence and fee rules)
- Zuckerman v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 386 Md. 341 (failure to supervise nonlawyer assistant who handled trust account violates Rule 5.3)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mungin, 439 Md. 290 (mismanagement of trust accounts and being out of trust supports 8.4(d) violation)