Attorney Grievance Commission v. Trye
118 A.3d 980
| Md. | 2015Background
- Shauntese Curry Trye, admitted to Maryland Bar in 2003, represented herself for much of her 2012–2015 divorce; disciplinary petition filed by Attorney Grievance Commission on Aug 1, 2014.
- Core factual allegations: (1) false statements in divorce court and in discovery (failed to produce subpoenaed documents; missed a court-ordered deposition); (2) altered a draft settlement agreement/consent order to give herself primary physical custody without opponents’ consent; (3) made false statements to mortgage servicers about a property being her primary residence to obtain loan modifications; (4) misrepresented the basis for a former client’s military status on a district-court affidavit; and (5) failed to file federal/state tax returns for multiple years.
- A circuit judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and found, by clear and convincing evidence, multiple intentional misrepresentations and discovery abuses; some findings (e.g., military-status assertion) were adjusted on appeal.
- The Court reviewed the hearing judge’s legal conclusions de novo, accepted central credibility findings, and held Trye violated several Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Primary sanction: disbarment, premised on a pattern of intentional dishonesty (loan application misrepresentations, false court statements, deceptive alteration of settlement documents), plus failure to file tax returns supporting misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commission) | Defendant's Argument (Trye) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trye violated MLRPC 3.2 and 3.4 by failing to comply with discovery and missing a court-ordered deposition | Discovery noncompliance and failure to appear for deposition obstructed litigation and warranted rule violations | She represented herself (no separate client) and offered excuses (mistaken deposition time, partial compliance) | Violations of 3.2 and 3.4 upheld: attorney not excused when self‑represented; hearing judge’s credibility findings deferred to |
| Whether Trye violated MLRPC 3.3 (candor toward tribunal) by making false statements to the court | Repeated knowing false statements to the divorce court violated candor obligations | Claimed faulty memory and later correction | Court found knowing misrepresentations; 3.3(a)(1) & (4) violated (Commission’s exception granted) |
| Whether Trye violated MLRPC 4.2 by communicating with a represented party (her husband) | Commission: she continued direct communications after opposing counsel instructed her not to, including the surreptitious delivery of altered settlement drafts | Trye: some communications were authorized by opposing counsel or were outside forbidden subjects; she also had counsel by October 3 | Majority declined to find 4.2 violation on the record (fact that she had retained counsel complicates rule’s application); concurrence would have sustained violation |
| Whether Trye violated MLRPC 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (including tax nonfiling) | Her multiple intentional misrepresentations to lenders, counsel, and the court, alteration of settlement docs, and prolonged failure to file tax returns reflected dishonesty and prejudiced the administration of justice | Trye asserted stress from divorce and firm dissolution as mitigating; argued some findings (e.g., military-status basis) were erroneous | Violations of 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) sustained; failure to file tax returns (even without explicit willfulness finding) supported 8.4(d); sanction: disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337 (attorney discovery noncompliance and deposition delays violate MLRPC 3.2 and 3.4)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Culver, 381 Md. 241 (failure to attend court-ordered deposition violates MLRPC 3.2)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Van Dusen, 443 Md. 413 (MLRPC 3.3 directed at attorneys acting in representation; rule can apply when attorney is self-represented)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 440 (attorney self-representation does not exempt candor obligations to tribunal)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mixter, 441 Md. 416 (intentional misrepresentation to opposing counsel violates MLRPC 4.1 and bears on 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. O’Leary, 433 Md. 2 (text-message communications with represented party can violate MLRPC 4.2)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 434 Md. 658 (sending communications about a pending matter to a party represented by counsel violates MLRPC 4.2)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jordan, 386 Md. 583 (personal false submissions to third parties can violate MLRPC 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586 (misrepresentations in personal affairs violate MLRPC 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barton, 442 Md. 91 (false statements to a tribunal violate MLRPC 8.4(c))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 695 (intentional inducement and concealment by an attorney can violate 8.4(c) and 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523 (repeated misrepresentations undermine public confidence and violate 8.4(d))
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565 (disbarment appropriate for intentional dishonest conduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 391 Md. 33 (pattern of dishonesty supports disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Fader, 431 Md. 395 (disbarment after repeated false statements and false evidence)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Seltzer, 424 Md. 94 (disbarment for false statements, false documents, and other misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guberman, 392 Md. 131 (creation of false records and misrepresentations warranted disbarment)