Attorney Grievance Commission v. Woolery, 175 A.3d 129

Background

Benjamin J. Woolery, an experienced Maryland trusts-and-estates attorney, was appointed personal representative of Roy L. Chambers Jr.’s estate, whose sole asset was a 1.95-acre residential property.
The decedent’s five adult children were in dispute: the “Bowman Camp” favored selling the property; the “Nicodemus Camp” (including Thomas Chambers) sought possession. Family conflict complicated administration.
On April 25, 2014, while securing the property to effect a sale, Woolery found a Kubota tractor and backhoe in a shed, did not determine ownership or value, and sold the equipment on the spot for $500 to a surveyor. No sale documentation was created.
Thomas Chambers owned the equipment (purchased in 2004 for $15,200). He promptly provided proof of ownership and sought return; Woolery made no effort to recover the equipment, citing perceived rent owed by Thomas to the estate and personal antipathy.
Thomas sued in District Court and obtained a $9,700 judgment against the estate. Woolery’s final accounting offset Thomas’s share and pursued estate fees; Bar Counsel filed disciplinary charges alleging breaches of MLRPC.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Woolery violated MLRPC 1.1 (competence) by selling estate property without ascertaining ownership/value and failing to remedy the mistake	Woolery made an uncompetent impulsive sale and then failed to apply his expertise to correct it	Woolery argued the initial sale was an excusable mistake and denied professional misconduct	Court held violation of MLRPC 1.1: he had the requisite skill but failed to apply it and to rectify the error
Whether Woolery violated MLRPC 1.3 (diligence) by not promptly attempting to recover the equipment after learning ownership	Bar Counsel: Woolery learned of his mistake promptly and could likely have recovered the equipment if he had acted	Woolery: refusal to act was a defensible strategy because Thomas allegedly owed rent; would have acted differently if owner had been a third party	Court held violation of MLRPC 1.3: failure to make a diligent attempt to recover caused avoidable liability
Whether Woolery violated MLRPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) by selling non‑estate property and not correcting the error	Bar Counsel: sale of non‑estate property and refusal to correct, motivated by antipathy, fell below public standards and prejudiced administration of justice	Woolery: characterized post‑sale refusal as debatable legal strategy and denied wrongdoing; claimed he acted as fiduciary in good faith	Court held violation of MLRPC 8.4(d): conduct and failure to remedy were prejudicial and an abuse of fiduciary discretion
Appropriate disciplinary sanction	Bar Counsel: reprimand appropriate given first offense, character, and context	Woolery: requested dismissal/no sanction	Court imposed reprimand, considered mitigating (reputation, first offense) and aggravating (refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, substantial experience) factors

Key Cases Cited

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McDowell, 439 Md. 26 (review of disciplinary conclusions of law without deference)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 447 Md. 253 (competence and diligence standards under MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips, 451 Md. 653 (violation of one rule can implicate 8.4(a))
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147 (8.4(d) misconduct when public standards breached and failure to correct)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Queen, 407 Md. 556 (purpose of sanctions: protect public and deter)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Weiers, 440 Md. 292 (reprimand as signaling seriousness of rule violations)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. James, 385 Md. 637 (sanction purposes and factors)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stein, 373 Md. 531 (sanction proportionality to nature, gravity, intent)
Beyer v. Morgan State Univ., 369 Md. 335 (personal representative fiduciary duties)