229 A.3d 802
Md.2020Background
- Attorney Grievance Commission (Bar Counsel) filed disciplinary charges against Gwyn Cara Hoerauf for misconduct in three client matters; a hearing judge found facts by clear and convincing evidence after Respondent defaulted and did not participate.
- Lyles/Simmons matter: Hoerauf agreed to appear for a flat fee, failed to appear (claimed a false emergency), and made repeated untimely and inflammatory responses to Bar Counsel; she entered a Conditional Diversion Agreement but later defaulted after giving false testimony.
- Brown/Goldenberg matter: Hoerauf represented Samuel Goldenberg in six related cases for a flat fee, made no written fee agreement, failed to file promised motions (sentence modification; drug treatment), misrepresented that she filed motions, kept returned cash as fee, and failed to secure/return the client’s seized cell phone.
- Ademiluyi/Solomon matter: Hoerauf met privately with the alleged minor victim (K.J.), obfuscated that she represented the accused, encouraged K.J. to avoid cooperating, facilitated K.J.’s retention of another attorney while continuing to share case information, and lied to the circuit court to conceal her involvement.
- Hearing judge concluded Hoerauf violated multiple MLRPC/MARPC rules (competence, scope, diligence, communication, candor, dealing with unrepresented persons, bar‑admissions/disciplinary duties, and misconduct). The Court of Appeals independently reviewed and disbarred Hoerauf, citing numerous aggravating factors (prior discipline, dishonest motive, pattern/multiple offenses, bad‑faith obstruction, long practice experience) and no mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence / diligence / communication (Goldenberg) | Hoerauf failed to file promised motions, did not seek return of property, misrepresented filings, and did not communicate fees or status—violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4. | Hoerauf offered explanations (e.g., filed/mailing claimed; billing/fee disputes); largely failed to provide timely responses or evidence. | Court found clear & convincing evidence of violations of 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a)–(b). |
| Candor to tribunal (Solomon) | Hoerauf knowingly misled the circuit court about her communications with the victim’s counsel and her role in facilitating that relationship—violating candor rule. | Hoerauf told the court she lacked knowledge of prior interactions and denied promises or payments. | Court held she knowingly and intentionally misrepresented facts to the tribunal (MARPC 19‑303.3). |
| Dealing with unrepresented person / victim (Solomon) | Hoerauf met alone with a minor victim, obfuscated that she represented the accused, gained the minor’s trust, and sought to dissuade cooperation—violating 19‑304.3 and misconduct rules. | Hoerauf characterized meetings as investigative or advisory; did not correct the victim’s misunderstanding. | Court held she misled the unrepresented minor and acted to weaken prosecution; violation of 19‑304.3 and 19‑308.4(d). |
| Bar counsel cooperation / false statements (Lyles & Brown) | Hoerauf repeatedly failed to timely respond to Bar Counsel, made false written and sworn statements, and disparaged a complainant—violating 8.1/19‑308.1 and misconduct rules. | Hoerauf claimed emergencies or that she was not retained for certain appearances; otherwise offered no exculpatory proof and defaulted. | Court found violations of 8.1(b)/19‑308.1(b) for non‑response and 8.1(a)/19‑308.1(a) for false statements; misconduct under 8.4/19‑308.4. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642 (standard of review; treatment of hearing‑judge findings and disciplinary standards)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bah, 468 Md. 179 (multiple client infractions and pattern of dishonesty support disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ambe, 466 Md. 270 (attorney must be candid with tribunal; false statements violate candor rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1 (false statements to a tribunal constitute misconduct)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Framm, 449 Md. 620 (violation of one rule supports finding under the general misconduct rule)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gisriel, 409 Md. 331 (dishonesty alone violates Rule governing deceit and misrepresentation)