269 A.3d 252
Md.2022Background
- Dawn R. Jackson is admitted in the District of Columbia and New Jersey but not Maryland; she is a partner and administrator of Jackson & Associates, a firm employing Maryland‑barred lawyers.
- Jackson’s former partner Brynee Baylor was the subject of an SEC enforcement action (and later disbarred), which caused severe disruption to Jackson’s practice and personal life beginning in 2011.
- Jackson moved the firm office from D.C. to Upper Marlboro, Maryland in 2014; in June 2015 Senior Assistant Bar Counsel Dolores Ridgell visited the Maryland office and advised safeguards (e.g., state‑limitation disclaimers, a Maryland attorney on staff), which Jackson implemented.
- Bar Counsel opened an investigation in September 2018 after an anonymous complaint; a hearing judge found one Rule 5.5 violation (Jackson signed two court “lines” in 2012 requesting reissuance of summons) but rejected other misconduct claims.
- The Court of Appeals: (1) affirmed that signing the court lines was a technical Rule 5.5(a) violation; (2) held Jackson’s maintenance of a Maryland office violated Rule 5.5(b)(1); but (3) declined to impose discipline because of extensive, unusual mitigating factors, Bar Counsel’s prior knowledge and guidance, and delay — thus dismissing the proceeding with no sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson engaged in unauthorized practice by signing two court “lines” (Rule 5.5(a)) | Bar Counsel: signing and filing court papers is the practice of law; Jackson signed and filed the lines so she violated Rule 5.5(a). | Jackson: the lines were pro forma, required no legal skill, and were signed during chaotic, disrupted times; any act was minor/technical. | Court: signing and filing the lines constituted a technical violation of Rule 5.5(a); finding of violation sustained. |
| Whether Jackson’s ongoing physical presence/office in Maryland amounted to unauthorized practice (Rule 5.5(b)(1)) | Bar Counsel: maintaining an office and practicing from Maryland without Maryland admission violates Rule 5.5(b)(1). | Jackson: her work was limited to D.C. federal matters and administrative tasks; she followed Bar Counsel’s 2015 guidance and had Maryland lawyers on staff. | Court: Rule 5.5(b)(1) prohibits an admitted‑elsewhere lawyer from establishing a systematic in‑state office; Jackson’s Maryland office violated Rule 5.5(b)(1). |
| Whether the federal‑practice exception (Rule 5.5(d)(2)) permits a D.C.‑barred attorney to maintain a Maryland office for D.C. work | Bar Counsel: exception doesn’t cover a D.C. lawyer practicing from Maryland. | Jackson: limiting practice to D.C. law/federal courts means the federal exception should apply. | Court: federal‑practice exception doesn’t extend to practicing D.C. law from Maryland; exception inapplicable. |
| Appropriate sanction given violations, Bar Counsel’s prior guidance, and delay | Bar Counsel: recommended disbarment (then indefinite suspension) if exceptions sustained; alternatively 60‑day suspension. | Jackson: no sanction or dismissal — pervasive mitigating circumstances, good faith reliance on Bar Counsel advice, and long delay. | Court: substantial mitigating factors (Bar Counsel’s 2015 visit/advice, delay, cooperation, personal hardship) warranted no sanction; case dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) (establishes federal‑law preemption basis for federal‑practice exception)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Maldonado, 463 Md. 11 (2019) (tests for what activities constitute the practice of law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thompson, 462 Md. 112 (2018) (suspension for out‑of‑state lawyer maintaining Maryland presence; sanction comparison)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harris‑Smith, 356 Md. 72 (1999) (30‑day suspension where non‑admitted lawyer maintained Maryland office and engaged in limited practice)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hallmon, 343 Md. 390 (1986) (difficulty of a comprehensive definition of the practice of law)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tatung, 476 Md. 45 (2021) (modern portability and limits of federal‑practice issues; cited for comparison)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Baylor, 443 Md. 229 (2015) (disciplinary proceedings and disbarment of Jackson’s former partner, factual background)