230 A.3d 30
Md.2020Background
- Attorney Arlene A. Smith-Scott (admitted 2012) filed a personal Chapter 11 bankruptcy (2014) that was converted to Chapter 7 after the bankruptcy court found repeated violations (unauthorized use of rental income, failure to file reports, commingling, noncompliance with court orders) and appointed a Chapter 7 trustee. She pursued repeated motions and appeals in federal and bankruptcy courts, many without standing and frequently unsupported by facts.
- The trustee and courts found Smith-Scott willfully disobeyed multiple orders (turnover, vacate premises), was held in civil contempt, refused to vacate law-office premises until marshals intervened, and was denied discharge in adversary proceedings.
- Separately, Bar Counsel prosecuted multiple client matters (Crystal Combs, Angela Plater, Furrah Deeba, Benjamin Thomas Jr., John Thomas Jones Jr., Theresa Saunders) alleging failures: missed hearings, failure to prosecute appeals, improper billing, retention/misuse of client funds, nondisclosure of fees to the bankruptcy court, and disclosure of client-confidential emails.
- The hearing judge found numerous rule violations (competence, diligence, communication, fees, confidentiality, trust accounting, candor to tribunals, fairness, truthfulness, cooperation with disciplinary authorities, misconduct), and Bar Counsel sought disbarment.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed for clear and convincing evidence, sustained most findings (including Rule 1.15 trust-account violations after accepting Bar Counsel’s exceptions), found pervasive intentional dishonesty and misappropriation, and imposed disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bar Counsel) | Defendant's Argument (Smith-Scott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Competence, diligence, communication (Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4) | Smith-Scott repeatedly failed to appear, missed deadlines, filed inadequate or frivolous pleadings, and concealed case status from clients, harming clients’ matters. | She claimed inexperience, personal/emotional/health issues, and that failures were negligent rather than intentional. | Court held clear and convincing evidence of violations: failures to appear, prosecute appeals, and communicate violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4. |
| 2. Trust-account and fee handling (Rules 1.5, 1.15, 19-404, 1.16) | Smith-Scott failed to deposit unearned client funds into trust accounts, charged a client’s card for disputed amounts, billed inconsistently with agreements, and refused or inadequately refunded unearned fees. | She claimed billing errors, poor management (not intentional misappropriation), and disputed amounts were owed. | Court held she violated Rules 1.5, 1.15, 19-404 and 1.16: unearned fees were not held in trust, unauthorized charges occurred, and refunds were not made. |
| 3. Candor to tribunals and truthfulness (Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 8.1) | She filed numerous frivolous motions/appeals, made known false statements to bankruptcy and district courts and to Bar Counsel, and disobeyed court orders obstructing administration of the estate. | She argued good-faith litigation strategy and believed she had grounds; raised competency/recusal and constitutional claims. | Court found numerous knowing false statements and frivolous filings, failure to correct falsehoods, and obstruction: violations of Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1 and 8.1. |
| 4. Overall misconduct and sanction (Rule 8.4; appropriate discipline) | Aggregation of deceit, misappropriation, pattern of misconduct, false statements to Bar Counsel, and contempt support the most severe sanction. | Smith-Scott urged lesser sanction (reprimand) citing no prior discipline and mitigation (remorse, inexperience, personal issues). | Court found aggravating factors (dishonest motive, pattern, multiple violations, false statements, indifference to restitution) outweighed limited mitigation and ordered disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Trye, 444 Md. 201 (2015) (self-representation does not excuse obligations to expedite litigation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kane, 465 Md. 667 (2019) (serial bankruptcy filings used to delay creditors violate Rule 3.1)
- Vanderlinde v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 364 Md. 376 (2001) (intentional dishonesty, misappropriation typically warrants disbarment absent compelling mitigation)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. 124 (2005) (misappropriation of entrusted funds is deceitful and normally results in disbarment)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209 (2012) (fee unearned because of failure to perform can make an otherwise-reasonable advance fee unreasonable)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163 (2015) (duty to keep client informed and to deposit unearned funds in trust)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Planta, 467 Md. 319 (2020) (obligation to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and maintain client funds in trust)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Byrd, 408 Md. 449 (2009) (willful disobedience of court orders supports Rule 3.4 violation)
- Owrutsky v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 322 Md. 334 (1991) (attorneys hold highest fiduciary duty over entrusted funds)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Blair, 440 Md. 387 (2014) (advance fee can become unreasonable if attorney fails to perform)