Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Trezevant

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. William Francis Trezevant, AG No. 12, September Term, 2022, Opinion by Booth, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – INDEFINITE SUSPENSION Respondent William Francis Trezevant violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) 1.16(a) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.3(a) (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multi-jurisdictional Practice of Law), 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a)–(d) (Misconduct). Mr. Trezevant, an attorney who lives in Washington, D.C., is not admitted to the Maryland Bar. Beginning in March 2021, Mr. Trezevant represented his great-niece in her child’s custody case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Mr. Trezevant did not inform the attorney that he replaced that he was not barred in Maryland.

Mr. Trezevant appeared at a hearing without advising the court that he was not licensed to practice law in Maryland, and without seeking admission pro hac vice. In subsequent communications with opposing counsel and in a later circuit court proceeding, Mr. Trezevant knowingly and intentionally claimed, falsely, that he had orally moved for admission pro hac vice at the prior hearing, and that his motion had been granted. He then falsely told Bar Counsel that he had never practiced law in Maryland and that he had made his role clear to the court in the child custody case. The Supreme Court of Maryland concluded that an indefinite suspension with the right to petition for reinstatement in 90 days was the appropriate sanction.

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No.: C-03-CV-22-003427 Oral Argument waived/submitted on papers IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND AG No. 12 September Term, 2022 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM FRANCIS TREZEVANT Fader, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ. Opinion by Booth, J. Filed: July 7, 2023 * At the November 8, 2022 general election, the Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. amendment changing the name of the Court of 2023-07-07 14:27-04:00 Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022. Gregory Hilton, Clerk The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“the Commission”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“the Petition”) against Respondent, William Francis Trezevant, an attorney not licensed to practice law in Maryland, alleging that he represented his great-niece in child custody hearings in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County without moving for admission pro hac vice, and that he knowingly and intentionally misrepresented his admission status on multiple occasions.

The Commission asserted that Mr. Trezevant violated the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”)1 1.16(a) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.3(a) (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multi-jurisdictional Practice of Law), 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a)–(d) (Misconduct).2 The hearing judge assigned to this matter found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Trezevant committed all of the violations alleged by the Commission. The hearing judge also found the presence of six aggravating factors and one mitigating factor. Bar Counsel recommends a sanction of indefinite suspension with the right to petition for reinstatement in 90 days. Mr. Trezevant never answered the Petition, did not appear at the 1 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, which employed the numbering format of the American Bar Association Model Rules, were renamed the MARPC and recodified without substantive modification in Title 19, Chapter 300 of the Maryland Rules.

For ease of reference and comparison with our prior opinions and those of other courts, we will refer to the MARPC rules using the numbering of the model rules, as permitted by Rule 19-300.1(22). 2 The Petition also charged Mr. Trezevant with violating Rules 1.1 (Competence) and 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney), but those charges were withdrawn. evidentiary hearing, did not file exceptions to the hearing judge’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and waived oral argument before this Court. After considering the matter on the papers, for the reasons stated below, we treat the hearing judge’s findings of fact as established, concur with the hearing judge’s conclusions of law, and impose a sanction of indefinite suspension with the right to petition for reinstatement in 90 days. I Procedural Background The Commission filed the Petition on August 10, 2022. Mr. Trezevant was served with the Petition in September and with interrogatories and a request for production of documents in October.

He did not file an answer and did not respond to Bar Counsel’s discovery requests. Bar Counsel moved for an order of default, which the hearing judge granted. Mr. Trezevant did not move to vacate the order of default. An evidentiary hearing was held on December 9, 2022.

Mr. Trezevant did not appear. The hearing judge deemed the allegations in the Petition admitted pursuant to Maryland Rules 2-613(f) and 19-727(a) and admitted into evidence Bar Counsel’s Exhibits 1–35. Those exhibits included, among other things, the transcripts for two remote hearings attended by Mr. Trezevant in connection with a custody case pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, and communications between Mr. Trezevant and his great-niece’s prior attorney, opposing counsel, and Bar Counsel. The hearing judge considered the evidence admitted at the hearing and issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Neither party filed exceptions. 2 Where no exceptions have been filed, this Court may accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact as established. Maryland Rule 19-740(b)(2)(A). We choose to do so here. Accordingly, we treat as established the following facts, which the hearing judge found to be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

II Findings of Fact This case centers on Mr. Trezevant’s unauthorized representation of his great-niece, C.A., in her child’s custody case in Baltimore County and his communications to Bar Counsel regarding that representation. Mr. Trezevant is an attorney who lives in Washington, D.C. He is not a member of the Maryland Bar. He was admitted to the New York Bar in 1994 and the Washington, D.C. Bar in 1996. At the time of the hearing, his D.C. bar license was administratively suspended for non-payment of bar dues.

Representation of C.A. C.A., then fourteen-years old, gave birth to D.S. on October 1, 2019. In January 2020, the Baltimore County Department of Social Services (“the Department”) filed a child in need of assistance (“CINA”) petition on behalf of D.S. in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The Department asserted that neither C.A.’s family members nor the family members of D.S.’s father were suitable resources “due to ongoing family conflict and violence.” The same day the Department filed its petition, the Office of the Public Defender appointed a panel attorney, Shannon Stern, to represent C.A. The next day, the circuit court placed D.S. in the Department’s custody, and the Department placed the baby in foster care. 3 Over the course of the next year, C.A. sought to regain custody of D.S. However, after an October 2020 emergency hearing, a November 2020 review hearing, and various meetings with the Department related to those proceedings, a magistrate recommended that D.S. remain in the Department’s custody and, in January 2021, a circuit court judge adopted that recommendation. In March 2021, the circuit court scheduled a hearing for April 1, 2021 to craft a permanent placement plan for D.S. Around that time, C.A.’s mother asked Mr. Trezevant “to intervene on behalf of C.A.” in D.S.’s CINA case.

On or about March 1, C.A. informed her panel attorney, Ms. Stern, that she had retained Mr. Trezevant. On or about March 2, Ms. Stern called Mr. Trezevant to confirm that he now represented C.A. The hearing judge found that, during the conversation, Mr. Trezevant “did not disclose that he was not a Maryland attorney or that he was related to C.A.” The same day, Ms. Stern sent Mr. Trezevant her case files and moved to strike her appearance in D.S.’s CINA case. The circuit court entered an order stating that the motion to strike “would be granted when C.A.’s new attorney entered an appearance in the case.” Mr. Trezevant appeared on behalf of C.A. at the remote April 1 permanency planning review hearing before Magistrate Dilip Paliath. The hearing judge found that Mr. Trezevant “had not sought special admission as an out of state attorney in the case or filed any entry of appearance” and “failed to advise Magistrate Paliath that he was not admitted to practice law in Maryland.” Mr. Trezevant advocated for adopting a plan to ultimately place D.S. with C.A. at C.A.’s mother’s home, rather than a plan that called for reunification with either parent.

Magistrate Paliath adopted the plan proposed by the 4 Department to reunify D.S. with either parent pending further information and efforts by the parents to establish a home consistent with D.S.’s welfare. Later that month, Mr. Trezevant traded emails with two county employees. On April 14, a social worker at the Department, Sabrina Jackson, emailed Mr. Trezevant to ask if C.A. intended to attend a virtual visit with D.S. that afternoon. In his response, Mr. Trezevant twice referred to C.A. as his client and demanded that Ms. Jackson call him immediately to arrange a visitation schedule.

Ms. Jackson then requested that Mr. Trezevant contact Assistant County Attorney Deborah Hermann, who represented the Department. After he did so, Ms. Hermann “asked if [Mr. Trezevant’s] appearance was entered in the case and advised that she could not speak with [him] unless his appearance was entered.” The hearing judge found that Mr. Trezevant falsely replied that he “filed an oral appearance at the last hearing” and was “received and accepted by the [magistrate], on the record.”3 He also offered to file a written appearance. Ms. Hermann asked Mr. Trezevant to do so and to confirm that he was licensed to practice law in Maryland. In response, Mr. Trezevant accused Ms. Hermann of using an “administrative” issue to avoid the merits of the case and also asserted that he was “not worried about [his] standing[,]” reiterating that the circuit court had already “approved [his] standing and [his] appearance.” After being alerted to Mr. Trezevant’s apparent unauthorized practice of law by Ms. Hermann, Judge Sherrie R. Bailey held a remote hearing on May 3 regarding Mr. 3 Based upon our review of the record, it is clear that Mr. Trezevant’s references to the “judge” in the April proceeding are references to Magistrate Dilip Paliath.

To avoid confusion, we substitute the word “magistrate” for “judge” where appropriate. 5 Trezevant’s representation of C.A. At that hearing, in response to questioning by Judge Bailey, Mr. Trezevant admitted that he was not licensed to practice law in Maryland. When Judge Bailey questioned Mr. Trezevant about the fact that he had not filed a written notice of appearance and had not moved to appear pro hac vice, he stated to Judge Bailey that “I thought that the last appearance that I made, I made the oral motion for my appearance. I thought the [magistrate] granted that but I can certainly cure that with a written letter.” And he stated, “I filed that, I thought orally, with the [magistrate], your colleague, pro hac vice. And the [magistrate] granted that, I thought, at the time.” The hearing judge found that these statements were “knowingly false and intended to deceive the Court regarding [Mr. Trezevant’s] unauthorized practice of law.” The hearing judge determined Mr. Trezevant “intentionally concealed” from Magistrate Paliath “that he was not authorized to practice law in Maryland and misrepresented by omission that he was licensed to practice law in Maryland.” At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Bailey vacated the previous order that conditionally struck the appearance of C.A.’s panel attorney, Ms. Stern.

Bar Counsel Investigation That same month, Bar Counsel initiated an investigation in response to a complaint submitted by Judge Bailey. In a May 19 letter, Bar Counsel asked Mr. Trezevant to respond to Judge Bailey’s allegations. Mr. Trezevant replied and asserted that he had not practiced law in Maryland at all. He stated that he “ha[d] not engage[d] in the Practice of Law in the state of Maryland[,]” “appeared in the hearings making clear [his] role[,]” and “never held forth, sought, advertised, or represented [him]self as an attorney barred in Maryland.” The hearing judge found that these statements were “knowingly false.” 6 III Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct Based upon the record and the above-summarized findings of fact, the hearing judge concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Trezevant violated MARPC 1.16(a) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.3(a) (Candor to the Tribunal), 4.1(a) (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 5.5(a) (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multi- jurisdictional Practice of Law), 8.1(a) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a)–(d) (Misconduct).

We review the hearing judge’s conclusions of law without deference, see Rule 19-740(b)(1), and independently determine whether Bar Counsel established a violation of the rules by clear and convincing evidence, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Silbiger, 478 Md. 607, 617, 624 (2022). Based upon our independent review of these conclusions, we agree that the Commission established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Trezevant violated each of these rules. We begin with the central violation, Rule 5.5(a). Unauthorized Practice of Law (Rule 5.5(a)) Under Rule 5.5(a), “[a]n attorney shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction[.]” In other words, “[a]n attorney may practice law only in a jurisdiction in which the attorney is authorized to practice.” MARPC 5.5, Comment 1.

However, “[a]n attorney admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis” in Maryland in certain circumstances, including where the services “are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential 7 proceeding before a tribunal in this or another jurisdiction, if the attorney . . . is authorized by law or order to appear in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized[.]” MARPC 5.5(c)(2). A tribunal may authorize temporary admission “pursuant to formal rules governing admission pro hac vice or pursuant to informal practice of the tribunal[.]” MARPC 5.5, Comment 9; see also Md. Rule 19-217 (describing formal rules for admission pro hac vice); Md. Code, Bus. Occup. & Prof. Article (“BOP”) § 10-215 (incorporating the same).

We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Trezevant violated Rule 5.5(a). Although it is impossible to “craft an all-encompassing definition” for the practice of law, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Jackson, 477 Md. 174 , 200–01, 200 n.11 (2022) (cleaned up), there can be little doubt that an attorney does so where an attorney agrees to provide legal representation