Attorney Grievance v. Keating

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mary Theresa Keating, Misc. Docket AG No. 46, September Term 2019. Opinion by Hotten, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – INDEFINITE SUSPENSION – The Court of Appeals indefinitely suspended Mary Theresa Keating (“Respondent”) from the practice of law in Maryland with a right to reapply in six months. This Court found that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) 19- 303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and 19-308.4 (Misconduct) through the submission of a knowingly falsely attested will to the Register of Wills.

Respondent fraudulently submitted the will to further her client’s final testamentary wishes, not for personal enrichment. Respondent received life insurance proceeds from her client, but these proceeds passed outside of the probate. Respondent safeguarded these assets in a trust account and spent the balance in furtherance of her client’s final testamentary wishes. Respondent had no legal obligation to allocate these funds towards her client’s estate.

These good faith efforts, combined with a distinguished career, an absence of prior discipline, and a showing of high moral character, reduced the severity of discipline from disbarment to indefinite suspension with a right to reapply in six months. Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-19-005443 Argued: October 2, 2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 46 September Term, 2019 __________________________________ ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. MARY THERESA KEATING __________________________________ Barbera, C.J. McDonald Watts Hotten Getty Booth Biran, JJ. __________________________________ Opinion by Hotten, J. Watts, J., concurs. __________________________________ Filed: December 23, 2020 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. Suzanne Johnson 2020-12-23 14:39-05:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, acting through Bar Counsel (“Petitioner”), directed that charges be filed against Mary Theresa Keating (“Respondent”), pursuant to Md. Rule 19-721.1 The charges followed an investigation of Respondent’s letter to Petitioner dated August 2, 2018, where Respondent admitted that she falsely witnessed the last of three wills of her now-deceased client, Keith Wilson.

On October 21, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Respondent. On October 23, 2019, pursuant to Md. Rule 19-722(a),2 we assigned the matter to the Honorable Gregory Sampson (“hearing judge”) of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to conduct a hearing and render findings of fact and conclusions of law. The circuit court conducted a hearing on January 28, 2020. Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the hearing judge found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”)3 19- 301.8 (Conflict of Interest), 19-303.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 19-308.4 1 Maryland Rule 19-721(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part: “Upon approval or direction of the Commission, Bar Counsel, on behalf of the Commission, shall file a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in the Court of Appeals.” 2 Maryland Rule 19-722(a) provides, in pertinent part: “Upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action, the Court of Appeals may enter an order designating (1) a judge of any circuit court to hear the action, and (2) the clerk responsible for maintaining the record.” Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 3 (“MLRPC”) were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and re-codified in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules, without substantive change.

Respondent’s misconduct occurred between January 2016 and March 2018. We use MARPC throughout this opinion to maintain clarity. (Misconduct), and 19-408 (Commingling of Funds). Both Petitioner and Respondent filed Exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We republish the pertinent portions of those findings of fact and conclusions of law below. FINDINGS OF FACT The hearing judge rendered the following findings of fact regarding Respondent’s representation of Mr. Wilson: Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 26, 1985. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in Baltimore City. Each of Petitioner’s allegations against the Respondent arise from the common nexus of Respondent’s representation of [Mr. Wilson]. [] Representation of Mr. Wilson Prior to 2013.

Beginning in 2001, Respondent developed a long-standing attorney-client relationship with Mr. Wilson. In 2001, the Respondent represented Mr. Wilson in a matter before the Equal Employment Opportunit[y] Commission. After that initial representation, the Respondent regularly represented Mr. Wilson as he began to acquire properties in Baltimore City (in matters primarily related to landlord/tenant issues as well as matters involving the Maryland Department of [the] Environment). Relevant to this proceeding, Respondent represented Mr. Wilson in estate matters, testifying that she often changed Mr. Wilson’s will, upon his request, to reflect the changing relationships in Mr. Wilson’s life.

The Respondent drafted several wills for Mr. Wilson, beginning in 2003. Per the evidence and testimony in this matter, the Respondent drafted as least six wills for Mr. Wilson from January 2003 until February 2018.[4] The 2003 will designated a Joan Malarkey as personal representative and a Marvin Walker as the personal representative should Joan Malarkey become unwilling or unable to serve. The 2003 will describes Joan Malarkey and Marvin Walker as friends of Mr. Wilson. In pertinent part, the 2003 will Respondent testified that she “seldom even charged [Mr. Wilson] for his legal 4 work over the years.” 2 directs that Mr. Wilson’s personal effects, automobiles, and other tangible personal property as well as the residuary estate be given, in equal parts, to Joan Malarkey, Marvin Walker and a Robert [M]asingo, who is identified as Mr. Wilson’s cousin (hereinafter “Mr. [M]asingo”). [] The 2013 will[.] The 2013 will, drafted for Mr. Wilson by the Respondent, designated Mr. [M]asingo as personal representative of the estate and a Rodney Nasingo[5] as the personal representative should Mr. [M]asingo become unwilling or unable to serve.

In pertinent part, the 2013 will directs that Mr. Wilson’s personal effects, automobiles and other tangible personal property, as well as the residuary of his estate, be given in equal shares to Rodney Nasingo and Mr. [M]asingo. [] The 2015 will. The 2015 will designated, for the first time, the Respondent as personal representative of Mr. Wilson’s estate. A Cailin Smith, later identified as the daughter of the Respondent, was named as the personal representative should the Respondent become unwilling or unable to serve. The Respondent testified that Mr. Wilson knew her daughter, and that he suggested her as an alternate personal representative.

In pertinent part, the 2015 will directs that “personal and household effects, vehicles and other tangible personal property” be given to a Corey Blanton, identified as a friend of Mr. Wilson. Corey Blanton was also to be given a building owned by Mr. Wilson. The 2015 will further designated that a trailer and its contents, and the land where the trailer was situated, would be given to Mr. [M]asingo. Mr. [M]asingo was also to receive boats, a gun collection and the proceeds of a life insurance policy.

Lastly, pursuant to this will, a Gary Feliciano, an acquaintance and occasional roommate of Mr. Wilson, was to receive a $10,000 cash gift from the estate, if the funds were available. The residuary of the estate was to be given to “the New Southwest Baptist Church.” [] The 2016 will and the Respondent’s representation regarding the 2016 will. The 2016 will, drafted for Mr. Wilson by the Respondent, designated the Respondent as the personal representative of Mr. Wilson’s estate. Mr. David Allen, Esq.

(hereinafter “Mr. Allen”) was designated as the personal representative should the Respondent become unwilling or unable to serve. 5 The record is unclear whether the surname should be spelled Masingo. 3 In pertinent part, the will directs that “personal and household effects, vehicles, boats, tools and other tangible personal property” be divided equally between Corey Blanton and Gary Feliciano. Corey Blanton was also to receive a building owned by Mr. Wilson. Further, Gary Feliciano was to receive a $10,000 cash gift from the estate (so long as the funds were available), as well as Mr. Wilson’s dog, if the personal representative was satisfied that Mr. Feliciano was not using any drugs. The 2016 will further directs the personal representative to sell a trailer and its contents, as well as the land it was situated upon, and a condominium with the proceeds to be added to the estate.

The residuary of the estate was to be given to the New Southwest Baptist Church. Regarding Mr. [M]asingo, the will states as follows: “I will give the guns that my cousin Robert [M]asingo took, along with the ammunition, and the remaining pieces of my gun collection to Robert [M]asingo, if he survives me.” The Respondent testified during trial that she believed Mr. Wilson’s relationship with Mr. [M]asingo deteriorated after some firearms went missing while in his care. The 2016 will memorializes the first appearance of Mr. Wilson’s appointment of the Respondent as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy in his name. The Respondent testified during trial that she believes Mr. Wilson took out the policy in or around April of 2015, but she first became aware of it when working with Mr. Wilson to draft the 2016 will.

Regarding the Respondent, the 2016 will states: “[Mr. Wilson has] a $100,000 life insurance policy with [Respondent] as [Mr. Wilson’s] beneficiary. [Mr. Wilson] direct[s] her to use the proceeds to pay for [Mr. Wilson’s] funeral, pay all the expenses of the administration, and to retain the remainder, along with anything still in [Respondent’s] safe that [Mr. Wilson] entrusted to [Respondent] for safekeeping.” The Respondent testified that the portion of the will directing the use of life insurance policy funds was constructed at the insistence of Mr. Wilson, and that the policy was purchased by Mr. Wilson without the knowledge of the Respondent. The Respondent further testified that Mr. Wilson was a very persistent and headstrong individual and insisted upon the resulting construction despite Respondent’s advice to the contrary.[] Nevertheless, the Respondent testified that she did cede to Mr. Wilson’s wishes, due in large part to his insistence. Respondent’s testimony evidenced that she was aware there may be some level of impropriety in preparing a will that would deliver to her a benefit. However, per her testimony, the Respondent took such action anyway. 4 [] The 2017 will.

The 2017 will designated the Respondent as personal representative and Mr. Allen as the personal representative should the Respondent be unwilling or unable to serve. In pertinent part, the 2017 will directed that Gary Feliciano and Corey Blanton were each to receive one of the vehicles owned by Mr. Wilson. Corey Blanton was also to be given a building owned by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Feliciano was to receive Mr. Wilson’s dog and a cash gift of $5,000.

Regarding a Douglas Haynes, identified as a business partner with Mr. Wilson, the 2017 will states: “[Mr. Wilson] give[s] half of the limited liability company Willshay Properties, plus the sum of $10,000, to [Mr. Wilson’s] co-owner, Douglas Haynes, if he survives [Mr. Wilson].” Regarding the Respondent, the 2017 will stated: “[Mr. Wilson has] a life insurance policy with [Respondent] as [the] beneficiary. [Mr. Wilson directs] her to use the proceeds to pay for [Mr. Wilson’s] funeral, pay all expenses of the administration, pay off the balances of [Mr. Wilson’s] mortgages, and to pay the gifts to Gary Feliciano and Douglas Haynes. [The Respondent] may retain the remainder, if any, along with anything still in her safe that [Mr. Wilson] entrusted to her for safe keeping.” As in the 2016 will, the personal representative was directed to sell a trailer, its contents and the land upon which it was situated, as well as a condominium, with the proceeds of all transactions added to the estate. The residuary of the estate under the 2017 will was to go to the New Southwest Baptist Church. The Respondent, and a “Kirby M. Smith,” later identified via Respondent’s testimony as Respondent’s son, witnesse[d] the 2017 will. [] The 2018 will. The 2018 will once again designated the Respondent as personal representative, and Mr. Allen as the personal representative should the Respondent become unwilling or unable to serve.

The Respondent testified that the 2018 will was prepared in early February 2018 in accordance with the instructions given to the Respondent by Mr. Wilson. The [R]espondent further testified that she forwarded the revised will to Mr. Wilson for his review on or before February 14, 2018 and directed Mr. Wilson to sign the will in the presence of two witnesses, having those witnesses also sign the will. 5 In pertinent part, the 2018 will directed that Gary Feliciano receive “trucks and cars, boats, and my building supplies and tools, as well as my furnishings and other personal property.” Gary Feliciano was to receive a cash gift of $10,000 from the estate as well as Mr. Wilson’s dog. The stipulation that Mr. Feliciano was to remain drug free, included in the 2017 will, was removed from the 2018 will. Two buildings owned by Mr. Wilson were to be given to the New Southwest Baptist Church.

The items given to Douglas [Haynes] pursuant to the 2017 will (half of the limited liability company, as well as a cash gift of $10,000) remained unchanged in the 2018 will. Additionally, the language regarding the life insurance policy with the Respondent as beneficiary remained unchanged in the 2018 will. The 2018 will further designated that a trailer, its contents, and the land upon which the trailer was situated, as well as a condominium, were to be given to [] Douglas Haynes. No provision for Corey Blanton was made in the 2018 will.

Under the 2018 will, the [] residuary estate was to be given to Gary Feliciano with the contingency that if Mr. Feliciano failed to survive Mr. Wilson, that the residuary estate be given to The New Southwest Baptist Church. [] Representation following Mr. Wilson’s death. Per the evidence and testimony in this matter, Mr. Wilson died on February 16, 2018. The Respondent testified that she received news of Mr. Wilson’s death while she was out of the state. Upon the Respondent’s return to Baltimore, she testified that she went to the home of Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Feliciano, who resided in the same home as Mr. Wilson at the time, turned over paperwork of Mr. Wilson that included the 2018 will that the Respondent had forwarded to Mr. Wilson a few days prior to his death. Per the Respondent’s recollection, she inspected the will and discovered that, while Mr. Wilson had signed the will, it was only witnessed by one person (a Michael Shilling).[6] The Respondent testified that, at this time, she signed her name as the second witness to the will. 6 Maryland law requires at least two or more witnesses to attest and sign the will in the presence of the testator. Maryland Code Ann., Estates and Trusts (“Est. & Trusts”) § 4-102; see also Stuart v. Foutz, 185 Md. 401, 403 , 45 A.2d 98, 99 (1945) (describing the signature of just one witness as “an obviously fatal defect[.]”). 6 In March of 2018, the Respondent submitted the 2018 will, with her signature affixed as a witness, for probate to the Register of Wills. The Respondent admitted that she knowingly and falsely stated in her filing that she had been a witness to the signing of the will.

Respondent was aware that the submission of the will for probate was under the penalty of perjury. The Respondent testified that she signed and submitted the 2018 will for probate in order to fulfill the last wishes of the decedent, Mr. Wilson. The Respondent testified that she took the following actions as personal representative of the estate pursuant to the 2018 will: • Took the jewelry in her safe and had it appraised for the purpose of the estate (the jewelry was subsequently listed on the inventory for the estate). • Deposited the life insurance policy proceeds in her client escrow account[7] because the proceeds were to go, in part, to other matters as stated in the 2018 will. • Went to Florida and received an appraisal for Mr. Wilson’s properties located in Florida. • Repaid the estate account for the costs of the funeral. The Respondent testified that she believed, at the time of Mr. Wilson’s death, that there were a number of outstanding mortgages upon Mr. Wilson’s properties that would need to be settled via the estate.

However, the Respondent testified that she learned (following Mr. Wilson’s death) that the liens for the relevant mortgages were released in January of 2018. On July 18, 2018, Mr. Masingo filed, through the assistance of counsel, a Petition to Caveat Will Dated February 24, 2018 (hereinafter “Petition to Caveat”). The Respondent subsequently retained counsel, and through such counsel responded to the Petition to Caveat with an admission that the 2018 will was not properly witnessed. The Respondent wrote a letter to Bar Counsel self-reporting her conduct on August 2, 2018. [] Testimony of Mr. David Allen.

David Allen is an attorney who was also employed by the decedent, Mr. Wilson, representing Mr. Wilson until Mr. Wilson’s death. Mr. Allen 7 The hearing judge uses the term escrow account and attorney trust account interchangeably. Both terms refer to the same general obligation of an attorney to safeguard client funds by depositing them into an attorney trust account at an approved financial institution. Maryland Rule 19-404. 7 testified that he assisted Mr. Wilson with the transfer of the (sic) Mr. Wilson’s personal property into two LLCs.

Robert [M]asingo, a cousin, was designated as a member of the LLC, along with Mr. Wilson. Mr. Allen stated that he discovered at Mr. Wilson’s funeral that Mr. [M]asingo and Mr. Wilson had a falling out over handguns that had been owned by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Allen further testified that he was not aware that he had been named as the alternate Personal Representative until the [Petition to Caveat] the will had been filed. Per Mr. Wilson,[8] after the caveat was filed, the Respondent was concerned that she would be removed as the Personal Representative, so the Respondent resigned.

Mr. Allen was later informed of the circumstances of the 2018 will. After the hearing in the Orphan’s Court Mr. Allen was informed by the Respondent’s attorney that he (Mr. Allen) would have to take over as the Personal Representative. Upon accepting his appointment as the Personal Representative, Mr. Allen made three visits to the Respondent’s office and was given three file boxes. On another visit to the Respondent’s office, Mr. Allen was given a bag of jewelry.

Also, the Respondent transferred an estate account containing over $160,000 to Mr. Allen. The Respondent and Mr. Allen discussed the insurance policy. Money would be requested from the Respondent in reference to the expenses to be paid from the insurance policy as stated in the decedent’s wills. Mr. Allen requested and the Respondent delivered a check for $15,000 for the distributions to Mr. Haynes and Mr. Feliciano per the instructions in the 2017 will.

An accounting of the estate was completed by Mr. Allen and accepted by the Orphan’s Court. Included in the estate was four pieces of real estate and some property in Florida. Mr. Allen also testified that there were some outstanding tax issues. According to Mr. Allen, expenses will incur regarding the estate and Mr. Allen will continue to send invoices to the Respondent for these expenses that Mr. Allen would expect to be paid from the insurance policy proceeds.

The Respondent has called and emailed Mr. Allen several times asking if there were additional expenses to be paid. Mr. Allen described the decedent’s business as real estate and contracting services. Mr. Wilson would rehabilitate houses both for himself and others. Mr. Wilson would employ a “crew” of individuals, including Mr. Haynes 8 The hearing judge likely intended Mr. Wilson to read Mr. Allen. 8 and Mr. Feliciano, who lived either in the home of Mr. Wilson or in houses owned by Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Allen described Mr. Wilson as someone who “thought he knew better” and would often not follow his advice. Mr. Allen testified that he spoke very infrequently to the Respondent prior to the caveat to the will. [] Further testimony of the Respondent. The Respondent testified in the hearing as follows: The Respondent received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Michigan. She received her law degree from the Berkeley Law School, graduating in 1983.

She subsequently worked for the FTC and began working at Weinberg and Green in banking and litigation in 1985. After ten years at Weinberg and Green, she left to open her own practice on Calvert Street in Baltimore City. In her own practice, the Respondent had a few commercial clients and wanted to expand her employment law practice. She also was involved in the areas of real estate litigation as well as some bankruptcy and wills and estate.

Mr. Wilson became the client of the Respondent in 2001 as a result of an EEOC complaint. That case was settled with installment payments being made to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson then began to acquire properties in Southwest Baltimore. Mr. Wilson met Mr. Feliciano when they became neighbors.

Mr. Feliciano and Mr. Haynes became part of Mr. Wilson’s “entourage” who would assist Mr. Wilson in his business activities. The Respondent continued to represent Mr. Wilson in rent and Maryland Department of [the] Environment matters. From conversations with Mr. Wilson, the Respondent believed that Mr. Wilson’s relationship with Robert [M]asingo, his cousin, deteriorated after some firearms went missing while in the care of Mr. [M]asingo. The 2016 [will] stated that “I give the guns that my cousin Robert [M]asingo took along with the ammunition, and the remaining pieces in my gun collection to Robert [M]asigno, if he survives me.” The Respondent testified that Mr. Wilson took out the insurance policy that named the Respondent as the beneficiary in April of 2015.

She did not know about the policy at the time. She remembered that she may have been first made aware of the policy when she and Mr. Wilson began to discuss the 2016 will. Per the Respondent, she did not solicit Mr. Wilson to make her the recipient of the life insurance policy or the jewelry. The Respondent stated 9 that she spoke to Mr. Wilson about the estate being the beneficiary, but Mr. Wilson believed that the Respondent personally would carry out his wishes.

Although subsequent wills differed as to amounts to be given to different individuals and for what purposes, the general language of the will making the Respondent the beneficiary remained the same. The Respondent further testified that she changed his will often to reflect the changing relationships of Mr. Wilson. In reference to the 2018 will, the Respondent testified that as with other wills, Mr. Wilson would ask for updates. The update for the 2018 will increased the gift to Mr. Feliciano from $5,000 to $10,000.

The Respondent testified that the 2018 will was prepared in early February 2018 in accordance with the instructions given to the Respondent by Mr. Wilson. The [R]espondent further testified that she forwarded the revised will to Mr. Wilson for his review on or before February 14, 2018 and directed Mr. Wilson to sign the will in the presence of two witnesses, having those witnesses also sign the will. Mr. Wilson died on February 16, 2018. The Respondent received news of the death of Mr. Wilson while she was out of the state. *** In March of 2018, the Respondent submitted the 2018 will for probate to the Register of Wills.

The Respondent knowingly and falsely stated in her filing that she had been a witness to the signing of the will. The submission of the will for probate was under the penalty of perjury. The Respondent testified that she signed and submitted the will for probate in order to fulfill the last wishes of the decedent, Mr. Wilson. As a result of the fraudulent submission of the will to probate, the Respondent appointed by the court as The Personal Representative.

The Respondent took the jewelry in the safe and had it appraised for the purpose of the estate. The jewelry was listed on the inventory for the estate. The Respondent testified that she put the insurance proceeds in the escrow account because the proceeds were to go in part to other matters as stated in the will. 10 The Respondent was not sure when she learned that Mr. Wilson had paid off all the mortgages on his properties. The Respondent was previously aware that there were $110,000.00 mortgages each on two separate properties.

She later learned that the liens for the mortgage was released in January 2018. The Respondent went to Florida and received an appraisal for the properties located in Florida. The Respondent repaid the estate account for the costs of the funeral. In the escrow account remained a balance of $60,000.

The Respondent took $10,000 to pay taxes. The Respondent admitted that she knew the will was not validly executed. After the [Petition to Caveat] was filed, the Respondent hired counsel to represent her before the Orphans[’] Court. That counsel filed an answer to the [Petition to Caveat] indicating that the will was not properly witnessed.

The Respondent was replaced as the Personal Representative by David Allen and the 2017 will was submitted for probate, removing the 2018 will. The Respondent then wrote a letter to bar counsel self-reporting her conduct on August 2, 2018. The Respondent testified that [she] felt shame, embarrassment, and remorse over her actions. She expressed that she still believes that she can still make a positive contribution to the legal community and that she hopes her actions do not taint the reputations of any of the bar organizations to which she has contributed. *** CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the findings of facts, the hearing judge concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent’s drafting of a will “could have resulted in the Respondent receiving up to $85,000 under the terms of the 2017 will and $80,000 under the terms of 11 the 2018 will[]” from Mr. Wilson’s life insurance proceeds,9 and submitting a knowingly falsely attested will before the probate court, violated the following rules of professional conduct.

Maryland Rule 19-301.8: Conflict of Interest; Current Clients; Specific Rules The hearing judge determined Respondent violated Md. Rule 19-301.8(c)10 when she prepared Mr. Wilson’s will that made reference to her designation as the beneficiary of Mr. Wilson’s life insurance proceeds. Although the hearing judge acknowledged that, as a matter of law, the life insurance proceeds were not a gift to the Respondent arising under the will, the hearing judge nonetheless determined that actual ownership of the insurance proceeds “does not negate the fact that the Respondent crafted an instrument giving the attorney, or a person related to the attorney any substantial gift.” (Internal quotation and citation omitted). 9 The 2017 will also bequeathed to Respondent any of Mr. Wilson’s personal property left in Respondent’s safe. This property included jewelry, but the hearing judge found that this property passed outside of probate and did not raise any MARPC violations. 10 Maryland Rule 19-301.8 provides in pertinent part: (c) An attorney shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the attorney or a person related to the attorney any substantial gift unless the attorney or other recipient of the gift is related to the client. For purposes of this section, related persons include a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent or other relative or individual with whom the attorney or the client maintains a close, familial relationship. 12 The hearing judge rejected Petitioner’s contention that the jewelry left in Mr. Wilson’s safety deposit box constituted a substantial gift under the rule.

The jewelry solely belonged to Respondent regardless of the instruction in the will.11 Maryland Rule 19-301.15: Safekeeping of Property The hearing judge did not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated Md. Rule 19-301.15(b), (d) within the meaning of the rule.12 The hearing judge noted that the 2017 will acknowledged Respondent as the beneficiary of Mr. Wilson’s life insurance policy and directed Respondent to use the life insurance proceeds to pay for funeral expenses, costs of estate administration, to pay off any mortgage balances, and to pay gifts to Gary Feliciano and Douglas Haynes. The will allowed Respondent to keep any remaining insurance proceeds along with items left in Wilson’s safe. The 2018 fraudulently witnessed will contained identical language to the 2017 will apart from an increased gift to Mr. Feliciano from $5,000 to $10,000. 11 Respondent also testified that she received the contents of the safe, including the jewelry, as inter vivos gifts in 2017. 12 Maryland Rule 19-301.15 provides, in relevant part: (b) An attorney may deposit the attorney’s own funds in a client trust account only as permitted by Rule 19-408(b). *** (d) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, an attorney shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, an attorney shall deliver promptly to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall render promptly a full accounting regarding such property. 13 On May 7, 2018, Respondent deposited $100,309.78, representing Mr. Wilson’s life insurance proceeds, into her attorney trust account.

The hearing judge determined that as beneficiary of the life insurance policy, the proceeds belonged to Respondent, not the estate. Respondent testified that she deposited the funds into the trust account to further the final testamentary intent of Mr. Wilson. She also believed the specified tasks in the will would consume most of the life insurance proceeds. Despite Respondent’s intent to advance the testamentary wishes of Mr. Wilson, the hearing judge concluded that Respondent should have deposited the insurance proceeds into her personal account, not the attorney trust account or the estate account.

On the other hand, the hearing judge rejected Petitioner’s contention that by placing the insurance proceeds in the attorney trust account, Respondent violated her obligation under Md. Rule 19-301.15(d) to promptly notify and deliver the proceeds to Mr. Haynes and Mr. Feliciano. The hearing judge determined that because the proceeds belonged to Respondent, she had no obligation to notify and deliver the proceeds to Mr. Haynes and Mr. Feliciano. The hearing judge also found the deposit of the proceeds reasonable under the circumstances because it provided a safer way to protect the funds than depositing them in her personal account, especially while Mr. Wilson’s estate temporarily lacked a personal representative after Respondent’s resignation. The hearing judge could not find by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Md. Rule 19-301.15. 14 Maryland Rule 19-303.3: Candor Towards the Tribunal The hearing judge concluded that the Respondent violated Md. Rule 19- 303.3(a)(1)13 by falsely stating that the will was signed by two or more witnesses in the presence of the testator pursuant Est. & Trusts § 4-102 and submitting the falsely witnessed will under penalty of perjury, pursuant Est. & Trusts § 5-206.

On March 20, 2018, Respondent submitted the 2018 will for probate to the Register of Wills, even though Respondent knew that the will was not witnessed by at least two present witnesses as required by law. Respondent fraudulently represented that she witnessed the will, when she signed the will one month after Mr. Wilson’s death. She knowingly and falsely witnessed the will to carry out Mr. Wilson’s final wishes. The hearing judge determined that Respondent only took corrective measures after Mr. Masingo filed the Petition to Caveat.

On the other hand, the hearing judge concluded that Respondent received no personal benefit from the falsely attested will. Respondent received $5,000 less under the falsely attested 2018 will than the 2017 will. Corey Blanton and the New Southwest Baptist Church, however, would have received nothing under the 2018 will. The hearing judge thus found Respondent violated Md. Rule 19-303.3(a)(1). 13 Maryland Rule 19-303.3 in pertinent part states: (a) An attorney shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the attorney[.] 15 Maryland Rule 19-308.4: Misconduct The hearing judge determined that Respondent violated Md. Rule 19-308.4(a), (b), (c), (d).14 The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Md. Rule 19-308.4(a) when she violated Md. Rule 19-303.3 by making a false statement to a tribunal and submitting a falsely attested will under penalty of perjury.

See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Kaufman, 466 Md. 404, 419 , 220 A.3d 316 , 325 (2019) (the attorney’s “failure to comply with the other Rules of Professional Conduct” violated Md. Rule 19-308.4(a)). The hearing judge also concluded that Respondent violated Md. Rule 19-308.4(b) by knowingly submitting a false Form of Petition for Probate under penalty of perjury. Respondent admitted in her testimony and pleading that she knew the form contained false information. The hearing judge found Respondent violated Md. Rule 19-308.4(c) by falsely witnessing the will and submitting the will for probate.

Finally, the hearing judge 14 Maryland Rule 19-308.4 reads, in relevant part: It is professional misconduct for an attorney to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as an attorney in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice[.] 16 found that Respondent violated Md. Rule 19-308.4(d) by submitting the Form of Petition for Probate with known false information under threat of perjury per Est. & Trusts § 5-206. Maryland Rule 19-408: Commingling of Funds The hearing judge determined that Respondent did not violate Md. Rule 19-408(a), (b)(1-3)15 because Respondent placed the insurance proceeds into an attorney trust account to further the client’s wishes and not for personal use. Respondent believed only a small 15 Maryland Rule 19-408 reads: (a) General Prohibition. An attorney or law firm may deposit in an attorney trust account only those funds required to be deposited in that account by Rule 19-404 or permitted to be so deposited by section (b) of this Rule.

(b) Exceptions. (1) An attorney or law firm shall either (A) deposit into an attorney trust account funds to pay any fees, service charges, or minimum balance required by the financial institution to open or maintain the account, including those fees that cannot be charged against interest due to the Maryland Legal Services Corporation Fund pursuant to Rule 19-411(b)(1)(D), or (B) enter into an agreement with the financial institution to have any fees or charges deducted from an operating account maintained by the attorney or law firm. The attorney or law firm may deposit into an attorney trust account any funds expected to be advanced on behalf of a client and expected to be reimbursed to the attorney by the client. (2) An attorney or law firm may deposit into an attorney trust account funds belonging in part to a client and in part presently or potentially to the attorney or law firm.

The portion belonging to the attorney or law firm shall be withdrawn promptly when the attorney or law firm becomes entitled to the funds, but any portion disputed by the client shall remain in the account until the dispute is resolved. (3) Funds of a client or beneficial owner may be pooled and commingled in an attorney trust account with the funds held for other clients or beneficial owners. 17 fraction, after funeral, estate, and mortgage expenses, would remain for her personal benefit. The hearing judge determined that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s deposit of the proceeds in the attorney trust account violated Md. Rule 19-408. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors We now address the conclusions of the hearing judge regarding the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors.

In Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494 , 117 A.3d 38 (2015), we outlined that the following aggravating factors should be considered: (1) prior attorney discipline; (2) a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) a pattern of misconduct; (4) multiple violations of the M[A]RPC; (5) bad faith obstruction of the attorney discipline proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the Maryland Rules or orders of this Court [ ]; (6) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the attorney discipline proceeding; (7) a refusal to