Case Title: Application of Brown to the Bar

Citation: 

Docket Number: 33m/15

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2016-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
In the Matter of the Application of Deirdre Paulette Brown, Misc. No. 33, September Term, 
2015. Opinion by Hotten, J.  
 
DENIAL OF BAR ADMISSION — DUTY OF FULL DISCLOSURE — CANDOR 
AND TRUTHFULNESS — Court of Appeals held that the applicant had not met the 
burden of establishing that she possessed the requisite moral character and fitness for 
admission to the Bar of Maryland.  The applicant failed to disclose a prior criminal charge 
on her Bar application, did not provide a credible explanation for the omission, and 
intentionally falsified her grade point average on a law school resume for the purpose of 
enhancing her qualifications with a prospective employer.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. No. 33 
 
September Term, 2015 
 
______________________________________ 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION 
OF DEIRDRE PAULETTE BROWN FOR 
ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND 
 
______________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J., 
Greene, 
Adkins, 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Battaglia, Lynne A. 
 
(Retired, Specially Assigned), 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Hotten, J. 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed:  August 24, 2016 
 
Argued: May 4, 2016 
 
 
 
 
We consider whether to grant the application for admission to the Bar of Maryland 
of Deirdre Paulette Brown (“Ms. Brown”), who failed to disclose a prior felony theft charge 
on her application for admission and provided no credible explanation for her omission; 
intentionally misrepresented her grade point average (“GPA”) on her law school resume in 
order to enhance her qualifications with a prospective employer; and demonstrated a 
pattern of financial irresponsibility with credit account debt. 
 
The Character Committee for the Seventh Appellate Circuit (“Committee”) 
recommended Ms. Brown’s admission to the Bar of Maryland by a vote of three to two.  
The State Board of Law Examiners (“Board”) voted four to three to adopt the 
recommendation of the Committee.  Upon consideration of the recommendations of the 
Committee and the Board, and based upon our independent review of the record, we hold 
that Ms. Brown has not met the burden of establishing that she currently possesses the 
requisite moral character and fitness for admission to the Bar.1   
 
 
 
 
                                                          
 
 
1 Maryland Rule 19-203(d) (formerly Rule 5(a) of the Rules Governing Admission 
to the Bar of Maryland) states, in relevant part: 
 
(d) Burden of Proof.  The applicant bears the burden of proving to the 
Character Committee, the Board, and the Court the applicant’s good moral 
character and fitness for the practice of law. . . . 
 
- 2 - 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
Ms. Brown graduated from law school in the Spring of 2012.  On May 21, 2012, 
Ms. Brown filed an application with the Board for admission to the Bar of Maryland 
pursuant to Md. Rule 19-202 (formerly Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Admission to the 
Bar of Maryland).2  Ms. Brown’s application was forwarded to Stuart Herschfeld (“Mr. 
Herschfeld”) for review and the required investigatory interview, pursuant to Md. Rule 19-
203(a)(1) (formerly Rule 5(b)(1) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of 
Maryland).3  Thereafter, Mr. Herschfeld requested that Ms. Brown supplement her 
application to address the status of outstanding debts and the criminal and civil matters 
noted in her file.  Although Ms. Brown supplemented her file, Mr. Herschfeld believed that 
the information provided failed to address his concerns regarding her application and raised 
                                                          
 
 
2 Specifically, Md. Rule 19-202(a) provides: 
 
(a) By Application.  An individual who meets the requirements of Rule 19-
201 or had the requirement of Rule 19-201(a)(2) waived pursuant to Rule 19-
201(b) may apply for admission to the Bar of this State by filing with the 
Board an application for admission, accompanied by a Notice of Intent to 
Take a Scheduled General Bar Examination, and the prescribed fee. 
 
3 Md. Rule 19-203(a)(1) states: 
 
(a) Investigation and Report of Character Committee. 
 
(1) On receipt of an application forwarded by the Board pursuant to Rule 19-
202(d), the Character Committee shall (A) through one of its members, 
personally interview the applicant, (B) verify the facts stated in the 
questionnaire, contact the applicant’s references, and make any further 
investigation it finds necessary or desirable, (C) evaluate the applicant’s 
character and fitness for the practice of law, and (D) transmit to the Board a 
report of its investigation and a recommendation as to the approval or denial 
of the application for admission. 
- 3 - 
 
additional questions regarding Ms. Brown’s misrepresentation of her law school grades 
and her academic probation during college.  
 
Thereafter, Ms. Brown refused to provide further information to supplement her file, 
because she was unsuccessful on the July 2012 Maryland Bar Examination.  When Ms. 
Brown passed the February 2013 Examination, she contacted Mr. Herschfeld to inquire 
about the status of her Bar application.  On May 23, 2013, Mr. Herschfeld issued a 
memorandum recommending against Ms. Brown’s admission, which stated, in relevant 
part: 
 
My decision is premised upon the following:  
1. While she did not disclose in her application the academic issue 
regarding a misrepresentation of her GPA for which she was 
sanctioned by her law school, I found her explanation troubling as she 
readily admits that she made the representation deliberately to gain a 
benefit in job search opportunities.  Subsequently, there was some 
documentation provided that further muddied the issue rather than 
clarifying it as is demonstrated in this file. 
 
2. Ms. Brown never provided a full explanation and response regarding 
the various outstanding balances to creditors as well as to update me 
regarding the status of debts that she was not aware of at the time of 
our interview as to how she was planning to resolve these outstanding 
debts.   
 
There are other matters that certainly may not weigh in her favor regarding 
the application, but these are the two primary reasons for which I cannot 
recommend her as an applicant to the State of Maryland Bar at this time.  
 
 
On June 7, 2013, the Chair of the Committee, Benjamin Vaughan (“Mr. Vaughan”), 
submitted a letter to Ms. Brown, advising her of Mr. Herschfeld’s recommendation and her 
right to a hearing pursuant to Md. Rule 19-203(a)(2) (formerly 5(b)(2) of the Rules 
- 4 - 
 
Governing Admission to the Bar of Maryland).4  Hearings were held before the Committee 
on February 23 and April 14, 2015, to address the facts and circumstances concerning the 
following matters: past criminal charges against Ms. Brown of making a false statement to 
a police officer and felony theft; her failure to disclose the theft charge on her Bar 
application; her financial irresponsibility; a reprimand from Ms. Brown’s law school for 
falsifying information on her resume; and whether the foregoing events reflected a 
cumulative pattern of dishonesty, a lack of candor, and a failure to honor legal 
commitments.  In attendance were several committee members, including the Mr. 
Herschfeld, who testified regarding his recommendation and the reasons supporting his 
position.  Ms. Brown appeared without counsel, testified on her own behalf, and offered 
into evidence additional documentation requested by the Committee concerning a 
statement of criminal charges and an academic reprimand letter from her law school.   
 
Subsequently, on August 4, 2015, the Committee issued a report, which included 
two written dissents, recommending by a three to two vote that Ms. Brown be admitted to 
the Bar of Maryland.  The Committee rendered the following findings of fact and 
conclusions, which we summarize:  
                                                          
 
 
4 Md. Rule 19-203(a)(2) provides, in relevant part: 
 
(2) If the Committee concludes that there may be grounds for recommending 
denial of the application, it shall notify the applicant in writing and schedule 
a hearing.  The hearing shall be recorded verbatim by shorthand, stenotype, 
mechanical or electronic audio recording methods, electronic word or text 
processing methods, or any combination of those methods. The applicant 
shall have the right to testify, to present other testimony and evidence, and to 
be represented by an attorney. . . . 
- 5 - 
 
Outstanding and Delinquent Debts 
 
Ms. Brown reported five credit accounts that were delinquent for more than ninety 
days: 1) Westlake Financial Services, with an unpaid balance of $ 9,973; 2) Santander 
Consumer USA, with an unpaid balance of $ 4,789; 3) Midland Credit Management, Inc., 
with an unpaid balance of $720; 4) HSBC Bank, with an unpaid balance of $1,014; and 5) 
Afni, Inc., with an unpaid balance of $260.  During Ms. Brown’s October 2012 interview, 
Mr. Herschfeld believed that Ms. Brown was unclear regarding the status of the unpaid 
balances and her ability to satisfy the arrearages.  Mr. Herschfeld sought specific 
information regarding the debts, and exchanged several e-mails with Ms. Brown in 
connection with his requests.  In a letter dated November 15, 2012, Ms. Brown indicated 
that she had no additional documentation regarding her creditors.  In Mr. Herschfeld’s May 
2013 memorandum, he recalled Ms. Brown’s assertion that the resolution of any issues 
with her creditors was not relevant, since she did not pass the bar examination. 
 
However, on February 22, 2015, Ms. Brown submitted additional documentation 
reflecting that all five outstanding loan balances were resolved.  Ms. Brown further 
explained: 
My problems with past debt have been due to poor financial planning on my 
part.  I have learned from this and have re-paid all accounts that I owed.  As 
evidence of my ability to be financially responsible I have two open accounts 
that are in good standing.  A Wells Fargo Credit Card opened in 2012 and a 
Capital One automobile loan opened in 2013.  
 
The Committee did not discover any information that “contradict[ed]” or “call[ed] into 
question[,]” Ms. Brown’s most recent representation regarding her outstanding debts, and 
- 6 - 
 
therefore, was satisfied that she demonstrated her character and moral fitness for the 
practice of law with respect to her credit account debt.  
Criminal Charges 
 
In 1992, Ms. Brown was charged with making a false statement to a police officer 
and felony theft.  She only disclosed the charge of making a false statement on her Bar 
application.  The charges arose from an alleged robbery that occurred on or about October 
10, 1992, while Ms. Brown was a manager in a retail clothing store in Prince George’s 
County.  The charging document for the false statement reflected the following: 
[Ms. Brown] made a report that she was the victim of a robbery.  [Ms. Brown] 
stated that she left the T/A and was on her way to make the night deposit, 
when a black male grabbed her and pulled her into a deserted hallway.  [Ms. 
Brown] said that she dropped her hand bag [and] the deposit bag and ran 
back into the main hallway to call for help.  [A mall employee] who was 
closing up her ear piercing booth stated that she observed [Ms. Brown] 
walking past her booth and there was no one else in the [hallway] at the time.  
[T]he mall was closed.  The ear piercing booth is located [approximately] 
twenty feet from the hallway of the alleged incident.  [The mall employee] 
also stated that [Ms. Brown] walked calmly out of the hallway as though 
nothing was wrong. Landover Mall Security SPO Grey who was at the 
outside entrance to the hallway stated that no one came out of the hallway.   
 
This investigator checked the [hallway] [and] there is no way the alleged 
suspect could have escaped through the hallway without being seen.  A check 
with the District Manager . . . indicated that [Ms. Brown] was not allowed to 
make deposits by herself.  Ms. Brown stated the opposite[.]  Ms. Brown 
stated that her boyfriend . . . was in the area of the T/A at around 9:00 [p.m.] 
but only stayed for about five minutes.  SPO Gray and SPO Chase both 
security guards at the [L]andover [M]all indicated that they both observed 
the boyfriend around the T/A until closing at 10:00 [p.m.]  The boyfriend 
[then] re-appeared from the opposite side of the mall just after the robbery 
[(alleged)].  A total of $1,817 was allegedly taken from [ ] the District 
manager who is responsible for T/A funds.   
 
On [October 12, 1992] this investigator was assigned this case for follow-up 
investigation.  After talking to the persons mentioned in this application 
- 7 - 
 
based on this investigator[’s] training and experience, the statements made 
to P/O Officer Neel 1776 on [October 10, 2012] concerning this robbery are 
false. . . . 
 
 Ms. Brown denied making a false statement during her October 2012 interview and during 
the hearings.   
 
Ms. Brown’s charge for felony theft in connection with the 1992 incident was not 
reported on her Bar application.  Question Number 12 of the application required that she 
provide “a complete record of all criminal proceedings (including traffic citations, arrests, 
and summonses) to which [she is or has ever been] a party. . . .”  Ms. Brown testified that 
she did not disclose the theft charge because she was not aware of it. 
 
She explained that when she initially sought the criminal records from the Circuit 
Court for Prince George’s County, she was only provided documents relating to the false 
statement charge.  The record reflects that the felony theft charge was listed under a 
separate case number, but a part of the October 1992 incident.  At the request of the 
Committee, Ms. Brown produced a copy of the Statement of Charges, which indicated that 
she was charged with theft in excess of $300 cash from New Retail Concepts. 
- 8 - 
 
 
Docket entries revealed that both charges were placed on the stet5 docket on 
September 20, 1993.6  The record does not reflect convictions for either charge.  During 
Ms. Brown’s testimony, she recalled that at the direction of a Public Defender, she pled 
“not guilty[,]” but agreed to accept the stet.  Ms. Brown further testified that she 
subsequently hired an attorney to remove the charges from the stet docket before the stated 
time period, after being advised that she should not have accepted it.  The record does not 
reflect whether Ms. Brown’s attempt was successful.  The Committee concluded that the 
charges did not reflect negatively on Ms. Brown’s character, given their remoteness in 
time, the fact that they were placed on the stet docket, and did not result in convictions.  
                                                          
 
 
5 Md. Rule 4-248 provides: 
 
(a) Disposition by Stet. On motion of the State’s Attorney, the court may 
indefinitely postpone trial of a charge by marking the charge “stet” on the 
docket.  The defendant need not be present when a charge is stetted but if 
neither the defendant nor the defendant’s attorney is present, the clerk shall 
send notice of the stet to the defendant, if the defendant’s whereabouts are 
known, and to the defendant’s attorney of record.  Notice shall not be sent if 
either the defendant or the defendant’s attorney was present in court when 
the charge was stetted.  If notice is required, the clerk may send one notice 
that lists all of the charges that were stetted.  A charge may not be stetted 
over the objection of the defendant.  A stetted charge may be rescheduled for 
trial at the request of either party within one year and thereafter only by order 
of court for good cause shown. 
 
(b) Effect of Stet. When a charge is stetted, the clerk shall take the action 
necessary to recall or revoke any outstanding warrant or detainer that could 
lead to the arrest or detention of the defendant because of the charge, unless 
the court orders that any warrant or detainer shall remain outstanding. 
 
 
6 The Committee opined that Ms. Brown possibly resolved the theft charge without 
fully understanding that the arresting officer later supplemented the case with a felony theft 
charge.  
 
- 9 - 
 
The Committee found that Ms. Brown was “entirely candid” in discussing the charges 
before them.  
Academic Reprimand for Falsification of Resume 
 
The Committee found Ms. Brown’s “admitted intentional misrepresentation of her 
[GPA] during the final semester of law school[,]” most egregious.  Ms. Brown provided an 
April 24, 2012 reprimand letter from her law school’s Academic Standards Committee, 
which reported that she submitted a resume to the school’s Director of Career and 
Professional Development that falsely reported her GPA to be 3.71, when her GPA was 
only 2.71.  The letter also noted that Ms. Brown failed to correct the misrepresentation 
when the Assistant Director of the career development office congratulated her on the false 
GPA.7 
 
In deciding to issue a reprimand, the Academic Standards Committee considered 
the following: 1) Ms. Brown’s “estimable record of accomplishments;” 2) her “civic 
engagement and respect by her classmates;” 3) “the isolated nature of the incident;” and 4) 
the “sincerity of Ms. Brown’s regret regarding her conduct.”  During the hearings, Ms. 
Brown admitted she placed false information on her resume in order to secure an on-
campus interview with a prospective employer, who required a minimum GPA of 3.0.   Ms. 
Brown also testified that she withdrew her application with the prospective employer after 
the interview, reasoning that her conduct was “dishonest,” “unethical,” and “stupid.”  
                                                          
 
 
7 Subsequently, the Assistant Director held a meeting with Ms. Brown to discuss the 
incorrect GPA and referred the matter to the law school’s academic committee after Ms. 
Brown admitted to the falsification. 
- 10 - 
 
Although Ms. Brown acknowledged that her misrepresentation would have been exposed 
when the employer obtained her law school transcript, she admitted that she would not 
have reported it had she not been caught by the career development staff. 
 
The Committee accepted mitigation evidence relative to the resume incident.  The 
Committee observed that three years had elapsed since the event leading to her academic 
reprimand, and that during that time, Ms. Brown held a real estate license, has been a notary 
public, and has worked for at least two title companies.  The Committee also observed that 
within that period, no complaints had been lodged against her, and the accuracy and 
integrity of her work had not been questioned.   
 
The Committee also accepted a letter from a classmate of Ms. Brown’s and member 
of the Student Bar Association, who served on the Academic Standards Committee and 
reviewed the falsification incident.  The letter stated, in relevant part: 
I have no reservations or hesitation in recommending her for admission to 
the Maryland Bar.  I believe that what occurred was completely out of 
character for her and is not reflective of the type of person she is, or the kind 
of attorney she will be.  
 
The Committee concluded that it was “impressed” with Ms. Brown’s accomplishments in 
the years since graduation, in addition to the statements made by supporters in her reference 
letters.  The Committee also considered Ms. Brown’s expression of contrition and her 
demeanor during her testimony, and found that the act of falsifying her resume in law 
school “represented an anomaly rather than a character trait,” in which Ms. Brown “has 
learned a very difficult lesson” and “is not likely to engage in such behavior in the future.”  
- 11 - 
 
Accordingly, the Committee concluded that Ms. Brown demonstrated “her moral character 
and fitness for the practice of law in this respect[.]” 
Civil Litigation 
 
The Committee observed that Ms. Brown’s application included references to 
several previous civil actions in which she had been a party.  The Committee accepted Ms. 
Brown’s explanation, and concluded that given the remoteness in time, “they do not 
indicate a propensity on her part to abuse the legal system for her advantage.”8 
The Committee’s Conclusions   
 
In closing, the Committee stated: 
We have had the opportunity to review all of the documents which Mr. 
Herschfeld received, and the additional documents which Ms. Brown 
provided during the two hearings on this matter.  We believe Ms. Brown has 
been candid and forthcoming with respect to embarrassing and difficult 
matters in her past.  We have had the opportunity to consider her testimony 
in substance, and her demeanor during those two hearings.  We have had the 
opportunity to review the statements of those who support her candidacy for 
admission to the Bar.  We are impressed with Ms. Brown’s accomplishments.  
After consideration of all of these factors, we believe Ms. Brown has borne 
her burden of proving her character and moral fitness for the practice of law 
in the State of Maryland.  We recommend that she be admitted to the Bar.   
 
 
Two of the Committee members disagreed with the majority’s recommendation in 
written dissents.  David DeJong (“Mr. DeJong”), observed that the following factors 
weighed heavily against Ms. Brown’s admission to the Bar: 1) the nature of Ms. Brown’s 
actions in deliberately and intentionally falsifying her resume in order to establish her 
                                                          
 
 
8 Given this Court’s focus on Ms. Brown’s past conduct as it relates to her duty of 
full disclosure and character for candor and truthfulness, we agree with the Committee’s 
conclusion regarding the remoteness of her prior civil litigation matters, and therefore, will 
not address those matters.    
- 12 - 
 
eligibility for a position of employment; 2) “[t]he fact that the action occurred while Ms. 
Brown was in law school;” 3) “[t]he fact that Ms. Brown withdrew her resume for 
consideration only because of the likelihood that she would get caught in her act of 
dishonesty;” 4) “[t]he fact that but for her fear of being caught, she would have pursued 
the position and would have persisted in her deception to that end;” and 5) “[t]he fact that 
only three years have passed since her actions.” 
 
Mr. DeJong concluded that Ms. Brown’s law school “would have been well justified 
in expelling her on the basis of her actions” under the University’s Honor Code, and that 
the choice to issue a reprimand was not a factor reflective of a “proper candidate for 
admission to the Bar.”  Mr. DeJong acknowledged the mitigation evidence relative to her 
accomplishments during law school, but nonetheless, believed that they did not outweigh 
the severity of her actions which resulted in an academic reprimand.  Accordingly, Mr. 
DeJong concluded that Ms. Brown failed to demonstrate that she possessed the requisite 
character and moral fitness for the practice of law.  
 
Mr. Vaughan, the Chair of the Committee, who joined in voting against Ms. 
Brown’s recommendation in a separate written dissent, shared similar concerns regarding 
Ms. Brown’s dishonesty in falsifying her resume, and emphasized that her actions 
transpired during law school, in contemplation of a career as an attorney.  Mr. Vaughan 
also expressed concerns regarding Ms. Brown’s inconsistent testimony, relative to her 
failure to disclose the felony theft charge on her Bar application.  He observed that Ms. 
Brown indicated that her failure to disclose was because she could not recall it, which 
contradicted her prior testimony where she admitted her recollection of the charge.  
- 13 - 
 
Specifically, Mr. Vaughan observed that during the February 23, 2015 hearing, Ms. Brown 
initially testified as follows: 
[MR. VAUGHAN]: Putting debt and resolution of debt aside for a second, is 
there anything else you would like to . . . testify to with regard to matters 
raised by Mr. Herschfeld over and above the debt issues? 
 
[MS. BROWN]: Yes.  So on the false statement and grand theft, I was very 
clear with him when he spoke to me about this that I never said that I 
committed theft or anything of that nature. . . . [the police officer] kept 
saying, ‘[y]ou’re lying to me, you’re lying to me.’  This went on multiple 
incidents.  And then he finally arrested me.   
 
At first he charged me with making a false statement.  Then at some point he 
did do the theft, I do remember that, but I remember the theft either—I don’t 
know if it got tied into the stet or if it went away. . . . 
 
(emphasis omitted).  
 
However, when questioned regarding her reasons for not disclosing the theft charge, Ms. 
Brown stated the following: 
[MR. VAUGHAN]: Why did you omit the theft charge when you filled out 
this application?  So the record’s clear, page 92 is question 12 (a) of the 
application for admission to the bar and your response to question 12 (a) 
where you have identified simply a single criminal charge.  The question 
calls for a “complete record of all criminal proceedings,” etc., and you have 
responded by identifying simply the false statement to a police officer 
charge.  Now, why did you not include the theft charge? 
 
[MS. BROWN]: I think that when I went to the courthouse and got the 
documents, I’m not sure if I understood—I know that at some point—I don’t 
think I understood that there was also a grand theft charge, I don’t think I 
ever understood there was actually a grand theft charge.  Every time I went, 
when I went to court I thought it was about the false statement.  
 
* * * 
 
[MR. VAUGHAN]: Putting aside [the criminal record for the theft charge], 
are you now testifying that you do not recall ever being charged with the 
charge of grand theft? 
- 14 - 
 
 
[MS. BROWN]: I don’t remember that particular charge.  I do remember at 
some point that there was—I know that the officer at some point was trying 
to say that, you know, I was involved in the robbery somehow in that I was 
making a false statement.  
 
[MR. VAUGHAN]: Let me ask you this—[w]ere you ever charged with the 
charge of grand theft, whether or not it was arising from the same transaction 
or in any way connected to the false statement charge? 
 
[MS. BROWN]: I don’t know if that charge was ever part of that case. 
 
[MR. VAUGHAN]: Yes, but my question is broader than that.  Were you 
ever charged— 
 
[MS. BROWN]: I don’t ever remember being charged with grand theft.   
 
(emphasis omitted).  
 
 
Based upon the foregoing, and coupled with her actions in falsifying information on 
her resume, Mr. Vaughan concluded that Ms. Brown failed to demonstrate her good 
character and moral fitness to practice law.  Mr. Vaughan noted that Ms. Brown’s failure 
to disclose the theft charge and the absence of a consistent, or credible explanation for the 
failure to disclose, led to his recommendation against admission. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 15 - 
 
 
On October 23, 2015, the Board conducted a hearing on the record made before the 
Committee in accordance with Md. Rule 19-203(b) (formerly Rule 5(c) of the Rules 
Governing Admission to the Bar of Maryland),9 based upon its belief that there could have 
been grounds for recommending the denial of Ms. Brown’s admission to the Bar.  The 
Board ultimately recommended Ms. Brown’s admission by a four to three vote.  This 
matter was forwarded to this Court on February 4, 2016.  On May 4, 2016, we heard oral 
argument.  For the reasons we shall explain, we hold that Ms. Brown has not demonstrated 
that she currently possesses the requisite moral character and fitness for admission to the 
Bar.    
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
We address whether Ms. Brown has met the burden of establishing that she 
“possesse[s] the [requisite] moral character to practice law in the State of Maryland.” In re 
Application of T. Z.-A.O., 441 Md. 65, 73, 105 A.3d 492, 496 (2014) (quoting In re 
Application of Cramer, 427 Md. 612, 50 A.3d 1066, 1071 (2012) (citations omitted).  
Pursuant to Rule 19-203(d) (formerly Rule 5(a)) of the Rules Governing Admission to the 
Bar of Maryland, “[a]n applicant must possess good moral character for admission to any 
Bar, denoted by ‘those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite 
                                                          
 
9 Md. Rule 19-203(b) provides, in relevant part: 
 
(b) Hearing by Board.  If the Board concludes after review of the Character 
Committee’s report and the transcript that there may be grounds for 
recommending denial of the application, it shall promptly afford the 
applicant the opportunity for a hearing on the record made before the 
Committee. . . .  
- 16 - 
 
discretion, [and] of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility.’” Application of 
Cramer, 427 Md. at 622, 50 A.3d at 1071-72. See also Application of T. Z-A.O., 441 Md. 
at 73, 105 A.3d at 496.  “[G]ood moral character includes truthfulness and candor, [in 
which] absolute candor is a requisite of admission to the Bar of Maryland.” Id. (quoting 
Application of Cramer, 427 Md. at 622, 50 A.3d at 1072).  
Moreover, “[w]e determine . . . present moral character by evaluating whether, 
‘viewing the applicant’s character in the period subsequent to his [or her] misconduct, [the 
applicant] has so convincingly rehabilitated himself [or herself] that it is proper that he [or 
she] become a member of a profession which must stand free from all suspicion.’” 
Application of T.Z-A.O., 441 Md. at 73, 105 A.3d at 496 (quoting In re Application of Stern, 
403 Md. 615, 629, 943 A.2d 1247, 1255 (2008) (citations omitted).  
 
“The Board’s [determination] that an applicant does not possess the requisite moral 
character, and recommendation against admission to the Bar, are entitled to great weight.” 
Application of Stern, 403 Md. at 629, 943 A.2d at 1255 (citations omitted).  However, “this 
Court [conducts] its own independent evaluation of the applicant’s present moral character 
based upon testimony and evidence submitted before the [ ] Committee and the Board.” Id. 
at 630, 943 A.2d at 1255 (citations omitted).  
DISCUSSION 
 
Ms. Brown admitted that she had been financially irresponsible, failed to disclose 
the felony theft charge on her Bar application, and falsified material information on her 
resume during law school.  Nonetheless, Ms. Brown avers that these incidents were not 
indicative of her present moral character and fitness for admission to the Bar of Maryland.  
- 17 - 
 
With the exception of Ms. Brown’s patterns of financial irresponsibility, which, in our 
view, she has since rehabilitated based on the record before us,10 we disagree.   
 
Relative to the failure to disclose information, Ms. Brown alleges that she was not 
aware of the felony theft charge, and therefore, did not disclose it on her Bar application.  
However, the record reveals the contrary.  Specifically, during Ms. Brown’s testimony at 
the February 2015 hearing, she stated, in relevant part:  “I was very clear with [Mr. 
Herschfeld] . . . that I never said I committed theft of anything of that nature[,]” and that 
“[a]t first [the police officer] charged me with making a false statement.  Then at some 
point he did do the theft, I do remember that, but I remember the theft either—I don’t know 
if it got tied into the stet or if it went away.” (emphasis added).  Contrary to these assertions, 
Ms. Brown thereafter, affirmatively denied having recalled the felony theft charge, by 
stating, “I don’t remember that particular charge [(i.e., the felony theft charge)][,]” and “I 
don’t ever remember being charged with [felony] theft.” 
Our cases concerning admission to the Bar of Maryland have emphasized “the 
importance of candor” and full disclosure in the Bar application process. Application of 
Stern, 403 Md. at 634, 943 A.2d at 1258.  In the case, In re Application of Gjini, ___ Md. 
___ (2016), Misc. No. 32, September Term, 2016 (filed July 7, 2016), we denied the 
admission of an applicant who failed to disclose a Petition to Violate Probation and its 
attendant Show Cause Order on his Bar application.  Similarly, in In re Application of 
                                                          
 
10 At the time of the hearings, Ms. Brown testified and provided evidence indicating 
that she had paid off her delinquent debts and had not incurred any further unnecessary 
debt.  Additional documentation requested by the Board in September 2015 also revealed 
that Ms. Brown was adhering to responsible financial management.   
- 18 - 
 
Brown, 392 Md. 44, 45-46, 57-58, 895 A.2d 1050, 1050-51, 1057-58 (2006), we denied 
the admission of an applicant who, inter alia, omitted his federal conviction for bank fraud 
on both his law school and Bar application.  Likewise, in Application of Stern, 403 Md. at 
634-35, 943 A.2d at 1258, we denied the admission of an applicant, who, inter alia, did 
not disclose several civil suits filed against him for delinquent credit accounts, numerous 
accounts with which he had established credit, and the number of his delinquent credit 
accounts. 
 
Moreover, our cases demonstrate that an applicant’s lack of candor, truthfulness, or 
full disclosure, as reflected by an applicant’s inconsistent or contradictory testimony, or 
other evidence, also supports the denial of admission to the Bar.  See In re Application of 
Hyland, 339 Md. 521, 539, 663 A.2d 1309, 1317–18 (1995) (admission denied to applicant 
whose testimony before the Committee and the Board revealed inconsistencies, 
contradictions, and evasiveness); In re Application of K.B., 291 Md. 170, 179-81, 434 A.2d 
541, 546 (1981) (admission denied to applicant in part, for apparent lack of candor in Bar 
application, revealed by the applicant’s inconsistent testimony before the Board).  
 
Ms. Brown was charged with felony theft and making a false statement to a police 
officer, which were processed under two separate charging documents and case numbers.  
Ms. Brown did not disclose the theft charge on her Bar application, although she initially 
testified that she recalled receiving a separate charge for theft, which she acknowledged in 
her communications with Mr. Herschfeld.  Later during her testimony, Ms. Brown 
indicated that she had no recollection of the felony theft charge, which was inconsistent 
with her earlier testimony.  “[A] lack of candor and misleading or evasive answers to the 
- 19 - 
 
Committee and the Board’s questions may be proper grounds for a finding of lack of good 
moral character.” Application of Hyland, 339 Md. at 539, 663 A.2d at 1317.  Ms. Brown’s 
failure to disclose a known criminal charge, and her inconsistent testimony regarding her 
recollection of those charges, diminishes the veracity of her testimony, and reflects 
negatively on her character for candor and truthfulness.   
 
Ms. Brown contends that apart from the October 2012 incident, which occurred in 
her twenties, she has not received any other criminal charges.  Nonetheless, our conclusions 
regarding Ms. Brown’s moral character and fitness are not just based upon the substance 
of her criminal charges, her age, or current standing with the law, but rather, on her failure 
to disclose the theft charge on her Bar application as required.  “[D]isclosure on the Bar 
application and immediate and full supplementation after an incident warranting exposition 
is mandatory, not voluntary.  It is not the choice of a candidate for admission whether to 
disclose and under what conditions.” Application of Strzempek, 407 Md. 102, 113, 962 
A.2d 988, 994 (2008). See also Application of Gjini, ___ Md. ___ (2016), Misc. No. 32, 
September Term, 2016, at *20 (holding that the applicant’s “disregard of his obligation to 
disclose [or supplement his Bar application with a Petition to Violate Probation], whether 
because of ignorance or calculated error d[id] not warrant his admission to the Bar of 
Maryland[]”).    
 
Ms. Brown’s explanations of her of failure to disclose, as reflected in the record and 
her representations during oral argument before this Court, are inconsistent, and tend to 
minimize the extent of her responsibility.  We further observe that Ms. Brown failed to 
disclose a known criminal charge, despite signing an affirmation attesting to the accuracy 
- 20 - 
 
of the information provided on her Bar application.  Ms. Brown affixed her signature under 
the portion of the Bar application titled “Affirmation of Applicant’s Duty of Full, Candid 
Disclosure and Applicant’s Continuing Duty to Submit Written Notice of Changes to 
Information Sought by the Application,” which stated: 
I understand that the required disclosures in this questionnaire are of a 
continuing nature.  I hereby acknowledge my duty to respond fully and 
candidly to each question or required disclosure and to ensure that my 
responses are accurate and current at all times until I am formally admitted 
to the Bar of the State of Maryland.  I will advise the Board immediately and 
in writing of any changes in the information disclosed in or sought by this 
questionnaire, including any pertinent facts developed after the initial filing 
of this application and the facts of any incident occurring subsequent to the 
initial filing of this application.  
 
I do solemnly declare and affirm under the penalties of perjury, that the 
matters and facts set forth in the foregoing application are true and correct.  
 
I have made and retained a copy of this entire application for my records and 
for use in the event that the original is lost in the mail or during the character 
investigation. 
 
(italics and emboldening omitted).  
 
 
Even more troubling, is Ms. Brown’s falsification of information on her resume 
during the last semester of law school.  Ms. Brown alleges that this conduct displayed a 
“lapse in judgment” that was not indicative of her character, suggesting that the candid 
confession of her culpability and requisite remorse, should be viewed favorably towards 
her admission to the Bar.  We disagree.  Ms. Brown deliberately altered her GPA on her 
resume to advance employment prospects which she would not have qualified for, had her 
true GPA had been disclosed.  Ms. Brown was cognizant that her actions were misleading.  
- 21 - 
 
Ms. Brown also candidly admitted that the motivation behind her actions were calculated 
and purely designed for her own personal gain.  
Ms. Brown further testified that had her law school not confronted her regarding the 
falsified GPA, she would not have taken the initiative to correct the misinformation. 
Specifically, Ms. Brown admitted that she did not correct the misrepresentation, even when 
the Assistant Director of the law school’s career development office congratulated her for 
achieving an “outstanding GPA,” and did not do so during an on-campus interview with 
the prospective employer.  In furtherance of this act of deception, Ms. Brown testified that 
she only withdrew her resume from consideration because of her fear of being caught, and 
the fact that her actual GPA would have ultimately been revealed when compared against 
her law school transcript.  
Ms. Brown avers that she has since been rehabilitated, pointing to her current role 
as a real estate settlement agent and a notary public, in the District of Columbia, Maryland, 
and Virginia areas.  Ms. Brown stated that she currently provides notary services and 
performs an average of fifty transactions a month in connection with settlement closings, 
which requires, inter alia, that she verify and ensure the accuracy of the documents for 
each transaction.  Ms. Brown alleges that these professional roles are indicative of her 
moral character and fitness, since they demonstrate that she has not “falsified any 
documents” and “follows the rules,” unlike her conduct in the Spring 2012 incident.   
 
We similarly acknowledge Ms. Brown’s various accomplishments during law 
school and the years since graduation, in addition to her candid admission of culpability 
and remorse for her conduct.  However, given that only four years have passed since Ms. 
- 22 - 
 
Brown falsified her resume and subsequently failed to disclose the felony theft charge on 
her Bar application without a credible explanation for the omission during the Committee’s 
investigatory review, , it is questionable whether Ms. Brown fully “understand[s] the high 
standard of integrity expected of an attorney.” Application of Hyland, 339 Md. at 539, 663 
A.2d at 1318.    
 
The prospect of an applicant’s admission to the Bar of Maryland is significantly 
diminished when he or she engages in misleading and deceptive conduct, which reflects 
adversely on the applicant’s integrity, moral character, and fitness to practice law. See, e.g., 
Application of Brown, 392 Md. at 58, 895 A.2d at 1058 (“Mr. Brown’s integrity is further 
impugned by the fact that he also concealed his incarceration on the resume that he attached 
to his law school application by affirmatively stating that he was employed during the same 
period.”). 
Collectively, Ms. Brown’s actions in failing to disclose the felony theft charge, and 
falsifying information on her resume, are indicative of a cumulative pattern of a lack of 
honesty and candor, which is contrary to the fundamental characteristics of an attorney.  
See Application of K. B., 291 Md. 170, 181, 434 A.2d 541, 546 (1981) (“[N]o moral 
character qualification for Bar membership is more important than truthfulness and 
candor.”) (quoting In re Application of Allan S., 282 Md. 683, 689, 387 A.2d 271, 277 
(1978)).  
Although we accord great weight to the Board’s determination, our independent 
review of the record, which includes argument before this Court, where Ms. Brown 
appeared and responded to questions, and the proceedings before the Committee and the 
- 23 - 
 
Board, leads us to conclude that Ms. Brown has failed to unequivocally meet the burden of 
establishing that she presently possesses the good moral character and fitness required for 
admission to the Bar of Maryland.  In 2012, which was approximately four years ago, Ms. 
Brown revealed to the Committee and the Board that she deliberately falsified her GPA to 
enhance her qualifications with a prospective employer, and was less than candid regarding 
a previous felony theft charge.  Accordingly, Ms. Brown’s application is, hereby, denied. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.