Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Woolery

Citation: 

Docket Number: 15ag/16

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2017-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Benjamin Jeremy Woolery 
Misc. Docket AG No. 15, September Term 2016 
 
 
Attorney Discipline – Failure to Act with Competence and Diligence – Conduct 
Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice.  A reprimand is the appropriate sanction 
when an attorney appointed as the personal representative of an estate impulsively sold for 
$500 a tractor worth $10,000 stored by one of the beneficiaries of the estate on property 
owned by the estate without first ascertaining the ownership or approximate value of the 
tractor and, even though promptly informed of the tractor’s ownership and value, failed to 
rectify his error because of the attorney’s antipathy to the tractor’s owner.  MLRPC 1.1, 
1.3, 8.4(a) & (d). 
 
 
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County 
Case No.   CAE16-27559 
Argument:  September 6, 2017 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. Docket AG No.  15 
 
September Term, 2016 
 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 
OF MARYLAND 
 
V. 
 
BENJAMIN JEREMY WOOLERY 
 
_____________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
Barbera, C.J., 
 
 
 
Greene 
 
 
 
Adkins 
 
 
 
McDonald 
 
 
 
Watts 
 
 
 
Hotten 
 
 
 
Getty, 
 
 
 
 
 
JJ. 
 
______________________________________ 
 
Opinion by McDonald, J. 
 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed: December 15, 2017
 
 
No one who has practiced law for any appreciable time can claim to have never 
made a mistake in that practice.  A mistake in the practice of law is not necessarily 
professional misconduct.  However, once aware of a mistake that harms another and given 
the opportunity to mitigate it, a lawyer who decides to do nothing may be guilty of 
misconduct. 
 
Respondent Benjamin Woolery was appointed as personal representative for an 
estate that had a single asset – real property that had served as the decedent’s home.  There 
were five heirs – adult children of the decedent – with different ideas as to how to dispose 
of that property.  In handling this difficult estate, Mr. Woolery made a mistake.  In 
preparing the property for sale, he came upon a tractor that had been stored there by one of 
the adult children.  Without determining the tractor’s ownership or value, he impulsively 
sold it to an individual who happened to be present for what turned out to be a small fraction 
of the tractor’s actual value. 
 
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Woolery became aware of his mistake.  Mr. Woolery was 
promptly informed of the ownership and value of the tractor.  Given the opportunity to 
remedy the situation, Mr. Woolery chose not to do so, apparently out of personal animus 
toward its owner.  We hold that the choice that Mr. Woolery made was misconduct that 
merits a reprimand.
2 
 
I 
Background 
A. 
Procedural Context 
On June 24, 2016, the Attorney Grievance Commission (“Commission”) through 
Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action with this Court against 
Mr. Woolery.  The Commission charged Mr. Woolery with violations of the following 
Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”): 1.1 (Competence); 1.3 
(Diligence); 1.7 (Conflict of Interest); 3.3 (Candor toward the Tribunal); and 8.4(a)-(d) 
(Misconduct).1  On August 10, 2016, Mr. Woolery filed an answer to the petition in which 
he admitted most of the factual allegations, qualified his agreement with a few of them, 
and denied the conclusion of the petition that those facts constituted professional 
misconduct. 
In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-722(a), we designated Judge Hassan A. El-
Amin of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to conduct a hearing concerning the 
alleged violations and to provide findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.2  
The hearing took place over three days on December 7 - 8, 2016 and January 13, 2017.  At 
                                              
1 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 
(“MLRPC”) were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and 
recodified in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules.  Because the conduct in question occurred 
prior to the recodification and because the alleged violations were charged and litigated 
under the prior codification, we refer to the MLRPC throughout this opinion.    
2 The Court originally assigned the matter to Judge Krystal Q. Alves.  The Court 
rescinded that designation on August 29, 2016, and assigned the case to Judge El-Amin 
instead.  
3 
 
the hearing, the parties submitted a detailed stipulation of facts and introduced in evidence 
various documentary exhibits, including much of the record of Orphans’ Court and District 
Court proceedings related to the charges against Mr. Woolery.  Several witnesses, 
including Mr. Woolery, testified. 
 
On March 20, 2017, the hearing judge issued a memorandum opinion in which he 
made detailed findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.  In his recommended 
conclusions of law, the hearing judge concluded that Mr. Woolery violated MLRPC 8.4(d).  
The hearing judge found that the Commission failed to prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that Mr. Woolery violated MLRPC 1.7, 3.3, and 8.4(a), (b), and (c).  He also 
found in Mr. Woolery’s favor for the most part with respect to the alleged violations of 
MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3.   
Neither party filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact.  Mr. Woolery 
filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s conclusions of law to the extent that the hearing 
judge found violations of the MLRPC.  This Court held oral argument on September 6, 
2017.  
B. 
Facts 
Neither party contests the hearing judge’s findings of fact and, accordingly, we treat 
those findings as established.  Maryland Rule 19-741(b)(2)(A).  We summarize those 
findings, along with the parties’ stipulations and admissions, and other matters uncontested 
in the record. 
 
 
4 
 
Mr. Woolery’s Law Practice  
Mr. Woolery has been a member of the Maryland Bar since December 1988.  During 
the period pertinent to this case, Mr. Woolery was a junior partner in the firm of McGill 
and Woolery in Upper Marlboro.  Mr. Woolery has had substantial experience in the field 
of estates and trusts law.  
The Roy Chambers Estate 
On July 3, 2006, Roy L. Chambers, Jr., a resident of Prince George’s County, passed 
away.  His wife having predeceased him, Mr. Chambers was survived by five adult 
children: Carolyn Bowman, Mary Nicodemus, David Lee Chambers, Kenneth J. 
Chambers, and Thomas Chambers.  Mr. Chambers had executed a will on January 23, 
1985.  According to Mr. Chambers’ will, his five surviving children were to receive equal 
shares of his residuary estate.  A few days after Mr. Chambers’ death, the Register of Wills 
for Prince George’s County opened the Estate of Roy L. Chambers, Jr., Estate No. 
00000007907.   
Mr. Woolery becomes Personal Representative of the Estate 
The estate had a succession of personal representatives, including two stints by Mr. 
Woolery.  Initially, one of Mr. Chambers’ daughters – Carolyn Bowman – was appointed 
personal representative of the estate pursuant to the terms of the will.  Mr. Woolery was 
appointed as a successor personal representative on December 13, 2007, until he was 
replaced by another attorney on April 28, 2008.3  He was later reappointed as personal 
                                              
3 Mr. Woolery initially became involved with the estate at the behest of Mary 
Nicodemus, but decided to “bow out” after a few months as personal representative.  Mr. 
5 
 
representative of the estate on March 18, 2010, and served until his final accounting in late 
2016. 
The Property of the Estate 
When Mr. Woolery became personal representative of the estate for the second time, 
it had one asset – a parcel of real property that Mr. Chambers had owned free of any 
encumbrances at the time of his death.  The property was located at 7301 Webster Lane, 
Fort Washington, Maryland 20744 (“the Webster Lane property”).  The Webster Lane 
property consisted of 1.95 acres which was improved by a house, a garage with a residential 
apartment, and a large shed.  Mr. Chambers and his wife had once resided in the house.  
Other than the Webster Lane property, the estate had no other assets.4 
The Family Dispute 
A rift among the surviving children hindered the efforts of Mr. Woolery and the 
prior personal representatives to dispose of the Webster Lane property and close the estate.  
The heirs had split into two groups.  One group, which the hearing judge referred to as the 
“Bowman Camp,” included Carolyn Bowman, Kenneth J. Chambers (who both lived in 
Michigan), and David Lee Chambers (who lived in Virginia).  The Bowman Camp wanted 
to sell the property and split the proceeds of the property among all five children. 
                                              
Woolery was succeeded by Darryl Kelly, who served until July 2, 2008, when Ara D. 
Parker was named as personal representative.  When Ms. Parker asked to be removed from 
that position, citing “verbal abuse by two of the heirs,” Mr. Woolery was appointed for the 
second time. 
4 A brokerage account titled jointly in the name of Mr. Chambers and one of his 
children had been disposed of by operation of law outside the estate. 
6 
 
The other group, referred to as the “Nicodemus Camp,” included Mary Nicodemus 
and Thomas Chambers, who lived in Prince George’s County and Charles County, 
respectively.  The Nicodemus Camp contended that the Webster Lane property should be 
conveyed to Mary Nicodemus and Thomas Chambers because members of the Bowman 
Camp had already received the benefit of Mr. Chambers’ brokerage accounts by operation 
of law outside of the estate. 
Over the years after Mr. Chambers’ death, the Nicodemus Camp made various 
efforts to procure the Webster Lane property, including suing the estate to force 
conveyance of the property, requesting dismissal of personal representatives, and objecting 
to accountings.  Those efforts made it difficult for any of the personal representatives to 
resolve the estate.   
Mr. Woolery’s Effort to Sell the Webster Lane Property 
When he became personal representative for the estate the second time in March 
2010, Mr. Woolery intended to sell the Webster Lane property.  He encountered several 
problems in this effort.  In addition to the family discord over whether to sell the property 
at all, the estate had no other assets to finance the expense of preparing and advertising the 
property for sale.  Mr. Woolery’s effort to obtain a bank loan was rejected and he was 
unwilling to advance money to the estate himself.5  Thus, for any professional services 
related to the property, Mr. Woolery would have to hire those professionals on a 
                                              
5 In an affidavit in lieu of accounting submitted to the Orphans’ Court, Mr. Woolery 
indicated that he might make a loan to the estate at an interest rate of between 5% and 7%, 
but he apparently decided not to do so.   
7 
 
contingency basis.  Moreover, by the time Mr. Woolery became personal representative 
for the estate the second time, Thomas Chambers had begun renting one or more of the 
buildings on the property to various tenants.  While Thomas Chambers and the tenants thus 
helped maintain the property, their presence became an obstacle to Mr. Woolery’s effort to 
dispose of it. 
Initially, Mr. Woolery pursued the possibility of subdividing the property but 
ultimately dropped that idea.  In September 2011, he obtained permission from the 
Orphans’ Court to sell the Webster Lane property “as is” with a 10% commission.  Over 
the next two and a half years, Mr. Woolery made a few visits to the property and entered 
into discussions with a realtor.  At the hearing of this case, Mr. Woolery testified that, in 
light of the ongoing dispute among Mr. Chambers’ adult children concerning disposition 
of the property, he had decided to “lay low in the grass.”  As the hearing judge noted, Mr. 
Woolery adopted a “go slow, stealth-like, indirect, and non-confrontational approach.”  Mr. 
Woolery felt that this approach was best, having developed some concern, based on 
statements of David Chambers and Carolyn Bowman, that Thomas Chambers might resort 
to violence, and therefore wished to avoid contact with Thomas Chambers. 
Mr. Woolery Visits the Property in April 2014 to Take Control 
In April 2014, Mr. Woolery decided to proceed with selling the Webster Lane 
property.  The property had remained under the control of Thomas Chambers.  A tenant 
named Earlmont Bell was then living in the garage apartment on the property.  On April 
25, 2014, Mr. Woolery visited the Webster Lane property to secure possession of the 
property by changing the locks and posting “no trespassing” signs.  He spoke with Mr. Bell 
8 
 
that day and agreed to let him remain on the property for three months while a sale was 
accomplished. 
Mr. Woolery had invited a locksmith to the property that day to change the locks.  
He also hoped to sell surveying equipment that had belonged to the decedent and that he 
believed might still be on the property.  To that end, Mr. Woolery had invited an 
acquaintance, Andrew Duley, a surveyor who Mr. Woolery thought might be interested in 
purchasing that equipment.  Mr. Duley invited another surveyor, Stephen Wilson, to 
accompany him.  Mr. Woolery met Mr. Wilson for the first time that day.  
Mr. Woolery Discovers and Sells a Tractor and Backhoe for $500 
While at the Webster Lane property that day, Mr. Woolery found a Kubota tractor 
with an attached backhoe stored inside the large shed.  Mr. Woolery had not seen the tractor 
and backhoe on the property before and did not know who owned it or how much it was 
worth.  He asked Mr. Duley and Mr. Wilson if they were interested in purchasing the tractor 
and backhoe.  Mr. Duley was not interested, but Mr. Wilson was.  Mr. Woolery sold the 
tractor and backhoe to Mr. Wilson for $500 cash; Mr. Wilson arranged for a tow truck to 
remove it from the property.6  Mr. Woolery did not create any documentation of the sale. 
Asked at the hearing why he had sold the tractor and backhoe in that manner, Mr. Woolery 
testified: “There [was] no real thought process at all.  It [was] an automatic now let’s get 
rid of that thing.”  After selling the tractor and backhoe, Mr. Woolery used cash from the 
                                              
6 At the hearing of this case, Mr. Wilson testified that he retained the tractor and 
backhoe until sometime in 2015. 
9 
 
sale to pay the locksmith for changing the locks on the Webster Lane property and to 
reimburse himself for the purchase of the “no trespassing” signs.    
Unbeknownst to Mr. Woolery at the time, the tractor and backhoe actually belonged 
to Thomas Chambers, and not the estate.  Thomas Chambers had purchased it in January 
2004 for $15,200.00 and was temporarily storing it at the Webster Lane property while 
fixing a sinkhole there.   
Mr. Woolery is Informed of the Value and Owner of the Tractor 
Within a few days, Thomas Chambers learned that Mr. Woolery had sold his tractor 
and backhoe. Thomas Chambers promptly contacted Mr. Woolery concerning his desire 
for its return.  In addition, on May 7, 2014, Thomas Chambers sent Mr. Woolery a copy of 
his purchase invoice for the tractor and backhoe, documenting his ownership and the price 
he had paid.  Mr. Woolery took no action to recover the tractor and backhoe or to contact 
Mr. Wilson, either directly or through Mr. Duley.  Mr. Woolery explained to Thomas 
Chambers that he would not attempt to obtain return of the tractor and backhoe, but that 
Thomas Chambers could file a claim in the Orphans’ Court against the estate.   
At the hearing of this case, Mr. Woolery testified that he believed that, because 
Thomas Chambers had been renting the Webster Lane property – an asset of the estate – 
and presumably collecting rent from the tenants, Thomas Chambers owed the estate 
money.  Mr. Woolery’s rationale for refusing to try to recover the tractor and backhoe was 
that any loss Thomas Chambers suffered from its sale was offset by the rent money he had 
collected with respect to the Webster Lane property which, in Mr. Woolery’s view, 
rightfully belonged to the estate.   
10 
 
Mr. Woolery Sells the Webster Lane Property 
In late summer 2014, Mr. Woolery sold the Webster Lane property to an entity 
called Wholesale Portfolio Partnership.  The deed transferring the property was dated 
August 30, 2014 and showed a sale price of $166,000. 
Thomas Chambers sues Mr. Woolery 
In the meantime, Thomas Chambers had sued Mr. Woolery individually, in the 
District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County, to recover the value of the tractor 
and backhoe. Thomas Chambers v. Benjamin Woolery, Case No. 05-02-0010748-2014.  
The case went to trial in the District Court on October 21, 2014.  At that trial, Mr. Woolery 
testified about how he had sold the tractor and backhoe.  Mr. Woolery stated that he had 
“auctioned” it off to the “group of surveyors who were invited to the premises.”  On cross-
examination, Mr. Woolery reiterated his description of an “auction” before a group of 
surveyors and suggested that their identities were unknown to him.  He testified as follows: 
Counsel: 
 
And once, – oh, who did you sell the tractor to? 
Mr. Woolery: 
I don’t know.  It was group of surveyors who were invited to 
the premises and I was looking for cash dollars to meet the 
estate’s obligations.  I wasn’t looking – 
 
Counsel: 
 
You don’t know the person’s – 
 
Mr. Woolery: 
 
 – to take names and numbers. 
 
Counsel: 
 
You don’t know the person’s name? 
 
Mr. Woolery: 
 
No, sir. 
 
Counsel: 
 
Don’t know the person’s phone number? 
 
Mr. Woolery: 
 
No, sir. 
11 
 
 
As Mr. Woolery later admitted during Bar Counsel’s investigation, he remembered Mr. 
Wilson’s first name at some point and, at the very least, could have located him through 
Mr. Duley. 
The District Court entered judgment in favor of Thomas Chambers in the amount 
of $9,700.00 – based on the court’s estimate of the value of the tractor and backhoe when 
Mr. Woolery sold it.  At the trial, Mr. Woolery repeatedly told the District Court that he 
had sold the tractor in his capacity “as a fiduciary,” and insisted that any judgment be 
entered against him only in his capacity as personal representative of the estate.  The 
District Court acceded to his request, effectively making it a judgment against the estate.   
Mr. Woolery Makes a Final Accounting 
In his final accounting as personal representative of the estate, Mr. Woolery referred 
to the presumed rental income received by Thomas Chambers, which he characterized 
“waste and defalcation,” to completely offset Thomas Chambers’ share of the estate as well 
as the judgment awarded to Thomas Chambers in the District Court action.  In that 
accounting, Mr. Woolery requested – and was later awarded – approximately $25,000 in 
fees against the estate.   
II 
Violations of MLRPC  
The hearing judge explicitly concluded that Mr. Woolery violated MLRPC 8.4(d), 
and also indicated, somewhat less explicitly, that Mr. Woolery’s conduct failed to meet the 
standards of competence and diligence required by MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3 in a certain respect.  
12 
 
Before us, Mr. Woolery argues that the hearing judge did not find a violation of MLRPC 
1.1 or 1.3 and excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusion that he violated MLRPC 8.4(d).7   
In an attorney discipline proceeding, we review the hearing judge’s conclusions of 
law without deference.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. McDowell, 439 Md. 26, 35 (2014).  
For the following reasons, we overrule Mr. Woolery’s exception and conclude that he 
violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, 8.4(a), as well as 8.4(d).  
MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3 
The hearing judge’s conclusions as to the alleged violations of MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3 
are somewhat ambiguous.  The hearing judge indicated that Mr. Woolery’s conduct “in the 
main” did not violate MLRPC 1.1 or 1.3.  However, the hearing judge went on to find that 
“the exception to this finding in [Mr. Woolery’s] favor regarding [MLRPC] 1.1 and 1.3 
relates only to [Mr. Woolery’s] failure to attempt to recover the impulsively-sold tractor-
and-backhoe.”  Thus, the hearing judge appears to have concluded that Mr. Woolery’s 
decision not to remedy his impulsive decision to sell the tractor and backhoe violated those 
two rules.  In any event, based upon the hearing judge’s findings of fact, we conclude that 
Mr. Woolery’s conduct violated both MLRPC 1.1 and 1.3.  
MLRPC 1.1 requires that an attorney “provide competent representation to a client.  
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 
                                              
7 The hearing judge concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of 
violations of MLRPC 1.7 (conflict of interest), 3.3 (Candor toward the Tribunal), 8.4(b) 
(criminal act that reflects adversely on attorney’s fitness), and 8.4(c) (dishonest conduct).  
Bar Counsel has not excepted to those conclusions and we do not further consider them. 
13 
 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”  An attorney may have adequate 
knowledge or skill to represent a client, but a failure to apply that knowledge or skill as 
necessary violates MLRPC 1.1.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 447 Md. 253, 266 
(2016).  
The hearing judge found that Mr. Woolery had the knowledge and skill to handle 
this estate.  Indeed, it was presumably Mr. Woolery’s prior experience in estates and trusts 
matters that led the Orphans’ Court to appoint him as personal representative of the estate.  
Despite that expertise, he made a mistake when he impulsively sold the tractor and backhoe 
without appraising it even informally or verifying that it belonged to the estate.  Mr. 
Woolery compounded that error when he refused to correct it upon learning the true 
ownership and value of the tractor.  We understand that this estate posed some particular 
difficulties for Mr. Woolery.  However, the duty to resolve those difficulties was inherent 
in Mr. Woolery’s appointment as personal representative – an assignment for which he 
claimed, and was awarded, a significant fee.  It was his responsibility to do that work 
competently, regardless of its level of difficulty.  Accordingly, we find that Mr. Woolery 
violated MLRPC 1.1.  
MLRPC 1.3 provides that a lawyer must “act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client.”  Conduct that violates MLRPC 1.1 will often also 
violate MLRPC 1.3.  See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Moore, 447 Md. 253, 267 
(2016).   
Here, Mr. Woolery learned of his mistake almost immediately after making it.  As 
the hearing judge found, if Mr. Woolery had attempted to recover the tractor and backhoe 
14 
 
at that time, he likely would have been able to do so as he could have located Mr. Wilson, 
who held onto the tractor and backhoe until 2015.  By refusing to make a diligent attempt 
to recover the tractor and backhoe, Mr. Woolery exposed the estate to liability that could 
have been avoided.  Accordingly, we find that Mr. Woolery violated MLRPC 1.3.  
MLRPC 8.4(a) & (d) 
Under MLRPC 8.4(a), it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “violate or 
attempt to violate the [MLRPC].”  Because Mr. Woolery violated MLRPC 1.1, 1.3, and 
8.4(d), he necessarily also violated MLRPC 8.4(a).  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Phillips, 451 Md. 653, 677 (2017). 
Under MLRPC 8.4(d), it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”  Conduct violates MLRPC 
8.4(d) when it falls “below the standards that the public normally expects of attorneys” and 
when an attorney compounds that misconduct by failing to take steps to correct it.  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 Md. 147, 174-75 (2010).  
The hearing judge concluded that, once Mr. Woolery learned of his mistake in the 
sale of the tractor and backhoe, he had a responsibility to correct – or at least attempt to 
correct – that mistake.  Mr. Woolery excepts to this conclusion, asserting that “had the 
tractor belonged to an innocent third party he would have immediately made every effort 
to effectuate its prompt return.”  Mr. Woolery argues that, because the tractor and backhoe 
belonged to Thomas Chambers and (in Mr. Woolery’s view) Thomas Chambers owed the 
estate money, his refusal to attempt to recover the tractor was at worst a “debatable legal 
strategy” rather than professional misconduct.   
15 
 
We agree with the hearing judge that Mr. Woolery’s failure to even attempt to 
recover the tractor and backhoe, after he learned that the estate did not own it, fell below 
the standard the public expects of attorneys and was prejudicial to the administration of 
justice.  As the hearing judge noted, Mr. Woolery had no right to sell the tractor and 
backhoe in the first place, as it did not belong to the estate.  Upon receiving notice of his 
mistake, Mr. Woolery had an obligation to the estate and Thomas Chambers to correct that 
mistake.  In failing to do so, Mr. Woolery exposed the estate to unnecessary liability and 
ultimately a judgment against it.  We agree with the hearing judge also that this was a “clear 
abuse of discretion” – i.e., the discretion he exercised in carrying out his fiduciary 
responsibilities as personal representative of the estate.  This conduct falls below the 
standard that we and the public expects of attorneys, and is thus prejudicial to the 
administration of justice.  Accordingly, we overrule Mr. Woolery’s exception and hold that 
his conduct violated MLRPC 8.4(d).   
III 
Sanction 
 
As this Court has frequently reiterated, the purpose of a sanction in an attorney 
discipline case is not so much to punish the attorney, as it is to protect the public and deter 
future misconduct.  See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. James, 385 Md. 637, 665 
(2005).  To that end, the appropriate sanction must relate to the facts and circumstances of 
the particular case and be “commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and 
the intent with which they were committed.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stein, 373 
Md. 531, 537 (2003).   
16 
 
 
Bar Counsel has recommended a reprimand as appropriate discipline in this case.  
Consistent with his exception to any finding of misconduct, Mr. Woolery asks that we 
dismiss this matter without sanction.  For the reasons explained below, we adopt Bar 
Counsel’s recommendation.  
There may be some basis for considering Mr. Woolery’s initial decision to sell the 
tractor and backhoe without ascertaining whether it belonged to the estate and without 
determining its actual value as (in the words of the hearing judge) an “excusable mistake.”  
Mr. Woolery was not aware that the tractor and backhoe belonged to Thomas Chambers 
rather than the estate, and may have assumed that his right to sell the Webster Lane property 
“as is” included the right to sell whatever he found on the property.  Moreover, the sale 
was not for Mr. Woolery’s own immediate personal gain.  Mr. Woolery’s decision to sell 
the tractor and backhoe on the spot to Mr. Wilson was apparently an attempt to generate 
cash to pay the locksmith and to reimburse himself for the estate’s expenses related to 
securing the property without need for Mr. Woolery to advance funds to the estate.   
Whether or not Mr. Woolery’s decision to sell the tractor and backhoe on the spot 
was excusable, it was certainly a mistake.  As Mr. Woolery repeatedly stated at the District 
Court trial, he was acting “as a fiduciary” – i.e., acting with a duty to exercise a higher 
standard of care for the benefit of the estate and its beneficiaries8 – when he sold the tractor 
                                              
8 See Maryland Code, Estates & Trusts Article, §7-101(a) (“A personal 
representative is a fiduciary.  He is under a duty to settle and distribute the estate … with 
as little sacrifice of value as is reasonable …”); Beyer v. Morgan State University, 369 Md. 
335, 351 (2002) (“A Personal Representative owes a duty to the beneficiaries of a will to 
act in the best interests of the Estate”).  At times in his testimony, Mr. Woolery appeared 
17 
 
and backhoe.  Even if Mr. Woolery truly believed that the tractor and backhoe belonged to 
the estate, it hardly seems prudent to impulsively sell it to the only person present who 
expressed any interest in it without making a minimal effort to determine its actual value.  
The result was that he sold it at a discount of 95% of the District Court’s valuation of the 
equipment.  Mr. Woolery’s own testimony in the District Court trial reveals an 
understanding that his fiduciary responsibilities to the estate required more, as he 
characterized the sale to Mr. Wilson as an “auction” to a “group of surveyors” and 
suggested that, as a result, he was ignorant of the identity of the purchaser.  At best, that 
testimony was a disingenuous effort to paint his error with a patina of prudent conduct.9 
As the hearing judge concluded, even if Mr. Woolery had no malicious intent at the 
time of his initial mistake, his intent was less benign in the aftermath.  When apprised of 
his mistake in a timely manner, Mr. Woolery chose not to remedy his failure to act in the 
best interests of the estate and its beneficiaries out of a personal animus against one of 
those beneficiaries.  The hearing judge found that Mr. Woolery “displayed a contemptuous 
attitude” toward Thomas Chambers and allowed his “antipathy” for Thomas Chambers to 
“prevent him from doing what he was obligated to do for the estate.”  Moreover, the hearing 
                                              
to regard his status as a fiduciary more as a shield against personal liability than as a call 
to higher duty. 
9 The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Woolery’s testimony concerning the 
“auction” did not amount to perjury before the District Court because it was not material 
to the issues before the District Court, which did not depend on the manner in which Mr. 
Woolery sold the tractor and backhoe. 
18 
 
judge found that Mr. Woolery displayed “an unbefitting bravado” rather than “contrition 
for his errors.”  
In addition to the nature of the violations and the intent with which they were 
committed, we also consider any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.10  In this case, 
                                              
10 The American Bar Association has recommended consideration of the following 
mitigating and aggravating factors:  
Mitigating factors 
(a) absence of a prior disciplinary record;  
(b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;  
(c) personal or emotional problems;  
(d) timely good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify 
consequences of misconduct;  
(e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude 
toward proceedings;  
(f) 
inexperience in the practice of law;  
(g) character or reputation;  
(h) physical disability;  
(i) 
mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or 
drug abuse when: 
(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a 
chemical dependency or mental disability; 
(2) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the 
misconduct; 
(3) the respondent’s recovery from the chemical dependency or 
mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained 
period of successful rehabilitation; and  
(4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that 
misconduct is unlikely. 
 
(j) 
delay in disciplinary proceedings;  
(k) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;  
(l) 
remorse; and  
(m) remoteness of prior offenses.  
 
Aggravating factors 
(a) prior disciplinary offenses; 
(b) dishonest or selfish motive;  
(c) a pattern of misconduct;  
19 
 
the hearing judge found facts that support one mitigating factor:  Mr. Woolery’s character 
and reputation in the legal profession.  Specifically, the hearing judge alluded to Mr. 
Woolery’s history of service to the legal profession, his “outstanding reputation as an 
experienced practitioner in the area of estates and trusts and elder law,” and his “excellent 
reputation for truth, veracity, and good character.”  In addition, we note that this is Mr. 
Woolery’s first offense.  There are no prior attorney disciplinary actions against him.  
The hearing judge also found two aggravating factors:  refusal to acknowledge the 
wrongful nature of the conduct and substantial experience in the practice of law.  With 
respect to the first factor, the hearing judge found that Mr. Woolery failed to demonstrate 
an understanding that his refusal to even try to recover the tractor and backhoe was 
wrongful conduct.  Regarding the second factor, at the time of his misconduct, Mr. 
Woolery had practiced law for more than 25 years.  As the hearing judge noted, Mr. 
Woolery’s experience in trusts and estates matters meant that he “could have, and should 
                                              
(d) multiple offenses;  
(e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally 
failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;  
(f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive 
practices during the disciplinary process;  
(g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;  
(h) vulnerability of the victim;  
(i) substantial experience in the practice of law;  
(j) indifference to making restitution; and  
(k) illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled 
substances.  
 
See American Bar Ass’n, ABA 2017 Compendium of Professional Responsibility Rules and 
Standards (2017), §§9.22, 9.32 at pp. 463-64. 
20 
 
have taken a more objective approach to [Thomas Chambers] generally and in trying to 
retrieve [the tractor and backhoe].” 
 
In our view, a reprimand in this case serves the primary purposes of the sanction – 
to protect the public and deter future offenses – without disrupting the attorney’s practice 
of law.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Queen, 407 Md. 556, 571 (2009).  A reprimand 
signals to the sanctioned attorney, other attorneys, and the public that the Court takes 
violations of the professional conduct rules seriously.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Weiers, 440 Md. 292, 310-11 (2014).  This was apparently Mr. Woolery’s first offense in 
the nearly 30 years he has now practiced law.  While hostility toward Thomas Chambers 
may have motivated some of Mr. Woolery’s conduct, the hearing judge found that Mr. 
Woolery did not otherwise act with a selfish or pecuniary motive.  Moreover, as the hearing 
judge found, aside from his improper handling of the tractor and backhoe, Mr. Woolery 
reasonably performed his duties for the estate, despite its difficulties.  Given all of this, in 
light of the hearing judge’s findings as to Mr. Woolery’s reputation and character, we have 
no reason to believe that his misconduct in this case is indicative of a pattern of past 
misconduct or predictive of future violations.  Accordingly, we reprimand Mr. Woolery.  
 
IT IS SO ORDERED.  RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS 
TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING COSTS 
OF ALL TRANSCRIPTS PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 19-
709(D), FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR 
OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST 
BENJAMIN JEREMY WOOLERY.