Case Title: Attorney Grievance v. Smith-Scott

Citation: 

Docket Number: 8ag/18

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2020-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Arlene Adasa Smith-Scott, Misc. Docket 
AG Nos. 8 & 64, September Term, 2018.  Opinion by Getty, J. 
 
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE–SANCTION–DISBARMENT 
 
Respondent, Arlene Adasa Smith-Scott, violated several provisions of the Maryland 
Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) and the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules 
of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) through her self-representation before the United 
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland and unrelated representation of 
Crystal Combs, Angela Plater, Furrah Deeba, Benjamin Thomas, Jr., John Thomas Jones, 
Jr., and Theresa Saunders. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott’s conduct violated the following rules of professional conduct: 1.1 
(Competence); 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority); 1.3 (Diligence); 
1.4 (Communication); 1.5 (Fees); 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information); 1.15 (Safekeeping 
Property); 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation); 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and 
Contentions); 3.2 (Expediting Litigation); 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal); 3.4 (Fairness 
to Opposing Party and Attorney); 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others); 8.1 (Bar 
Admission and Disciplinary Matters); 8.4 (Misconduct); and 19-404 (Trust Account—
Required Deposits).  This misconduct warrants disbarment.
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. Docket AG Nos. 8 & 64 
 
September Term, 2018 
______________________________________ 
 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 
OF MARYLAND 
 
v. 
 
ARLENE ADASA SMITH-SCOTT 
 
______________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Getty, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Getty, J. 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed: June 29, 2020 
 
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County 
Case No. CAE-18-23035 
Argued: January 10, 2020 
 
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act  
(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document 
is authentic.
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk  
Suzanne Johnson
2020-06-29 14:11-04:00
“A person who represents himself [or herself] 
has a fool for a client.”1 
 
The instant attorney discipline case fortifies the import of this age-old adage often 
attributed to President Lincoln.  Regrettably, the underlying conduct involves an attorney’s 
overzealous self-representation in a voluntary bankruptcy proceeding in the United States 
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (“Bankruptcy Court”).  Over the course of 
the nearly three-year bankruptcy proceeding, among other things, the attorney filed 
countless frivolous pleadings, motions, and appeals, intentionally hindered the court-
appointed trustee’s ability to administer the case, and knowingly made false statements of 
fact in filings and appeals before the Bankruptcy Court and United States District Court for 
the District of Maryland (“U.S. District Court”). 
Moreover, this attorney represented several clients in Maryland’s circuit courts, the 
Court of Special Appeals, and the Bankruptcy Court.  In these instances, among other 
things, the attorney misappropriated client funds, made knowing misrepresentations to and 
intentionally concealed information from clients, and failed to prosecute clients’ motions 
and appeals. 
This attorney’s conduct violated sixteen separate provisions of the Maryland 
Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”).  For the reasons that follow, we 
hold that this attorney’s conduct merits disbarment.  
                                                          
 
1 This Court has had occasion to discuss this adage, often attributed to President Abraham 
Lincoln, in a previous attorney discipline case.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Trye, 
444 Md. 201, 205 (2015); see also Marshall H. Tanick & Phillip J. Trobaugh, Lincoln’s 
Minnesota Legacy, 66 Bench & B. Minn. 25, 28 (Feb. 2009). 
2 
BACKGROUND 
Procedural Context 
On June 27, 2018, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the 
“Commission”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial 
Action (“Petition I”) with this Court alleging that Arlene Smith-Scott had violated the 
Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC” or “Rules”).2  See Md. Rule 
19-721.  On February 21, 2019, the Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, filed a 
second Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition II”) with this Court alleging 
that Ms. Smith-Scott violated the MLRPC by conduct unrelated to Petition I. 
Petition I, which related to Ms. Smith-Scott’s actions during a nearly three-year long 
personal bankruptcy case, and Petition II, which concerned Ms. Smith-Scott’s unrelated 
representation of seven clients, together alleged that Ms. Smith-Scott violated the following 
Rules: 1.1 (Competence); 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority); 1.3 
(Diligence); 1.4 (Communication); 1.5 (Fees); 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information); 1.15 
(Safekeeping Property); 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation); 3.1 (Meritorious 
Claims and Contentions); 3.2 (Expediting Litigation); 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal); 
3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney); 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others); 
                                                          
 
2 Effective July 1, 2016, the MLRPC were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of 
Professional Conduct and recodified in Title 19 of the Maryland Rules.  Since Ms. Smith-
Scott’s misconduct occurred before and after the effective date of the recodification of the 
rules of professional conduct, she committed violations of the same rules of professional 
conduct under both the MLRPC and the MARPC.  For simplicity, and because there is no 
substantive difference in the two codifications of the rules, we shall use the shorter 
designations of the MLRPC, e.g., “Rule 1.1.” 
 
3 
8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters); 8.4 (Misconduct); 19-403 (Duty to Maintain 
Account);3 and 19-404 (Trust Account—Required Deposits). 
We designated Judge Peter K. Killough (the “hearing judge”) of the Circuit Court 
for Prince George’s County by Order dated June 28, 2018 to conduct a hearing concerning 
the alleged violations and to provide findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.  
See Md. Rule 19-722(a).  In relation to Petition I, Ms. Smith-Scott was personally served 
with process on July 30, 2018 and filed her Answer to Petition I on September 4, 2018.  
Bar Counsel filed a Motion to Consolidate Petition I and Petition II on February 21, 2019.  
We consolidated the two Petitions on March 6, 2019 and referred Petition II to the hearing 
judge.  In relation to Petition II, Ms. Smith-Scott was personally served with process on 
April 1, 2019 and filed her Answer to Petition II on April 24, 2019. 
The evidentiary hearing spanned five days: June 17, 18, 19, 20 and 28, 2019.  In this 
Court, Bar Counsel filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and 
recommended conclusions of law on November 13, 2019.  Likewise, Ms. Smith-Scott filed 
exceptions to the same on November 15, 2019.  This Court heard oral argument in this 
matter on January 10, 2020.  We disbarred Ms. Smith-Scott and awarded costs against her 
by per curiam order dated January 10, 2020.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith-
Scott, 466 Md. 543, 543–44 (2020).  We explain in this opinion the reasons for the per 
curiam order. 
                                                          
 
3 The hearing judge did not make any determination as to whether Ms. Smith-Scott violated 
Rule 19-403.  Bar Counsel did not except to the absence of the hearing judge’s 
determination on this alleged violation, so we shall not consider it in the discussion that 
follows. 
4 
Factual Findings 
 
We begin with a summary of the hearing judge’s factual findings.  Ms. Smith-Scott 
was admitted to the Bar of the State of Maryland on February 2, 2012.  Since then, she has 
maintained a law office—Strategic Law Group, LLC—in Prince George’s County, 
Maryland and has focused on representing individuals in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 
bankruptcy proceedings.  The instant matter involves Ms. Smith-Scott’s wrongdoing in her 
own personal bankruptcy case and multiple instances of misconduct spanning several 
different bankruptcy clients. 
Personal Bankruptcy Case 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 of 
Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court on September 28, 2014.  See In re: Arlene Smith-
Scott, Case No. 14-25022.  The case was assigned to the Honorable James F. Schneider.4 
 
At the time of the bankruptcy petition, Ms. Smith-Scott held title to three investment 
properties: (1) 367-371 Main Street, Laurel, Maryland (mortgage held by Patapsco Bank) 
(“367 Main Street”);5 (2) 511 Main Street, Laurel, Maryland (mortgage held by Patapsco 
                                                          
 
4 The Honorable James F. Schneider served as an Associate Judge (1982–2001; 2005–
2017) and Chief Judge (2001–2005) of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District 
of Maryland. 
 
5 In 2015, Howard Bancorp acquired Patapsco Bancorp.  Howard Bankcorp, Inc. 
Completes 
Acquisition 
of 
Patapsco 
Bancorp, 
Inc., 
Howard 
Bank 
https://www.howardbank.com/maryland-banking-blog/Howard-Bancorp-Inc-Completes-
Acquisition-of-Patapsco-Bancorp-Inc (last visited June 26, 2020), archived at 
https://perma.cc/K354-9YEC.  Therefore, while we begin by discussing mortgages held by 
Patapsco Bank, we shall reference Howard Bank, as successor-in-interest to Patapsco 
Bank, beginning with events that occurred in September 2015. 
5 
Bank) (“511 Main Street,” together with 367 Main Street the “Laurel Properties”) ; and (3) 
10 Stanley Drive, Catonsville, Maryland (mortgage held by U.S. Bank) (“10 Stanley 
Drive”).  All three properties had multiple residential tenants; the Laurel Properties also 
had commercial tenants.  Ms. Smith-Scott maintained her law office at 367 Main Street. 
 
In March 2014, before Ms. Smith-Scott filed for bankruptcy, U.S. Bank exercised 
its contractual rights under an assignment of rents clause contained in its loan documents 
with Ms. Smith-Scott to collect rental income directly from the 10 Stanley Drive tenants.  
U.S. Bank’s attorney, Bradley Swallow, contacted the tenants and instructed them to pay 
rent to U.S. Bank directly.  Two days later, Ms. Smith-Scott wrote the tenants and 
instructed them to send rent to her directly or face eviction.  In the letter, Ms. Smith-Scott 
claimed that U.S. Bank did not have a legal basis to collect the rent and instructed the 
tenants to file complaints against Mr. Swallow with the Commission. 
 
On April 10, 2014, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a lawsuit against U.S. Bank and Mr. 
Swallow in the U.S. District Court (the “U.S. Bank Action”) claiming violations of the Fair 
Debt Collection Practices Act.  See Smith-Scott v. U.S. Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-01157-
JFM.  In response, U.S. Bank filed a counterclaim to foreclose on the property at 10 Stanley 
Drive.  The U.S. District Court appointed a receiver to collect the rental income based on 
Ms. Smith-Scott’s interference with U.S. Bank’s rent collection efforts (the “August 26 
Order I”).  In a separate order, the U.S. District Court ruled that “[Mr. Swallow] acted 
entirely within his rights and the rights of his client in sending the letter” regarding the 
collection of rent to Ms. Smith-Scott’s tenants (the “August 26 Order II,” together with 
August 26 Order I the “August 26 Orders”). 
6 
 
Along with Ms. Smith-Scott’s personal bankruptcy petition, filed on September 28, 
2014, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion to Use Cash Collateral.  Ms. Smith-Scott sought 
authorization to use the rental income from the three properties for maintenance expenses.  
In the motion, Ms. Smith-Scott represented to the Bankruptcy Court that she was receiving 
rental income from all three properties.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to mention the U.S. District 
Court’s August 26 Orders. 
 
Two days later, on September 30, 2014, Ms. Smith-Scott informed the U.S. District 
Court in the U.S. Bank Action of her bankruptcy filing.  That same day, U.S. Bank filed an 
opposition to Ms. Smith-Scott’s Motion to Use Cash Collateral.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed a 
reply, in which she argued that U.S. Bank was not the mortgage holder of the 10 Stanley 
Drive property because of a defect in the chain of title.  This argument was unsupported by 
any facts and belied by the August 26 Orders.  Nevertheless, Ms. Smith-Scott continued to 
assert this claim throughout her bankruptcy proceedings.  The U.S. District Court 
administratively closed the U.S. Bank Action without prejudice on October 2, 2014. 
 
On October 9, 2014, Patapsco Bank also filed a motion to oppose Ms. Smith Scott’s 
Motion to Use Cash Collateral.  The Bankruptcy Court denied Ms. Smith-Scott’s motion 
by order dated October 29, 2014 (“October 29 Order”) and barred her from using cash 
collateral—i.e., rental income—from the Laurel Properties without the consent of Patapsco 
Bank or the court. 
7 
 
In January 2015, Patapsco Bank filed Motions for Relief from Stay6 asserting that 
Ms. Smith-Scott had defaulted on her loans and had failed to file monthly operating reports 
demonstrating that she had not used the rental income for any unauthorized purpose.7  Ms. 
Smith-Scott filed an opposition to Patapsco Bank’s motions on January 30, 2015.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott provided operating reports for October, November and December 2014 on 
February 18, 2015.  Bank statements attached to the report showed that Ms. Smith-Scott 
ignored the October 29 Order and routinely used cash collateral for personal expenses 
without the permission of the court or Patapsco Bank during the reporting periods. 
Patapsco Bank filed a motion on February 24, 2015 to dismiss Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
Chapter 11 case or, alternatively, convert the case to Chapter 7 because of Ms. Smith-
Scott’s unauthorized use of cash collateral in violation of the October 29 Order.  Ms. Smith-
Scott filed an opposition.  On February 25, 2015, Patapsco Bank filed a Motion for Civil 
Contempt and Sanctions (the “Contempt Motion”) against Ms. Smith-Scott for violating 
                                                          
 
6 In Hoang v. Lowery, this Court explained the protections of the automatic stay imposed 
at the filing of a bankruptcy petition: 
 
The filing of a petition operates as a stay . . . of actions against the debtor.  
See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).  The automatic stay applies to several types of 
actions, including “the commencement or continuation” of an action “to 
recover a claim against the debtor”; enforcement against the debtor or 
property of the bankruptcy estate of a judgment obtained pre-filing; and any 
act to obtain possession of property of the bankruptcy estate or from the 
estate or to exercise control over the property of the estate.  11 U.S.C. § 
362(a)(1)–(3). 
 
___ Md. ___, ___ (2020). 
 
7 See Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Fed. R. Bankr. Proc.”) 2015(a). 
8 
the October 29 Order.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition to this motion as well, 
contending that she did not use cash collateral for any unauthorized purpose.  On March 8, 
2015, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion for Contempt and Sanctions for Unreasonable and 
Vexatious Multiplication of Proceedings against Patapsco Bank.  Ms. Smith-Scott argued 
that Patapsco Bank’s motions were in bad faith and that Patapsco Bank improperly 
enlarged its proof of claim.  Additionally, Ms. Smith-Scott alleged that she suffered 
emotional distress from Patapsco Bank’s attempts to collect the mortgage payments and 
sought $5,000 in punitive damages.  Later rulings of the Bankruptcy Court confirm that 
Patapsco Bank’s motions were not made in bad faith.  Instead, its claims were based on the 
terms of Ms. Smith-Scott’s Deed of Trust. 
 
By order on April 7, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court converted Ms. Smith-Scott’s case 
to a Chapter 7 proceeding (“April 7 Conversion Order”) because of Ms. Smith-Scott’s (1) 
violation of the October 29 Order prohibiting the unauthorized use of cash collateral; (2) 
failure to report on the operations of Strategic Law Group; (3) commingling of personal 
funds and rental income; and (4) untimely filing of financial reports.  In ordering the 
conversion to a Chapter 7 proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court reasoned as follows: 
I’m very concerned at the various lapses that counsel has—and I say counsel 
because the debtor is an attorney, who actually is a bankruptcy lawyer, who 
evidenced today by her lack of knowledge of the Bankruptcy Code, the 
inability to properly proceed in this case.  All of these things cause me to 
come to the conclusion that not only the creditors, but the debtor would be 
better off if this case were in a Chapter 7 because she will not then be in 
charge of the way this case is handled, which has been completely 
mismanaged from the beginning, to her own detriment, and to her possible 
violation of various statutes and criminal laws as well.  I don’t want to see 
her get in trouble in this case.  And she’s going to be in big trouble if we 
don’t stop this now and get somebody in there who knows what he or she is 
9 
doing . . . .  And finally, the violation of a court order and the terms of its use 
of cash collateral, which she’s been prohibited from doing, is the final straw 
that leads me to conclude that this case must have a Chapter 7 Trustee 
appointed.  The case cannot continue in a Chapter 11, and the debtor has 
shown quite clearly her unable [sic] to properly manage this case from the 
very beginning. 
 
(Emphasis and ellipsis in original).  Ms. Smith-Scott appealed the April 7 Conversion 
Order to the U.S. District Court on April 8, 2015.  See Smith-Scott v. Patapsco Bank, Case 
No. 1:15-cv-01013-RDB. 
 
Patapsco Bank filed Amended Motions for Relief from the Automatic Stay relating 
to the Laurel Properties on April 8, 2015.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition.  The 
Bankruptcy Court heard arguments on June 18, 2015.  Four days later, the court granted 
Patapsco Bank’s motions (the “June 22 Order”).  The June 22 Order granted Patapsco Bank 
relief from the automatic stay, allowed it to foreclose on the Laurel Properties, and collect 
the rents. 
 
Meanwhile, the Bankruptcy Court appointed George W. Liebmann, Esq. 
(“Trustee”) as the United States Chapter 7 Trustee to oversee Ms. Smith-Scott’s bankruptcy 
case.  The Trustee filed an Application to employ his law partner, Orbie R. Shively, Esq. 
(“Mr. Shively”) as his attorney in his capacity as the Trustee.  On May 11, 2015, during a 
conversation between Ms. Smith-Scott and Mr. Shively, Ms. Smith-Scott indicated her 
intent to move forward with the U.S. Bank Action, even though the case had been 
administratively closed by the U.S. District Court.  Mr. Shively advised Ms. Smith-Scott 
that the U.S. Bank Action was property of the bankruptcy estate.  As such, the lawsuit was 
within the exclusive control of the Trustee.  Mr. Shively further explained that only the 
10 
Trustee could proceed in the U.S. Bank Action—not Ms. Smith-Scott—and he requested 
that Ms. Smith-Scott provide him with relevant filings in the case.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed 
to comply with Mr. Shively’s request. 
 
During the same conversation, Ms. Smith-Scott requested a postponement of her 
§ 341 meeting of creditors,8 which was originally scheduled for May 12, 2015.  Mr. Shively 
consented, and postponed the meeting until May 26, 2015.  However, Ms. Smith-Scott 
never appeared for the rescheduled meeting.  Yet, on May 26, 2015, Ms. Smith-Scott 
emailed Mr. Shively and again informed him of her intent to proceed in the U.S. Bank 
Action.  On May 27, 2015, Mr. Shively responded by email and reminded Ms. Smith-Scott 
that the Trustee exclusively controlled the U.S. Bank Action and she had no right to 
proceed in the case. 
 
Notwithstanding Mr. Shively’s warnings, Ms. Smith-Scott filed three motions in the 
U.S. Bank Action on June 15, 2015: (1) Motion to Reopen Case; (2) Motion to Vacate 
Order Granting Receivership; and (3) Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to 
Add Party and Due to New Evidence.  However, because of the Trustee’s appointment, 
Ms. Smith-Scott lacked standing to file these motions.  Additionally, Ms. Smith-Scott 
failed to serve the Trustee or Mr. Shively with copies or notice of the filings.  On June 17, 
2015, the Trustee filed a Motion and Notice of Substitution of Trustee arguing that the 
Trustee was the real party in interest and that Ms. Smith-Scott lacked standing to proceed 
                                                          
 
8 11 U.S.C. § 341 requires that the Trustee “convene and preside at a meeting of creditors” 
in the debtor’s case.  The debtor’s attendance is required.  See 11 U.S.C. § 343(a) (“The 
debtor shall appear and submit to examination under oath at the meeting of creditors under 
section 341(a) of this title.”). 
11 
in the case.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition on July 1, 2015, arguing, without support, 
that the Trustee’s motion was not ripe because the April 7 Conversion Order was pending 
on appeal.  The Trustee filed a reply. 
 
The U.S. District Court denied Ms. Smith-Scott’s motions on June 17, 2015.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott noted an appeal of the U.S. District Court’s order to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  In response, the Trustee filed a Line Withdrawing with 
Prejudice Notice of Appeal.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition to the Trustee’s line 
withdrawing the appeal on July 20, 2015.  The U.S. District Court granted the Trustee’s 
Motion and Notice of Substitution on August 5, 2015.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed a second 
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The appellate court consolidated 
the two appeals and, on November 5, 2015, dismissed the case on joint stipulation between 
the Trustee and U.S. Bank.   
 
Meanwhile, pursuant to the June 22 Order, Patapsco Bank sent letters to Ms. Smith-
Scott’s tenants directing them to send rent payments directly to Patapsco Bank.  Patapsco 
Bank copied Ms. Smith-Scott on each letter.  On July 13, 2015, Ms. Smith-Scott sent letters 
to her tenants acknowledging that Patapsco Bank had the right to collect the rents; however, 
she informed the tenants that she would be unable to maintain the properties without rental 
income.  Ms. Smith-Scott instructed the tenants to remit their rent payments directly to her.  
On July 18, 2015, Patapsco Bank filed a Motion for Civil Contempt and Sanctions noting 
Ms. Smith-Scott’s efforts to obstruct Patapsco Bank’s rent collection.  Patapsco Bank 
asserted that Ms. Smith-Scott continued to use rent payments in violation of the October 
29 Order.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition on July 20, 2015. 
12 
 
Patapsco Bank sent a second letter to Ms. Smith-Scott’s tenants on July 31, 2015, 
directing them to remit their rental payments to a property management company, 
Summerfield Investment Group, LLC.  On August 3, 2015, Ms. Smith-Scott sent another 
letter to the tenants falsely stating that Patapsco Bank did not have a court order to collect 
the rent; again, she directed the tenants to remit the rent payments directly to her.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott directed the tenants to call 9-1-1 if any person came to the properties to collect 
the rents.  Patapsco Bank filed a supplement to its earlier Motion for Civil Contempt and 
Sanctions on August 6, 2015. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott, without authorization from the Bankruptcy Court or the Trustee, 
filed a lawsuit against Patapsco Bank (“Patapsco Bank Action”) in the Circuit Court for 
Prince George’s County on August 14, 2015.  See Smith-Scott v. Patapsco Bank, Case No. 
CAL15-20704.  Because Ms. Smith-Scott’s complaint related to allegations and events 
occurring prior to the filing of her bankruptcy petition, the Patapsco Bank Action became 
a part of the bankruptcy estate; therefore, it fell under the exclusive control of the Trustee.  
The Trustee filed a Motion to Intervene as the real party in interest on November 25, 2015.  
The circuit court granted the Trustee’s motion, and the Trustee and Patapsco Bank settled 
the matter by stipulation. 
13 
 
On August 31, 2015, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the April 7 
Conversion Order and the June 22 Order permitting Patapsco Bank to foreclose.9  Howard 
Bank, successor-in-interest to Patapsco Bank, filed an opposition on September 14, 2015. 
 
In response to Ms. Smith-Scott’s failure to attend the rescheduled § 341 meeting of 
creditors, the Trustee filed, on September 2, 2015, a Motion for Order Compelling Debtor 
to Attend Rescheduled Meeting of Creditors.  The Trustee requested that the court compel 
Ms. Smith-Scott’s attendance at another rescheduled meeting set for October 22, 2015.  
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a response on September 21, 2015, in which she alleged her case 
should not have been converted to Chapter 7 and that U.S. Bank did not hold the mortgage 
for 10 Stanley Drive based on a defect in the chain of title.10  Her response did not address 
the Trustee’s request to compel her presence at the October 22 meeting of creditors.  The 
Bankruptcy Court granted the Trustee’s motion on September 24, 2015 (“September 24 
Order”) and ordered Ms. Smith-Scott’s attendance at the October 22 meeting.  
Nevertheless, Ms. Smith-Scott failed to appear.  Indeed, after the April 7 Conversion Order, 
Ms. Smith-Scott refused to attend any of the required meetings of creditors. 
 
On September 29, 2015, on the Trustee’s motion, the Bankruptcy Court entered an 
order (“September 29 Order”) compelling Ms. Smith-Scott to turn over the following to 
the Trustee within ten days: (1) copies of all leases identified on Schedules E and G of the 
                                                          
 
9 The hearing judge’s findings of fact indicate a “June 23” order, but the circuit court 
entered its order permitting Patapsco Bank to foreclose on June 22, 2015—i.e., the June 22 
Order. 
 
10 Ms. Smith-Scott continued to assert this second argument despite the U.S. District 
Court’s ruling to the contrary.  See supra at 6. 
14 
bankruptcy petition;11 (2) bank records showing the accounts where each of the tenants’ 
security deposits were deposited and subsequent bank statements to the present; (3) the 
tenants’ security deposits plus 3% interest; (4) the records showing each client of Strategic 
Law Group, amount and dates of legal services rendered constituting the pre-petition 
accounts receivable; (5) accounting, plus bank records, showing all of Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
collection or other receipts of pre-petition accounts receivable from September 28, 2014 to 
April 7, 2015; (6) accounting, plus bank records, showing all of Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
collection or other receipts of pre-petition accounts receivable from April 7, 2015 to the 
present; (7) copies of Ms. Smith-Scott’s 2013 federal and Maryland income tax returns; (8) 
copies of the 2014 federal and Maryland income tax returns; and (9) the pro rata portion 
(74%) of the total amount in 2014 tax refunds.  Ms. Smith-Scott provided her residential 
                                                          
 
11 “Schedules” in a bankruptcy petition indicate all assets, liabilities, and other information 
about a debtor for an accounting of what will become the bankruptcy estate.  In 2015, at 
the time Ms. Smith-Scott filed her petition, Schedule E required debtors to list “Creditors 
Holding Unsecured Priority Claims,” and Schedule G required debtors to list “Executory 
Contracts and Unexpired Leases.”  See Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Schedule 
E 
- 
Creditors 
Holding 
Unsecured 
Priority 
Claims 
(Superseded), 
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/bankruptcy-forms/schedule-e-creditors-holding-
unsecured-priority-claims (last visited June 26, 2020) archived at https://perma.cc/4QSF-
VPSX; Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Schedule G - Executory Contracts and 
Unexpired 
Leases 
(Superseded), 
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/bankruptcy-
forms/schedule-g-executory-contracts-and-unexpired-leases (last visited June 26, 2020) 
archived at https://perma.cc/Y8EY-X29M.  Schedule E/F (“Creditors Who Have 
Unsecured Claims”) replaced the superseded Schedules E and G on December 1, 2015.  
See Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Schedule E/F: Creditors Who Have 
Unsecured 
Claims 
(Individuals), 
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/individual-
debtors/schedule-ef-creditors-who-have-unsecured-claims-individuals  (last visited June 
26, 2020) archived at https://perma.cc/LFN8-ZWPU. 
15 
leases and 2013 tax returns, but failed to turn over the remaining documentation ordered 
by the Bankruptcy Court. 
 
On October 1, 2015, the Trustee filed a Motion for Sale of 10 Stanley Drive Free 
and Clear of Liens and Encumbrances.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition and, again, 
asserted that U.S. Bank did not hold the mortgage for 10 Stanley Drive.  The Trustee’s 
reply contended that Ms. Smith-Scott lacked standing to oppose the sale because the 
property had no equity and Ms. Smith-Scott was insolvent.  The Bankruptcy Court heard 
arguments on November 5, 2015.  Before the hearing, the Trustee explained to Ms. Smith-
Scott that she did not have standing to oppose the sale and that Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
accusations of fraud on the part of U.S. Bank were irrelevant to the validity of the mortgage.  
During the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court advised Ms. Smith-Scott that she lacked standing 
to challenge the sale of 10 Stanley Drive.  The Bankruptcy Court granted the Trustee’s 
motion on November 6, 2015 (“November 6 Order”). 
 
Meanwhile, the U.S. District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s April 7 
Conversion Order on October 8, 2015.  See Smith-Scott v. Patapsco Bank, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01013-RDB.  The U.S. District Court’s written opinion noted that, “the record in this 
case is replete with cause for conversion” and the Bankruptcy Court’s “findings of fact 
were not clearly erroneous.”  The U.S. District Court continued, “the evidence in this case 
clearly supports [the bankruptcy court’s] findings that [Ms.] Smith-Scott is not competent 
to administer her case.”  (First alteration in original).  That same day, Ms. Smith-Scott filed 
an Amended Motion to Alter or Amend the Bankruptcy Court’s April 7 Conversion 
Order—the very order the U.S. District Court affirmed on appeal.  Again, Ms. Smith-Scott 
16 
reiterated the same argument that U.S. Bank did not hold the mortgage for 10 Stanley 
Drive.  The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion on November 6, 2015 (“November 6 
Denial”). 
 
On November 6, 2015, Ms. Smith-Scott appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s 
November 6 Order and November 6 Denial to the U.S. District Court.  See Smith-Scott v. 
Howard Bank, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03423-RDB.  During the pendency of the appeal, 
on November 17, 2015, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion to Reconsider November 6 Order.  
On November 23, 2015, on the Trustee’s motion, the Bankruptcy Court struck Ms. Smith-
Scott’s motion (“November 23 Order”) because it concerned “the same Order that [Ms. 
Smith-Scott] previously appealed to the United States District Court.” 
 
On November 17, 2015, the Trustee filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal in the U.S. 
District Court.  See Case No. 1:15-cv-03423-RDB.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition.  
The U.S. District Court granted the Trustee’s motion on March 18, 2016, affirmed the April 
7 Conversion Order, and affirmed the November 6 Denial.  In its memorandum opinion, 
the U.S. District Court found that Ms. Smith-Scott lacked standing to challenge the sale of 
10 Stanley Drive, and that “there [] remains substantial evidence supporting the issuance 
of the [April 7] Conversion Order and [the Bankruptcy Court’s] decision to uphold it.”  
(Alteration in original).  On March 22, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott filed an appeal to the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The appellate court affirmed the U.S. District 
Court’s ruling in part and dismissed the appeal in part on August 8, 2016. 
 
On November 22, 2015, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion to Remove Chapter 7 
Trustee for Cause.  Ms. Smith-Scott alleged that the Trustee neglected his duties by 
17 
declining to investigate Ms. Smith-Scott’s claims against U.S. Bank and that the Trustee 
“purposely and knowingly conceal[ed] fraud” on the part of U.S. Bank.  On November 25, 
2015, before the Trustee could respond, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion 
(“November 25 Order”) stating, “the motion has no merit whatsoever.  No hearing is 
required.”  That same day, Ms. Smith-Scott filed an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s 
November 23 Order and November 25 Order.  See Smith-Scott v. Liebmann, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03637-RDB.  The Trustee filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 3, 2016.  Ms. Smith-
Scott did not file an opposition. 
The U.S. District Court entered an order on March 18, 2016 dismissing the appeal 
and affirming the November 25 Order.  In its memorandum opinion, the U.S. District Court 
determined that the November 25 Order was not a final appealable order; therefore, it was 
not properly before the U.S. District Court and required dismissal.  The U.S. District Court 
further concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott’s appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s November 6 
Order divested the Bankruptcy Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate her November 17 Motion 
to Reconsider.  Ultimately, the U.S. District Court held that, “[w]ithout jurisdiction over 
the issue, [the Bankruptcy Court] properly struck [Ms. Smith-Scott’s] Motion to 
Reconsider.”  (First and second alterations in original). 
 
The Trustee filed a Motion for Approval of Settlement and Compromise with 
Howard Bank on November 25, 2015.  Ms. Smith-Scott did not file an opposition.  The 
Bankruptcy Court granted the Trustee’s motion on January 4, 2016 (“January 4 Order”).  
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the January 4 Order on April 25, 2016.  
The Trustee filed an opposition.  On September 26, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court denied 
18 
Ms. Smith-Scott’s motion, explaining that Ms. Smith-Scott failed to meet “the initial 
threshold for consideration [of the motion] pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 
Rule 60(b).”  (Alteration in original). 
 
On December 21, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court found Ms. Smith-Scott in civil 
contempt for violating its October 29 Order, which prohibited Ms. Smith-Scott from using 
cash collateral.  In response, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Schneider on 
January 5, 2016, contending that Judge Schneider was partial and biased against her.  The 
Trustee and United States Trustee—who had not participated in the case until this point—
filed oppositions.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed on May 16, 2016 a supplement to her Motion to 
Recuse. 
 
The Bankruptcy Court issued an order on March 22, 2016 requiring Ms. Smith-Scott 
and Strategic Law Group to vacate the Laurel Properties on or before April 1, 2016 (“March 
22 Order”).  Ms. Smith Scott defied the March 22 Order and refused to vacate 367 Main 
Street.  On April 12, 2016, Mr. Shively went to the Laurel Properties with a locksmith to 
change the locks.  There, Mr. Shively encountered two Strategic Law Group employees; 
he informed them that they needed to vacate the property immediately.  One employee 
called Ms. Smith-Scott, who instructed the employees to stay in the office despite Mr. 
Shively’s instructions.  Mr. Shively then told the employees that they had three days to 
vacate the property.  Later that month, without notice or authorization from the Trustee, 
Ms. Smith-Scott changed the locks to her law office. 
 
On April 13, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott, on behalf of Strategic Law Group, filed an 
“Emergency Injunctive Relief as to and [sic] Motion to Alter and/or Amend Order dated 
19 
March 24, 2016.”  Ms. Smith-Scott argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over 
Strategic Law Group and could not force it to vacate 367 Main Street.  The Trustee 
countered that the ownership of Strategic Law Group is an asset of the bankruptcy estate 
and the law firm had not paid rent in over a year to the detriment of the estate and the 
secured party. 
 
On April 19, 2016, as a result of Ms. Smith-Scott’s failure to vacate 367 Main Street 
in violation of the March 22 Order, the Trustee filed a Motion for Civil Contempt and 
Sanctions.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition on May 5, 2016.  Ms. Smith-Scott accused 
Mr. Shively of engaging in criminal conduct in an effort to secure possession of 367 Main 
Street.  On April 25, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a second Motion to Remove Chapter 7 
Trustee.  Both the Trustee and the U.S. Trustee filed oppositions. 
 
The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on May 16, 2016 where it found Ms. Smith-
Scott in civil contempt of its March 22 Order and warned Ms. Smith-Scott that continued 
contempt may result in her incarceration (the “May 16 Contempt Order”).  The Bankruptcy 
Court ordered that Ms. Smith-Scott pay the Trustee, within ten days, the following: $612 
in locksmith costs and $100 per day from April 1, 2016 until she vacated 367 Main Street.  
Ms. Smith-Scott did not pay the sanctions.  Further, despite the contempt finding, Ms. 
Smith-Scott refused to vacate 367 Main Street.  On May 19, 2016, the Trustee filed a Notice 
of Non-Compliance alerting the Bankruptcy Court of Ms. Smith-Scott’s continued refusal 
to comply with the March 22 Order. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott noted an appeal of the May 16 Contempt Order to the U.S. District 
Court on May 20, 2016.  See Smith-Scott v. Howard Bank, et al., 1:16-cv-01572-RDB.  In 
20 
her brief, Ms. Smith-Scott accused Mr. Shively of committing perjury during the May 16 
hearing, alleged the Bankruptcy Court was violating her Eighth Amendment right against 
cruel and unusual punishment by threatening incarceration, alleged a number of 
constitutional violations, and argued that “the Trial Court abused its discretion by failing 
to rule on [Ms. Smith-Scott’s] Motion to Recuse while allowing perjury and mortgage 
fraud to take place which would lead an objective observer to question the judge’s 
impartiality.” 
 
On September 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court affirmed the May 16 Contempt 
Order and dismissed Ms. Smith-Scott’s appeal.  The U.S. District Court’s opinion rejected 
all of Ms. Smith-Scott’s arguments and held that Ms. Smith-Scott, “cites no facts which 
would support her [perjury] contentions but appears to rely upon the sheer audacity of her 
allegations” and that her allegations are “contradicted by signed submissions to the Court 
by counsel for [the Trustee.]”  Concerning the Eighth Amendment challenge, the U.S. 
District Court held “[t]o be clear: [Ms. Smith-Scott] has not been incarcerated in 
conjunction with this case, and her Brief does not allege that she was . . . . [Ms. Smith-
Scott’s] claim that her Eighth Amendment rights have been violated is premature.”  
(Ellipsis in original).  On the judicial recusal challenge, the U.S. District Court held that 
Ms. Smith-Scott “cites no action or conflict which would warrant judicial 
disqualification—indeed, she alleges no facts involving Judge Schneider at all—but, again, 
relies only upon the audacity of her allegations.” 
 
As of June 8, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott still refused to vacate 367 Main Street, causing 
the Trustee to file a Second Notice of Non-Compliance with Contempt Order.  On June 20, 
21 
2016, the U.S. Trustee filed an Adversary Complaint against Ms. Smith-Scott.  The U.S. 
Trustee requested an order denying discharge of Ms. Smith-Scott’s debts on the grounds 
that she (1) refused to comply with the court’s September 24 Order; (2) transferred and 
concealed estate property, i.e., the Patapsco Bank rents; (3) refused to comply with the 
court’s September 29 Order; (4) refused to comply with the court’s March 22 Order, and 
(5) intended to delay the Trustee’s administration of the estate by filing the Patapsco Bank 
Action. 
 
The Trustee filed a Motion to Sell 511 Main Street free and clear of liens and 
encumbrances on June 17, 2016.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition.  On July 22, 2016, 
the Bankruptcy Court granted the Trustee’s motion.  By June 27, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott 
still refused to vacate 367 Main Street, causing the Trustee to file a Third Notice of Non-
Compliance with Turnover Order and with Contempt Order. 
 
On July 8, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court against 
the Trustee, Mr. Shively, and their law firm, Liebmann and Shively, P.A. (collectively, 
“Defendants”).  The case was ultimately transferred to the Bankruptcy Court.  In her 
complaint, Ms. Smith-Scott alleged that during the May 16 contempt hearing, Mr. Shively 
made four “negligent and willful misrepresentations” to the Bankruptcy Court intending to 
obtain a favorable ruling.  She sought relief in the form of punitive damages in the amount 
of “$10,000 for each statement and from each Defendant.”   Additionally, Ms. Smith-Scott 
falsely alleged that the Trustee engaged in unlawful entry and trespass when he changed 
the locks to her law office on April 12, 2016.  Ms. Smith-Scott sought further damages in 
the amount of $215 to “re-key the lock” to her law office and punitive damages in the 
22 
amount of “$10,000 from each Defendant.” Ms. Smith-Scott’s complaint included several 
other unsubstantiated charges against the Trustee, Mr. Shively, and their law firm.  The 
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 27, 2016.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to respond; 
therefore, the U.S. District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice on September 15, 
2016. 
 
Also on July 8, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion to Withdraw Bankruptcy Case 
to the U.S. District Court requesting the U.S. District Court to take complete jurisdiction 
over her bankruptcy case.   Ms. Smith-Scott claimed that she had “proven that the Chapter 
7 Trustee has perjured himself in the United States Bankruptcy Court” and has “breached 
[his] fiduciary duty to the unsecured creditors.”  (Alteration in original).  Ms. Smith-Scott 
made several arguments that her constitutional rights had been violated.  On July 22, 2016, 
the Trustee filed an opposition.  On September 29, 2017, the U.S. District Court denied the 
motion, noting that Ms. Smith-Scott moved to withdraw her case “a full twenty-one months 
after she voluntarily commenced the case in the bankruptcy court . . . where there were 
over 400 docket entries in the case, including three unsuccessful appeals to the District 
Court.”  (Ellipsis in original).  The U.S. District Court held that Ms. Smith-Scott’s motion 
“could be denied on timeliness grounds alone,” that her complaint was “devoid of claims 
premised on other federal laws,” and that the motion “appears to be an attempt by [Ms. 
Smith-Scott] to find a more favorable forum for her claims.” 
 
As of July 19, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott still refused to vacate 367 Main Street, causing 
the Trustee to file a Fourth Notice of Non-Compliance with Turnover Order and with 
Contempt Order.  On July 22, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order on its own 
23 
accord (“July 22 Order”) directing the U.S. Marshal to assist the Trustee in securing the 
property.  The Bankruptcy Court’s order found: 
[Ms.] Smith-Scott, the debtor and a member of the bar of this Court, has 
failed and refused to comply with the lawful orders of this Court.  It is 
apparent from the Trustee’s motion, notices of non-compliance and the 
record that the debtor is willfully disregarding court orders and refusing to 
allow the Trustee to undertake his statutory function to administer the assets 
of the estate. 
 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott, that same day, noted an appeal of the July 22 Order to the U.S. 
District Court directing the U.S. Marshal to assist the Trustee and the order approving the 
sale of 511 Main Street.  See Smith-Scott v. Liebmann, Case No. 1:16-cv-02658-GLR.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott failed to file an appellate brief; therefore, the U.S. District Court dismissed the 
appeal on December 27, 2016. 
 
On August 11, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order denying Ms. Smith-
Scott’s Motion to Recuse Judge (“August 11 Order”) and held, “the debtor’s allegations of 
bias are nothing more than ‘unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation’” and 
that “her dissatisfaction with the results obtained in the instant case does not entitle her to 
a change of judge.”  The Bankruptcy Court entered another order on September 1, 2016, 
denying Ms. Smith-Scott’s second Motion to Remove Trustee (“September 1 Order”) and 
remarked, “the debtor has opposed every action by the Chapter 7 Trustee to administer this 
case. . . [t]he instant motion to remove the Trustee is without merit.”  (Ellipsis and 
alterations in original).  On September 6, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott noted an appeal to the 
U.S. District Court of the August 11 Order and September 1 Order.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed 
24 
to file the requisite appellate pleadings.  On August 15, 2017, on the Trustee’s motion, the 
U.S. District Court dismissed the appeal. 
 
After the issuance of these orders, Mr. Shively, with the assistance of three Deputy 
U.S. Marshals, went to 367 Main Street to secure possession.  The Strategic Law Group 
employees Mr. Shively encountered on April 12 were present at the office.  After making 
a phone call, the employees refused to vacate the premises.  The U.S. Marshals advised the 
employees that they would be handcuffed; ultimately, the employees vacated the property.  
U.S. Marshals and the property manager packed the contents of Ms. Smith-Scott’s law 
office and moved the packed boxes to a parking lot behind the building.  Shortly thereafter, 
Ms. Smith-Scott arrived with a moving truck.  Mr. Shively observed Ms. Smith-Scott load 
all the items from the parking lot into the moving truck and drive away. 
 
On January 23, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered summary judgment in favor of 
the U.S. Trustee in the Adversary Proceeding and found that “the Debtor in this case, did 
willfully disobey lawful Orders of this Court.”  The Bankruptcy Court further entered a 
judgment denying Ms. Smith-Scott’s discharge (“Denial of Discharge Order”).  On January 
30, 2017, Ms. Smith-Scott again appealed the Denial of Discharge Order to the U.S. 
District Court.  See Smith-Scott v. U.S. Trustee, Case No. 17-cv-00267-ELH.  The U.S. 
District Court affirmed the Denial of Discharge Order on January 25, 2018.  Ms. Smith-
Scott filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 
 
The Trustee filed a Motion of Sale of 367 Main Street on April 11, 2017 and an 
amendment thereto on April 26, 2017.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition.  On June 11, 
2017 the Bankruptcy Court approved the Trustee’s sale of 367 Main Street (“June 11 
25 
Order”).  On June 27, 2017, Ms. Smith-Scott filed an untimely appeal to the U.S. District 
Court of the June 11 Order.  On August 22, 2017, on the Trustee’s motion, the U.S. District 
Court dismissed the appeal due its untimeliness and Ms. Smith-Scott’s failure to file the 
required appellate pleadings. 
 
The U.S. Trustee approved the Trustee’s final accounting and final notice was sent 
to all parties on August 31, 2017. 
Bar Counsel Investigation I 
 
Bar Counsel wrote to Ms. Smith-Scott on September 23, 2016 and requested an 
explanation by October 14, 2016 for her failure to comply with the Bankruptcy Court’s 
March 22 Order.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to respond to Bar Counsel in any manner.  On 
October 18, 2016, Bar Counsel again wrote to Ms. Smith-Scott and requested a response 
to its September 23 letter within ten days.  Ms. Smith-Scott informed Bar Counsel on 
November 4, 2016, by telephone, that she would hand-deliver a response on November 7, 
2016.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to do so. 
 
Bar Counsel notified Ms. Smith-Scott on December 6, 2016 that the matter had been 
docketed for further investigation and requested a response to the September 23 and 
October 18 letters by December 21, 2016.  Ms. Smith-Scott submitted a response to Bar 
Counsel on January 17, 2017, wherein she knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the 
following: “The Chapter 7 Trustee began to sale [sic] property by omitting facts and 
misrepresenting other facts, which caused the Bankruptcy Judge to rule in [the Chapter 7 
Trustee’s] favor which included an order of contempt and being threatened with 
26 
incarceration.”  Ms. Smith-Scott provided no other explanation for the Bankruptcy Court’s 
contempt finding or her refusal to comply with the March 22 Order. 
Representation of Crystal Combs 
 
Ms. Crystal Combs retained Ms. Smith-Scott and Strategic Law Group in October 
2015.  Ms. Combs sought to remove her ex-husband’s name from the deed to her home 
(“2603 Vicarage Court”).  At that time, Bank of America held the mortgage to the home, 
which was in default.  However, Bank of America offered Ms. Combs a loan modification 
on the condition that Ms. Combs’ ex-husband—since his name remained on the deed—
either become a party to the modification or his name be removed from the deed. 
 
Ms. Combs agreed to pay Ms. Smith-Scott on an hourly basis, at the rate of $225 
per hour.  On October 14, 2015, Ms. Combs paid Ms. Smith-Scott $2,500 for the 
representation.  Of that, $1,000 was for legal services Ms. Smith-Scott had already 
provided.  The remaining $1,500 constituted a retainer against which Ms. Smith-Scott 
would bill future legal services.  Ms. Combs paid Ms. Smith-Scott by credit card; Ms. 
Smith-Scott entered the credit card number in Square and charged the card.12  Ms. Smith-
Scott failed to deposit and maintain the funds in an attorney trust account until earned for 
fees or used for expenses.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to obtain Ms. Combs’ informed consent 
in writing to deposit the funds in an account other than an attorney trust account. 
On May 19, 2016, at Ms. Smith-Scott’s request, Ms. Combs’ paid an additional 
$1,850 towards the representation by credit card.  Therefore, by May 18, 2016, Ms. Combs 
                                                          
 
12 “Square” is a credit card processing service. 
27 
had paid Ms. Smith-Scott a total of $4,350.  However, at no time during the representation 
of Ms. Combs did Ms. Smith-Scott provide an invoice reflecting how such fees were 
incurred.  Ms. Smith-Scott successfully removed Ms. Combs’ ex-husband from the 2603 
Vicarage Court deed and Ms. Combs successfully completed her Bank of America loan 
modification. 
 
At the time Ms. Combs retained Ms. Smith-Scott, Ms. Combs also owned an 
investment property (“9904 Doubletree Lane”).  Ms. Combs was defending a foreclosure 
action against this property in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.  See Brown, 
et al. v. Combs, Case No. CAE10-20522.  On August 9, 2016, the circuit court entered an 
order permitting the secured creditor to proceed with the foreclosure (“Foreclosure 
Order”).  On August 12, 2016, Ms. Combs retained Ms. Smith-Scott to represent her in the 
foreclosure action.  That same day, Ms. Smith-Scott entered her appearance and filed an 
Emergency Motion to Reconsider the Foreclosure Order.  The secured creditor scheduled 
a foreclosure sale for September 13, 2016. 
 
On August 26, 2016, prior to the circuit court’s adjudication of the Emergency 
Motion to Reconsider, Ms. Smith-Scott appealed the Foreclosure Order to the Court of 
Special Appeals.  Ms. Smith-Scott explained to Ms. Combs that an appeal of the 
Foreclosure Order would delay the foreclosure.  With the Notice of Appeal, Ms. Smith-
Scott filed in the circuit court a Motion to Stay the proceeding pending appeal.  On 
September 7, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott filed an unsigned Civil Appeal Information Report in 
the Court of Special Appeals.  On September 21, 2016, the Clerk of the Court of Special 
Appeals requested Ms. Smith-Scott provide a signed copy of the report.  Ms. Smith-Scott 
28 
failed to respond and otherwise failed to pursue Ms. Combs’ appeal in any manner.  The 
Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal on November 15, 2016. 
 
Ms. Combs agreed to pay Ms. Smith-Scott on an hourly basis for her representation 
in the circuit court and Court of Special Appeals.  On August 15, 2016, Ms. Combs paid 
Ms. Smith-Scott $1,000 by credit card.  Ms. Combs paid another $500 by credit card on 
August 25, 2016.  Ms. Combs provided Ms. Smith-Scott with the credit card number either 
over the phone or in person.  Ms. Smith-Scott and Ms. Combs did not execute a written 
retainer agreement for the representation.  At no point throughout the representation or at 
its conclusion did Ms. Smith-Scott provide Ms. Combs with an invoice reflecting the legal 
fees that Ms. Combs incurred. 
 
In early September 2016, with the September 13, 2016 foreclosure sale looming, 
Ms. Combs elected to file for bankruptcy.  On September 12, 2016, Ms. Combs retained 
Ms. Smith-Scott to represent her in the bankruptcy proceedings and agreed to pay a flat fee 
of $4,200 for the representation.  That same day, Ms. Combs met with Ms. Smith-Scott 
and made an initial payment of $1,500 by credit card.  Ms. Smith-Scott advised Ms. Combs 
that once Ms. Combs paid the bankruptcy filing fee, which she agreed to pay in four 
monthly installments of $75 dollars, Ms. Combs could pay the remainder of Ms. Smith-
Scott’s legal fee.  Ms. Combs paid the $300 bankruptcy filing fee.  On September 12, 2016, 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Voluntary Chapter 13 Petition in the Bankruptcy Court on behalf 
of Ms. Combs.  See In re: Crystal A. Combs, Case No. 16-22230.  That same day, Ms. 
Smith-Scott filed a Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor, which disclosed 
the fee arrangement Ms. Smith-Scott reached with Ms. Combs. 
29 
 
On October 7, 2016, the secured creditor for 9904 Doubletree Lane moved for relief 
from the automatic stay.  On October 17, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott filed an opposition to the 
motion and the Bankruptcy Court scheduled a hearing for November 3, 2016.  Prior to the 
hearing date, Ms. Smith-Scott misinformed Ms. Combs that the hearing had been 
rescheduled and that she need not appear on November 3.  However, the hearing had not 
been rescheduled.  The Bankruptcy Court held the November 3 hearing and neither Ms. 
Smith-Scott nor Ms. Combs appeared. 
 
The Bankruptcy Court granted the secured creditor’s motion to lift the automatic 
stay on November 10, 2016.  The Bankruptcy Court entered the order on November 14, 
2016, permitting the secured creditor to proceed with foreclosure proceedings.  Ms. Combs 
received a copy of the Bankruptcy Court’s order and immediately requested Ms. Smith-
Scott file a Motion for Reconsideration.  Ms. Smith-Scott agreed to file the motion.  Before 
December 12, 2016, Ms. Smith-Scott represented to Ms. Combs that she had filed the 
Motion for Reconsideration when she had not.  On December 12, 2016, believing Ms. 
Smith-Scott filed the motion, Ms. Combs emailed Ms. Smith-Scott and inquired whether 
the court had issued a ruling.  On December 28, 2016—six weeks after the Bankruptcy 
Court lifted the automatic stay—Ms. Smith-Scott filed an untimely Emergency Motion for 
Reconsideration.  Ms. Smith-Scott filed an Amended Emergency Motion on January 4, 
2017. 
 
On January 9, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court denied Ms. Smith-Scott’s Amended 
Emergency Motion (“January 9 Order”).  Respondent then filed an appeal of the January 9 
Order to the U.S. District Court.  Yet, before Ms. Smith-Scott could complete any 
30 
substantive work, Ms. Combs elected to dismiss the appeal.  On January 17, 2017, 9904 
Doubletree Lane sold at a foreclosure sale.  On February 1, 2017, the secured creditor filed 
a Report of Sale in the circuit court foreclosure action.  On February 2, 2017, Ms. Smith-
Scott filed Exceptions to the Foreclosure Sale. 
 
Ms. Combs met with Ms. Smith-Scott at her law office on February 2, 2017.  At 
Ms. Smith-Scott’s request, Ms. Combs paid $2,500 toward the $4,200 flat fee for the 
bankruptcy representation by credit card.  Therefore, by February 2, Ms. Combs had paid 
$4,000 of the agreed upon $4,200 flat fee.  Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b) obligated Ms. Smith-
Scott to inform the Bankruptcy Court of her receipt of additional legal fees, yet she failed 
to do so.  At the February 2 meeting, Ms. Smith-Scott presented Ms. Combs with an invoice 
for services purportedly rendered.  Ms. Combs reviewed the invoice and noticed 
inaccuracies.  Ms. Combs requested Ms. Smith-Scott send a corrected invoice via email.  
Ms. Smith-Scott failed to do so. 
 
In February 2017, Ms. Combs and Ms. Smith-Scott began to disagree about the most 
effective legal strategy to reclaim 9904 Doubletree Lane.  Ms. Combs acquired sufficient 
funds to reclaim the property and asked Ms. Smith-Scott to request permission from the 
circuit court to deposit the funds in the court’s escrow account.  Ms. Combs expressed a 
desire to make the request promptly—i.e., before the circuit court ratified the foreclosure 
sale.  In an email on February 18, 2017, Ms. Combs memorialized her request and 
suggested that Ms. Smith-Scott withdraw her appearance in the foreclosure action if she 
declined to take the requested action.  That same day, Ms. Smith-Scott notified Ms. Combs 
31 
by email that she would be withdrawing her appearance in both the foreclosure and 
bankruptcy actions. 
 
On February 21, 2017, unsure whether Ms. Smith-Scott continued to represent her, 
Ms. Combs emailed Ms. Smith-Scott and alerted her to filing deadlines in the pending 
bankruptcy appeal and a scheduled hearing in Bankruptcy Court.  Ms. Smith-Scott agreed 
to attend the hearing and stated to Ms. Combs, “I will need to be paid and I am withdrawing 
from both cases.”  Ms. Combs did not know how much she owed Ms. Smith-Scott because 
she never received a revised invoice.  Ms. Combs sent Ms. Smith-Scott a second email on 
February 21 and requested that she dismiss the bankruptcy case and withdraw her 
appearance in the foreclosure action.  On February 22, 2017, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a 
Motion to Dismiss Voluntary Chapter 13 Case in the bankruptcy action.  The next day the 
Bankruptcy Court dismissed and closed Ms. Combs’ bankruptcy action.  On February 23, 
2017, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Line striking her appearance in Ms. Combs’ foreclosure 
action. 
 
On February 22, 2017, Ms. Smith-Scott emailed Ms. Combs two invoices.  The 
invoices showed that Ms. Combs owed Ms. Smith-Scott a total of $4,986.13.  Ms. Smith-
Scott’s email further informed Ms. Combs that she had an outstanding balance of $1,686.13 
and an additional $3,300 in legal fees had accrued.  The first invoice, labeled “Invoice 
#23,” was dated February 1, 2017 and contained twenty-six entries.  Most of the entries 
pertained to Ms. Smith-Scott’s work on the bankruptcy action, for which Ms. Smith-Scott 
had already been paid $4,000 of the $4,200 total fee.  Invoice #23 incorrectly reflected that 
on February 1, 2017, Ms. Combs paid (1) $216.25 toward the balance; and (2) $2,283.76 
32 
toward another invoice, Invoice #22.  Ms. Smith-Scott acknowledged to the hearing judge 
below that Invoice #23 was entirely inaccurate.  Likewise, Ms. Combs never owed Ms. 
Smith-Scott the $1,686.13 balance. 
 
The second invoice attached to Ms. Smith-Scott’s email, labeled “Invoice #31,” was 
dated February 22, 2017 and contained entries related to the bankruptcy appeal in the U.S. 
District Court.  Despite agreeing to represent Ms. Combs on appeal for a flat fee, Invoice 
#31 contained hourly billing entries for work purportedly performed on the appeal.  
However, as noted supra, Ms. Combs elected to dismiss the appeal before Ms. Smith-Scott 
undertook any substantive work.  Prior to sending Invoice #31, Ms. Smith-Scott never 
informed Ms. Combs that she would charge on an hourly basis if Ms. Combs chose not to 
pursue the appeal.  The billing entries in Invoice #31 were not accurate and Ms. Combs did 
not owe the $3,300 balance to Ms. Smith-Scott. 
 
Ms. Combs reviewed these invoices and emailed Ms. Smith-Scott on February 23, 
2017 at 6:13 a.m., to express her concern that they contained inaccuracies and failed to 
account for previous payments.  At 7:55 a.m., Ms. Smith-Scott, without having addressed 
any of Ms. Combs’ concerns, charged Ms. Combs’ credit card through Square in the 
amount of $4,986.13.  Twenty minutes later, Ms. Smith-Scott responded to Ms. Combs’ 
email.  Ms. Smith-Scott made several threatening statements to Ms. Combs and threatened 
to disclose confidential information about Ms. Combs to adverse parties.  Ms. Smith-
Scott’s email concluded by stating, “But, don’t call me or prevent my payment in full.  We 
all have a day of reckoning!” 
33 
 
The hearing judge acknowledged that the issue of whether Ms. Combs authorized 
Ms. Smith-Scott to charge her credit card presents two separate, but related questions.  
First, did Ms. Combs give Ms. Smith-Scott her credit card information on February 23, 
2017?  Second, did Ms. Combs authorize payment in the amount of $4,986.13 on February 
23, 2017?  On the first question, the hearing judge found for Ms. Smith-Scott, i.e., that 
there lacked clear and convincing evidence to show that Ms. Smith-Scott converted Ms. 
Combs’ credit card number.  On the second question, the hearing judge found that clear 
and convincing evidence supported Bar Counsel’s account that Ms. Combs did not 
authorize payment in the amount of $4,986.13. 
On February 27, 2017, Ms. Combs disputed the charge with her bank, Wells Fargo.  
That same day, Wells Fargo returned the full amount to Ms. Combs’ account and notified 
Ms. Smith-Scott of the dispute.  Wells Fargo conducted an investigation into the disputed 
charge.  As part of the investigation, Ms. Smith-Scott submitted a written explanation to 
the bank (“Wells Fargo Letter”) in which she stated that Ms. Combs gave verbal 
authorization over the phone to make the charge.  With the Wells Fargo Letter, Ms. Smith-
Scott attached Invoice #23 and Invoice #31 for support, despite knowing the inaccuracies 
in each invoice.  Neither invoice reflected the $4,000 Ms. Combs had already paid toward 
the bankruptcy case.  Moreover, the hearing judge credited Ms. Combs’ testimony that she 
spoke to Ms. Smith-Scott by telephone on February 28, 2017, and expressly informed her 
that she did not authorize a charge in the amount of $4,986.13.  After the call, Ms. Combs 
emailed Ms. Smith-Scott and requested an invoice “on any unpaid balance as of” February 
28, 2017.  Ms. Combs stated, “[i]t is still my intent and desire to come to an agreement and 
34 
conclusion on this matter.”  (Alteration in original).  On March 1, 2017, Ms. Smith-Scott 
emailed Ms. Combs and threatened to put her into an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy 
proceeding so that she could get paid as a creditor.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to provide Ms. 
Combs with a revised invoice in response to Ms. Combs’ earlier requests. 
 
On April 12, 2017, Ms. Combs paid Ms. Smith-Scott the remaining $200 installment 
toward the $4,200 bankruptcy fee by money order.  Ms. Combs testified that she made the 
final installment payment because she wanted to make a good faith attempt to fulfill her 
end of the contract with Ms. Smith-Scott to pay $4,200 for the bankruptcy representation.  
At the time Ms. Combs made the $200 payment, Wells Fargo had returned the $4,986.13 
to Ms. Combs’ account based on the February 27 dispute.  However, after the investigation, 
Wells Fargo ultimately resolved the dispute in Ms. Smith-Scott’s favor.  Consequently, 
Wells Fargo removed $4,986.13 from Ms. Combs’ account on May 18, 2017.  On April 
16, 2017, Ms. Smith-Scott sent Ms. Combs a letter acknowledging the $200 payment.  In 
the letter, Ms. Smith-Scott advised that, while Ms. Combs did not owe any legal fees, she 
intended to keep the $200.  In part, the letter read: 
However, due to your attempt at disputing your payment and the hardship 
that I had to endure, the Two Hundred Dollars will be used to cover the 
expense of protecting myself from your manipulative behavior. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott never returned the $200 to Ms. Combs. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott testified that, despite the inaccuracies in Invoice #23 and Invoice 
#31, Ms. Combs still owed at least $4,986.13 in unpaid legal fees, and that she 
communicated that balance to Ms. Combs.  The hearing judge did not credit this testimony.  
In rejecting Ms. Smith-Scott’s testimony, the hearing judge noted that (1) Ms. Smith-Scott 
35 
did not present any documentary evidence to support her contention that Ms. Combs owed 
$4,986.13; (2) much of Ms. Smith-Scott’s testimony regarding her billing of Ms. Combs 
was contradicted by other testimony, the documentary record, or her statements to Bar 
Counsel during its investigation; and (3) Ms. Smith-Scott admitted at the hearing that, were 
she to do it all over again, she would have handled the billing of Ms. Combs’ account 
differently.  Specifically, the hearing judge discussed this example: 
[Ms. Smith-Scott] testified at the hearing that Ms. Combs gave her explicit 
permission to charge her credit card in the amount of $4,986.13 and that Ms. 
Combs understood that the payment was “conditional.”  But there is no 
contemporaneous evidence indicating that [Ms. Smith-Scott] advised Ms. 
Combs that the $4,986.13 payment was conditional and she never advised 
Wells Fargo that the disputed payment was “conditional.”  Moreover, when 
given an opportunity to explain herself to Bar Counsel during its 
investigation, [Ms. Smith-Scott] did not make such a claim. 
 
Bar Counsel Investigation II 
 
Ms. Combs filed a complaint with the Commission against Ms. Smith-Scott on May 
26, 2017.  The focus of Ms. Combs’ complaint centered on Ms. Smith-Scott’s unauthorized 
charge of Ms. Combs’ credit card.  Ms. Smith-Scott responded to the complaint on July 5, 
2017.  Ms. Smith-Scott attached the Wells Fargo Letter to her response, which included 
the false representation that Ms. Combs authorized her to charge the credit card in the 
amount of $4,986.13.  The Wells Fargo Letter did not indicate that the charge was 
conditional.  Additionally, Ms. Smith-Scott attached Invoice #23 and Invoice #31, which 
she knew to be inaccurate.  Ms. Smith-Scott’s response to Bar Counsel likewise omitted 
36 
any representation that Ms. Combs authorized her to charge the credit card in the amount 
of $4,986.13 or that the charge was “conditional.” 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott sought to intentionally mislead Bar Counsel into believing the 
charge was authorized by submitting the Wells Fargo Letter.  On October 19, 2017, Ms. 
Smith-Scott submitted a second response to Bar Counsel wherein she intentionally gave 
Bar Counsel the false impression that the $4,986.13 amount was accurate and owed, despite 
her knowledge that it was not an accurate figure reflecting legal fees that Ms. Combs owed.  
Again, Ms. Smith-Scott did not state in the second response that the $4,986.13 charge was 
somehow “conditional.” 
Representation of Angela Plater 
 
In October 2014, foreclosure proceedings were instituted against Ms. Angela Plater 
in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.  See WBGLMC v. Angela Plater, Case 
No. CAEF14-27671.  The foreclosure action related to Ms. Plater’s home.  As a result, Ms. 
Plater retained Ms. Smith-Scott to assist in saving the home from foreclosure.  Ms. Plater 
and Ms. Smith-Scott did not execute a written retainer agreement. 
 
In early 2015, Ms. Smith-Scott represented Ms. Plater at a foreclosure mediation.  
Ms. Smith-Scott failed to advise Ms. Plater of the basis or rate of her legal fee prior to the 
start of the mediation.  At the conclusion of the mediation, Ms. Smith-Scott requested 
payment from Ms. Plater, which she promptly made.  At no point during the representation 
in the foreclosure action did Ms. Smith-Scott advise Ms. Plater of her hourly rate.  The 
mediation did not result in an agreement. 
37 
 
On March 24, 2015, the circuit court entered an order permitting the foreclosure of 
Ms. Plater’s home.  The creditor subsequently scheduled the foreclosure sale for October 
20, 2015.  Ms. Plater received notice of the sale and contacted Ms. Smith-Scott to inform 
her that October 20 was her birthday.  Ms. Plater asked that Ms. Smith-Scott assist in 
postponing the foreclosure so that it would not occur on Ms. Plater’s birthday.  To achieve 
a postponement, Ms. Smith-Scott suggested that Ms. Plater file a bankruptcy petition.  Ms. 
Plater agreed to file for bankruptcy solely for the purpose of delaying the foreclosure sale, 
but advised Ms. Smith-Scott that she had no intention of pursuing the bankruptcy through 
to a liquidation or reorganization of her debts.  Ms. Plater further agreed to pay Ms. Smith-
Scott a flat fee of $1,500 to file the bankruptcy petition. 
 
Ms. Plater met Ms. Smith-Scott at her law office to prepare the bankruptcy petition 
on October 19, 2015.  Aware that Ms. Plater did not actually intend to pursue bankruptcy, 
Ms. Smith-Scott advised that she could file a “skeleton form.”  By “skeleton form,” Ms. 
Smith-Scott meant that she could file the bare minimum bankruptcy petition and 
intentionally omit other required documentation.  Ms. Smith-Scott advised Ms. Plater that 
without the required documentation, the Bankruptcy Court would dismiss the petition 
within two to three weeks.  With Ms. Plater in the office, Ms. Smith-Scott prepared a 
Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor form,13 in which Ms. Smith-Scott 
                                                          
 
13 The Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor is filed contemporaneously with 
a bankruptcy petition.  In completing the form, an attorney certifies the “compensation 
paid . . . within one year before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, or agreed to be 
paid . . . , for services rendered or to be rendered on behalf of the debtor.”  See 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for 
38 
represented that Ms. Plater agreed to pay a flat fee of $4,200 for the representation.  Ms. 
Plater questioned Ms. Smith-Scott about the $4,200 figure because it did not comport with 
her understanding of the agreed upon fee arrangement.  Ms. Smith-Scott responded by 
misrepresenting to Ms. Plater that the form must be submitted to the Bankruptcy Court in 
that format.  On October 19, 2015, Ms. Plater paid Ms. Smith-Scott $1,500 to file the 
petition. 
 
That same day, Ms. Smith-Scott filed Ms. Plater’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.  
See In re: Angela M. Plater, Case No. 15-24508-TJC.  The bankruptcy petition was without 
substantial justification because Ms. Smith-Scott filed it solely for the purpose of 
preventing the foreclosure sale from occurring.  Ms. Smith-Scott had no intention of 
completing the required filings to ensure that the case would move forward.  Moreover, 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed the Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor with a 
knowingly false statement that Ms. Plater agreed to pay a flat fee of $4,200. 
 
On October 20, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court notified Ms. Smith-Scott that Ms. 
Plater’s petition lacked several required documents.  The Bankruptcy Court further 
explained that if the documents were not submitted by November 2, 2015, the case would 
be dismissed.  Because Ms. Smith-Scott knew that Ms. Plater did not intend to pursue 
bankruptcy relief, she took no action in response to the notice and did not discuss the notice 
with Ms. Plater.  On November 6, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Ms. Plater’s 
                                                          
 
Debtor, 
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/bankruptcy-forms/disclosure-compensation-
attorney-debtor-0 (last visited June 26, 2020) archived at https://perma.cc/636P-YZCG. 
39 
bankruptcy case for failure to file the required documents.  As a result of the dismissal, the 
automatic stay lifted.  Ms. Smith-Scott did not discuss the dismissal with Ms. Plater. 
 
On December 9, 2015, Ms. Smith-Scott entered her appearance in Ms. Plater’s 
pending foreclosure case.  That same day, Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion to Stay and/or 
Dismiss the Foreclosure Proceedings.  The circuit court denied the Motion on January 5, 
2016 because it (1) failed to state a valid defense or present a meritorious argument; (2) 
was not submitted under oath or supported by affidavit as required by Maryland Rule (“Md. 
Rule”) 14-211(a)(3)(A); and (3) failed to comply with Md. Rule 14-211(a)(3)(C).  Ms. 
Plater’s home sold at a foreclosure sale on January 5, 2016. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Motion to Vacate Foreclosure Sale on February 5, 2016.  
Ms. Plater, acting pro se, filed Exceptions of Sale on February 22, 2016.  The circuit court 
denied both motions on March 22, 2016.  Ms. Plater then retained Ms. Smith-Scott to file 
an appeal of the circuit court’s two orders to the Court of Special Appeals.  Ms. Smith-
Scott agreed to handle the appeal for a flat fee of $4,000.  Ms. Smith-Scott advised Ms. 
Plater that she could pay the fee in installments, but did not provide a date by which the 
total fee became due.  Ms. Plater and Ms. Smith-Scott did not execute a written retainer 
agreement for the representation. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending 
Appeal in the circuit court on April 19, 2016.  For these filings, Ms. Smith-Scott charged 
and received an additional $500.  Ms. Plater paid this amount by check on April 7, 2016.  
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Civil Appeal Information Report in the Court of Special Appeals 
40 
on May 2, 2016.  For this filing, Ms. Smith-Scott charged and received an additional $50.  
Ms. Plater paid this amount by check on April 22, 2016. 
 
On July 5, 2016, the circuit court granted Ms. Plater’s Motion to Stay on the 
condition that she post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $25,000.  Ms. Smith-Scott 
convinced Ms. Plater that there existed a meritorious legal argument that would obviate the 
need for Ms. Plater to post a bond.  Accordingly, Ms. Smith-Scott argued to the circuit 
court that, since Ms. Plater was a bona fide purchaser, she was not required to post a bond.  
For this filing, Ms. Smith-Scott charged and received an additional $250.  Ms. Plater paid 
this amount by check on July 12, 2016 when the Motion to Reconsider had been completed.  
Ms. Smith-Scott did not advise Ms. Plater that she had an outstanding balance or that future 
legal fees would accrue. 
 
In late August 2016, one of Ms. Smith-Scott’s employees contacted Ms. Plater and 
asked whether she wanted to pursue her appeal.  Ms. Plater confirmed that she wanted to 
pursue the appeal.  By that time, the Court of Special Appeals had notified Ms. Smith-Scott 
that Ms. Plater’s appellate brief must be submitted by September 29, 2016.  Ms. Smith-
Scott’s employee informed Ms. Plater about the filing deadline.  On September 7, 2016, 
Ms. Plater paid Ms. Smith-Scott the first installment for the appeal in the amount of $1,000.  
Ms. Plater paid by check; the notation “toward brief” appeared in the memo line.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott failed to deposit and maintain the funds in an attorney trust account until 
earned or expenses incurred.  On September 22, 2016, Ms. Plater paid Ms. Smith-Scott a 
second installment for the appeal in the amount of $1,000.  Ms. Plater again paid by check; 
the notation “payment toward appeal” appeared in the memo line.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed 
41 
to deposit and maintain the funds in an attorney trust account until earned or expenses 
incurred. 
 
After Ms. Smith-Scott received Ms. Plater’s funds, Ms. Smith-Scott did not perform 
any meaningful legal work on Ms. Plater’s appeal.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to prepare or 
submit Ms. Plater’s appellate brief by the September 29 filing deadline.  Ms. Smith-Scott 
failed to request an extension of time.  During a conversation with Ms. Smith-Scott in the 
first week of October 2016, after the deadline had expired, Ms. Smith-Scott intentionally 
misrepresented to Ms. Plater that she intended to file the appellate brief within one week.  
Ms. Smith-Scott failed to file the brief and intentionally concealed her inaction from Ms. 
Plater. 
 
The Court of Special Appeals dismissed Ms. Plater’s appeal on October 19, 2016 as 
a result of Ms. Smith-Scott’s failure to file an appellate brief.  Thereafter, for approximately 
six weeks, Ms. Smith-Scott concealed the dismissal order from Ms. Plater.  Throughout 
early October, Ms. Plater attempted to contact Ms. Smith-Scott on several occasions to find 
out the status of the appeal, but Ms. Smith-Scott failed to respond.  Ms. Plater reached out 
in the middle of October and scheduled a meeting with Ms. Smith-Scott for the end of the 
month.  On the day of the meeting, Ms. Smith-Scott called Ms. Plater and cancelled.  Still, 
in that conversation, Ms. Smith-Scott did not inform Ms. Plater that the appeal had been 
dismissed. 
 
Ms. Plater emailed Ms. Smith-Scott on November 14, 2016 requesting a copy of her 
appellate brief.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to respond.  Ms. Plater emailed Ms. Smith-Scott 
again on November 30, 2016, again requesting a copy of her appellate brief.  Ms. Smith-
42 
Scott failed to respond.  By November 30, neither Ms. Smith-Scott, nor any member of her 
staff, had informed Ms. Plater that the appeal had been dismissed.  In late November,  Ms. 
Plater contacted the Court of Special Appeals and learned, for the first time, that her appeal 
had been dismissed. 
 
Ms. Plater spoke with Ms. Smith-Scott by telephone in early December 2016.  
During the conversation, Ms. Smith-Scott still did not inform Ms. Plater of the dismissal.  
Ms. Plater scheduled a meeting with Ms. Smith-Scott for the middle of December.  On the 
day of the appointment, Ms. Plater went to Ms. Smith-Scott’s law office, yet Ms. Smith-
Scott failed to appear.  An employee called Ms. Smith-Scott so that she could speak with 
Ms. Plater.  On this call, six weeks after the dismissal of Ms. Plater’s appeal, Ms. Smith-
Scott informed Ms. Plater of the dismissal for the first time.  Ms. Plater immediately 
requested that Ms. Smith-Scott return her money.  Ms. Smith-Scott agreed, but explained 
that she would need three weeks to do so. 
 
A few weeks later, Ms. Plater went to Ms. Smith-Scott’s law office to collect her 
refund.  Ms. Smith-Scott was not there.  An employee informed Ms. Plater that Ms. Smith-
Scott went to the bank to get a check.  Ms. Plater waited approximately thirty minutes to 
an hour for Ms. Smith-Scott to return; however, Ms. Smith-Scott never arrived.  In January 
2017, Ms. Plater returned to Ms. Smith-Scott’s office a second time to collect her refund.  
While Ms. Smith-Scott was present in the office, an employee presented Ms. Plater with a 
check in the amount of $1,025.  Ms. Plater immediately disputed the amount of the check 
and requested a full refund of $2,000.  Despite having performed no meaningful work on 
Ms. Plater’s appeal, Ms. Smith-Scott refused to refund the full $2,000.  Ms. Smith-Scott 
43 
failed to describe the legal work or otherwise provide Ms. Plater with an invoice detailing 
the legal services purportedly rendered that justified Ms. Smith-Scott retaining $975.  Ms. 
Plater did not deposit the $1,025 check. 
Bar Counsel Investigation III 
 
Ms. Plater filed a complaint with the Commission against Ms. Smith-Scott on 
November 2, 2017.  Bar Counsel wrote to Ms. Smith-Scott on November 9, 2017 and 
requested a response to Ms. Plater’s complaint.  Ms. Smith-Scott, through counsel, filed a 
response on January 19, 2018.  Ms. Smith-Scott attempted to justify her failure to refund 
all of Ms. Plater’s funds by explaining that she had “met with Ms. Plater; identified the 
legal issues to pursue on appeal; prepared the Civil Information Sheet; filed a motion to 
stay the foreclosure pending the appeal; and filed a motion to mitigate the necessity of a 
supersedeas bond.” 
Ms. Smith-Scott concealed from Bar Counsel that she had received additional funds 
from Ms. Plater to prepare each of these documents.  Moreover, in her response, Ms. Smith-
Scott stated that she had incurred $825 in legal fees for “legal work performed for Ms. 
Plater while the matter was pending on appeal.”  With her response, Ms. Smith-Scott 
provided a refund check to Ms. Plater in the amount of $1,140.  Ms. Plater did not deposit 
the check because she believed she was owed the full $2,000 she paid toward the appeal. 
44 
Representation of Furrah Deeba 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of Ms. Furrah Deeba in the 
Bankruptcy Court on January 31, 2017.14  See In re: Furrah Deeba, Case No: 17-11325.  
In the petition, Ms. Smith-Scott inadvertently used a different client’s social security 
number.  This error prompted a notice of a prior bankruptcy filing.  Consequently, pursuant 
to the Bankruptcy Code, the automatic stay imposed only lasted thirty days. 
 
For this reason, Ms. Smith-Scott filed Debtor’s Motion to Extend Automatic Stay 
on February 8, 2017.  The Bankruptcy Court scheduled a hearing on the motion for April 
17, 2017.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to appear at the hearing and failed to notify the 
Bankruptcy Court or the trustee that she would not appear.  Therefore, on April 17, the 
court denied the motion and noted on the order, “failure to appear at the hearing held on 
April 17, 2017 and prosecute the motion.”  The Bankruptcy Court subsequently dismissed 
Ms. Deeba’s case without the entry of a discharge on July 24, 2017 for failure to file the 
required financial management course certification. 
 
In Ms. Smith-Scott’s Answer to Bar Counsel, she admitted to the facts set forth 
regarding Ms. Deeba, but alleged that she would provide mitigation before the hearing 
judge.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to present any mitigation as it pertains to Ms. Deeba. 
Representation of Benjamin Thomas, Jr. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on behalf of Mr. Benjamin 
Thomas Jr., in the Bankruptcy Court on April 3, 2017.  See In re: Benjamin Thomas, Jr., 
                                                          
 
14 The hearing judge’s findings of fact indicate that Ms. Deeba’s petition was filed on 
December 31, 2017; however, the record reveals a filing date of January 31, 2017. 
45 
Case No. 17-14620.  The Bankruptcy Court scheduled a plan confirmation hearing in Mr. 
Thomas’ case for August 8, 2017.  Ms. Smith-Scott intentionally failed to appear at the 
hearing.  Ms. Smith-Scott further failed to notify the court or the Chapter 13 Trustee that 
she would not appear.  As a result, the Bankruptcy Court denied the confirmation of Mr. 
Thomas’ Chapter 13 plan without leave to amend.  Ms. Smith-Scott testified that she had 
Mr. Thomas’ permission not to attend the hearing.  Further, Ms. Smith-Scott testified that 
Mr. Thomas is still her client.  Bar Counsel failed to present any evidence to the contrary. 
Representation of John Thomas Jones, Jr. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on behalf of Mr. John 
Thomas Jones, Jr., in the Bankruptcy Court on October 7, 2016.  See In re: John Thomas 
Jones, Jr., Case No. 16-23509.  The Bankruptcy Court scheduled a plan confirmation 
hearing in Mr. Jones’ case for January 31, 2017.  Ms. Smith-Scott intentionally failed to 
appear at the hearing.  Ms. Smith-Scott further failed to notify the court or the Chapter 13 
Trustee that she would not appear.  As a result, the Bankruptcy Court denied the 
confirmation of Mr. Jones’ Chapter 13 plan without leave to amend.  In Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
Answer to Bar Counsel, she admitted to the facts set forth regarding Mr. Jones, but alleged 
that she would provide mitigation before the hearing judge. 
Representation of Theresa Saunders 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on behalf of Ms. Theresa 
Saunders in the Bankruptcy Court on May 19, 2017.  Ms. Saunders filed a pro se 
Motion/Request for Release of Attorney on December 27, 2017.  In the motion, Ms. 
Saunders requested that the Bankruptcy Court “release” Ms. Smith-Scott as her attorney 
46 
“based upon unsatisfactory actions and irreconcilable differences in miscommunication 
that have affected her bankruptcy process and may impact the outcome of [her] case.”  Ms. 
Saunders further alleged that Ms. Smith-Scott submitted an amended bankruptcy plan on 
December 12, 2017 without Ms. Saunders’ review or approval. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott filed a Response in Support of Debtor’s Motion/Request for 
Release of Attorney on December 29, 2017.  Ms. Smith-Scott stated in her response that 
“it is this Legal Counsel’s belief that the Debtor is no longer protected by Attorney-Client 
Privilege and has provided the court with e-mails that contradict statements made by the 
Debtor and allows the Court to get a better understanding of the actions of Legal Counsel.”  
Ms. Smith-Scott cited no legal authority to support her position.  Without obtaining Ms. 
Saunders’ informed consent, Ms. Smith-Scott attached to the filing several confidential 
email communications between Ms. Smith-Scott and Ms. Saunders that occurred between 
August 4, 2017 and December 20, 2017.  Ms. Smith-Scott did not communicate her intent 
to publicly disclose the emails to Ms. Saunders in advance of the filing.  Moreover, Ms. 
Smith-Scott did not file the confidential communications under seal or take any other 
measures to prevent the public disclosure. 
Ms. Saunders emailed Ms. Smith-Scott on January 29, 2018 and confronted her 
about the disclosure of the confidential emails.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to take any remedial 
action to have the confidential communications sealed or otherwise protected from public 
review.  
47 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 
In an attorney discipline proceeding, this Court reviews for clear error a hearing 
judge’s findings of fact, and reviews without deference a hearing judge’s conclusions of 
law.  See Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B) (“The Court [of Appeals] shall give due regard to the 
opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of witnesses.”); Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Chanthunya, 446 Md. 576, 588 (2016) (“[T]his Court reviews for 
clear error a hearing judge’s findings of fact . . . .”); Md. Rule 19-741(b)(1) (“The Court of 
Appeals shall review de novo the [hearing] judge’s conclusions of law.”).  This Court 
determines whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that a lawyer violated a rule 
of professional conduct.  See Md. Rule 19-727(c) (“Bar Counsel has the burden of proving 
the averments of the petition [for disciplinary or remedial action] by clear and convincing 
evidence.”). 
Either party may file “exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the hearing 
judge.”  Md. Rule 19-728(b).  If exceptions to the findings of fact are filed, the Court “shall 
determine whether the findings of fact have been proved by the requisite standard of proof 
set out in Rule 19-727(c).”  Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B); see also Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Mahone, 435 Md. 84, 104 (2013).  We may confine our review to the findings 
of fact challenged by the exceptions, mindful though, that the hearing judge is afforded due 
regard to assess the credibility of witnesses.  Id.  A hearing judge’s findings of fact are not 
clearly erroneous “where ‘there is any competent evidence to support the’ finding of fact.”  
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Donnelly, 458 Md. 237, 276 (2018) (quoting Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Merkle, 440 Md. 609, 633 (2014)).  “If the hearing judge’s factual 
48 
findings are not clearly erroneous and the conclusions drawn from them are supported by 
the facts found, exceptions to conclusions of law will be overruled.”  Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Tanko, 408 Md. 404, 419 (2009). 
DISCUSSION 
 
Bar Counsel does not except to any of the hearing judge’s findings of fact.  Bar 
Counsel excepts only to the absence of the hearing judge’s conclusion of law regarding 
Rule 1.15.  Ms. Smith-Scott notes several exceptions to both the hearing judge’s findings 
of fact and conclusions of law.  We shall address each in turn. 
A. 
Exceptions to the Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact 
Ms. Smith-Scott excepts to the hearing judge’s failure to make the following factual 
findings: (1) Ms. Smith-Scott’s filings in her personal bankruptcy case were done in good 
faith and were not frivolous at the time of filing; (2) Ms. Smith-Scott represented Ms. 
Combs in five separate legal matters beginning in October 2015; (3) Ms. Smith-Scott 
performed a significant amount of legal work in Ms. Combs’ five matters; (4) Ms. Smith-
Scott performed legal work totaling $11,087.75 for Ms. Combs, yet wrote the total amount 
down to $7,501.13; and (5) Ms. Smith-Scott earned the full amount of legal fees paid by 
Ms. Combs. 
A hearing judge is entitled to “a great deal of discretion in determining which 
evidence to rely upon.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Miller, 467 Md. 176, 195 (2020).  
Indeed, “[a]s far as what evidence a hearing judge must rely upon to reach his or her 
conclusions, we have said that the hearing judge ‘may pick and choose what evidence to 
believe.’”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Woolery, 462 Md. 209, 230 (2018) (internal 
49 
citation and some quotations omitted).  “We reiterate this point in light of [Ms. Smith-
Scott’s] numerous exceptions to findings of facts in which [s]he suggests that the hearing 
[judge] should have made certain findings of fact . . . .”  Id. (emphasis in original).  
Accordingly, because we decline to overrule a hearing judge’s findings of fact absent clear 
error, we overrule Ms. Smith-Scott’s “generalized exceptions as to what findings of fact 
the hearing [judge] failed to make.”  Id. 
Next, Ms. Smith-Scott excepts to five of the hearing judge’s findings of fact.  First, 
Ms. Smith-Scott contends that the hearing judge should not have found that Ms. Smith-
Scott intentionally misrepresented to Bar Counsel that “[t]he Chapter 7 Trustee began to 
sale [sic] property by omitting facts and misrepresenting other facts, which caused the 
Bankruptcy Judge to rule in [the Chapter 7 Trustee’s] favor which included an order of 
contempt and being threatened with incarceration,” because Ms. Smith-Scott “sincerely 
and honestly believed” that she acted in good faith in contesting the seizure of her law 
office.  Second, Ms. Smith-Scott asserts that the hearing judge should not have found that 
Ms. Smith-Scott willfully misrepresented to Ms. Combs that she had filed a Motion for 
Reconsideration in December 2016.  For support, Ms. Smith-Scott suggests that her 
hospitalization in December of 2016 negates the willfulness of her misrepresentation to 
Ms. Combs. 
These first two exceptions turn largely on Ms. Smith-Scott’s intent in making 
statements to Bar Counsel and Ms. Combs.  We have already said that this Court “shall 
give due regard to the opportunity of the hearing judge to assess the credibility of 
witnesses.”  Md. Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B).  Doing just that, we determine that the hearing 
50 
judge did not err in finding that Ms. Smith-Scott’s statements contained in her response to 
Bar Counsel and Ms. Combs were knowing, intentional, and willful. 
Third, Ms. Smith-Scott maintains that the hearing judge should not have found that 
Ms. Combs did not authorize payment in the amount of $4,986.13 on February 23, 2017.  
This exception necessarily urges the Court to make credibility decisions based on 
testimony at the hearing.  We decline to do so.  Ms. Combs testified at the hearing that she 
spoke to Ms. Smith-Scott on February 28, 2017 and informed her that she did not authorize 
the $4,986.13 charge.  Ms. Smith-Scott testified that, despite the inaccuracies in Invoice 
#23 and Invoice #31, Ms. Combs owed her $4,986.13.  The hearing judge explicitly stated 
that he credited Ms. Combs’ testimony and rejected Ms. Smith-Scott’s testimony.  
Moreover, Ms. Smith-Scott’s testimony was contradicted by other testimony, the 
documentary record, and Ms. Smith-Scott’s own statements to Bar Counsel during its 
investigation.  The hearing judge did not clearly err in finding that Ms. Combs did not 
authorize the charge.  Therefore, we overrule Ms. Smith-Scott’s exception.  
Fourth, Ms. Smith-Scott avers that the hearing judge should not have found that Ms. 
Plater’s bankruptcy filing was without substantial justification.  She contends that “it can 
be a legitimate legal strategy to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy with the reasonable 
expectation that the lenders may engage in meaningful financial negotiations.”  Yet, Ms. 
Plater’s hearing testimony eviscerates this argument.  Ms. Plater testified that she “didn’t 
have any intention[] of  going through with the bankruptcy” and she “informed [Ms. Smith-
Scott] of that.”  To be sure, Ms. Plater reiterated this point, testifying 
51 
I didn’t have any intention of going through with the bankruptcy, I just 
wanted to stop the [foreclosure] sale.  [Ms. Smith-Scott] indicated that the 
filing would stop the sale.  So that’s all I intended to do.  And I made it clear 
to her that’s all I intended to do. 
 
Indeed, this is confirmed by Ms. Smith-Scott’s filing of a “skeleton form,” notably missing 
required documents for a legitimate bankruptcy petition.  The hearing judge did not err in 
determining that Ms. Smith-Scott filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of Ms. Plater 
without substantial justification. 
Fifth, Ms. Smith-Scott argues that the hearing judge should not have found that Ms. 
Smith-Scott made a knowingly false statement that Ms. Plater agreed to pay $4,200 as the 
total legal fee for bankruptcy representation.  At the hearing, Bar Counsel showed Ms. 
Plater a copy of the bankruptcy petition Ms. Smith-Scott filed on her behalf.  Bar Counsel 
directed Ms. Plater to the portion of the petition disclosing Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
compensation.  The following exchange occurred: 
[BAR COUNSEL]: What is that? 
 
[MS. PLATER]: This indicates the amount, the price which is – okay.  
Compensation for attorney from debtor.[15]  It has on here $4,200 and it has 
$1,[5]00 and $2,700.  But there was no discussion of me paying $4,200.  I 
did give her the $1,[5]00 on that date. 
 
* * * 
 
[MS. PLATER]: I did question her on that date when I saw that on the 
document because it shocked me because it’s, like, okay, where did the 
$4,200 come from.  She indicated that that’s what she had to do to submit the 
                                                          
 
15 The Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor reads: 
 
For legal services, I have agreed to accept: 
 
$4,200.00 
Prior to the filing of this statement I have received: 
$1,500.00 
Balance Due:  
 
 
 
 
 
$2,700.00 
52 
form, that it had to be done in this format.  But I knew I wasn’t paying $4,200.  
I gave her what she told me the $1,500 and that was it. 
 
The form also contained a section entitled “CERTIFICATION,” which reads “I certify that 
the foregoing is a complete statement of any agreement or arrangement for payment to me 
for representation of the debtor[] in this bankruptcy proceeding.”  Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
signature appears directly below this statement.  The hearing judge did not err in 
determining that Ms. Smith-Scott made a knowingly false statement, and we overrule this 
exception. 
Having overruled Ms. Smith-Scott’s exceptions, and having determined that those 
findings of fact are supported by clear and convincing evidence, we turn to the hearing 
judge’s conclusions of law. 
B. 
Conclusions of Law 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 
1.5, 1.6, 1.15, 1.16, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 8.1, 8.4, and 19-404. 
Bar Counsel excepts to the hearing judge’s failure to find that Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
conduct, regarding her representation of Ms. Plater, violated Rule 1.15.  Ms. Smith-Scott 
excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusions of law that she violated the following Rules: 
1.5, 1.6, 1.15, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 8.1, 8.4, and 19-404.  Based upon our independent review of 
the record, we sustain Bar Counsel’s exception as to Rule 1.15 and uphold the remainder 
of the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. 
53 
1. 
Rule 1.1 (Competence). 
 
Rule 1.1 requires that an attorney “provide competent representation to a client.  
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”  A violation of Rule 1.1 occurs 
when an attorney “fails to act or acts in an untimely manner, resulting in harm to his or her 
client.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Maldonado, 463 Md. 11, 38 (2019) (quoting 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brown, 426 Md. 298, 319 (2012)).  An attorney’s failure 
to appear on behalf of a client without explanation is an egregious violation of this Rule.  
See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642, 694–95 (2019).  “Evidence of 
a failure to apply the requisite thoroughness and/or preparation in representing a client is 
sufficient alone to support a violation of Rule 1.1.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Guida, 
391 Md. 33, 54 (2006).  Furthermore, the “failure to maintain [client] funds in a proper 
trust account demonstrates incompetence.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Maignan, 390 
Md. 287, 296–97 (2005). 
 
The hearing judge found that Ms. Smith-Scott’s conduct violated Rule 1.1 in a 
variety of ways.  In Ms. Smith-Scott’s representation of Ms. Combs, she violated the Rule 
by: (1) failing to deposit and maintain the unearned portion of Ms. Combs’ October 14, 
2015 payment in an attorney trust account until earned or expenses incurred; (2) failing to 
competently represent Ms. Combs before the Court of Special Appeals when she neglected 
to provide the clerk of that court with a signed Civil Appeal Information Report, even after 
being contacted to do so, thereby causing the court to dismiss Ms. Combs’ appeal; (3) 
misinforming Ms. Combs that her November 3, 2016 Bankruptcy Court hearing had been 
54 
rescheduled and that their appearance was not required when the hearing had not been 
rescheduled; (4) acting without the required thoroughness and preparation by filing an 
untimely Emergency Motion for Reconsideration six weeks after Ms. Combs requested she 
file the motion; and (5) refusing to provide timely or accurate billing statements to Ms. 
Combs. 
 
The hearing judge further found that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.1 in her 
representation of Ms. Plater by: (1) failing to deposit and maintain the unearned portion of 
Ms. Plater’s September 2016 payments in an attorney trust account until earned or expenses 
incurred; and (2) failing to competently represent Ms. Plater before the Court of Special 
Appeals by neglecting to file an appellate brief or request an extension of time, causing the 
court to dismiss Ms. Plater’s appeal. Finally, the hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-
Scott violated Rule 1.1 by failing to appear at hearings in the course of her representation 
of Ms. Deeba and Mr. Jones. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott does not except to these conclusions of law.  Moreover, our 
independent review of the record confirms that clear and convincing evidence supports the 
hearing judge’s conclusion that Ms. Smith-Scott’s conduct violated Rule 1.1. 
2. 
Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority). 
 
Rule 1.2(a) provides, in pertinent part: 
[A]n attorney shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of 
the representation and, when appropriate, shall consult with the client as to 
the means by which they are to be pursued.  An attorney may take such action 
on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the 
representation.  An attorney shall abide by a client’s decision whether to 
settle a matter. 
 
55 
Under this Rule, an attorney must “‘inform a client of the status of his or her case’ 
so the client has the ‘ability to make informed decisions.’”  Edwards, 462 Md. at 697 
(quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hamilton, 444 Md. 163, 182 (2015)).  A Rule 
1.2(a) violation may occur when an attorney fails to prosecute his or her client’s case and 
fails to communicate the status of the case to the client.  Id. (citing Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Bellamy, 453 Md. 377, 394 (2017)); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Brown, 426 Md. 298, 320 (2012) (concluding that an attorney’s inaction leading to the 
dismissal of two clients’ cases—combined with the attorney’s failure to communicate as 
much and ignorance of the clients’ request for information—constituted a violation of Rule 
1.2(a)). 
Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Ms. 
Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.2 by failing to prepare or file an appellate brief in her 
representation of Ms. Plater.  Ms. Plater retained Ms. Smith-Scott to prosecute an appeal 
in her foreclosure action.  Ms. Plater and Ms. Smith-Scott agreed on a flat fee of $4,000, 
toward which Ms. Plater made two installment payments totaling $2,000.  The Court of 
Special Appeals imposed a filing deadline of September 29, 2016.  Yet, Ms. Smith-Scott 
failed to prepare or file an appellate brief, or even request an extension of time to 
accomplish Ms. Plater’s sole objective in the representation.  See Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Ucheomumu, 462 Md. 280, 311 (2018) (concluding that an attorney’s failure to 
prepare and file appellate brief constituted “a failure to accomplish the objectives of [the] 
representation”). 
56 
Ms. Smith-Scott does not except to the hearing judge’s conclusion regarding Rule 
1.2.  Based on our independent review, we agree with the hearing judge that Ms. Smith-
Scott violated Rule 1.2 in her representation of Ms. Plater. 
3. 
Rule 1.3 (Diligence). 
 
Rule 1.3 provides that “[a]n attorney shall act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client.”  Rule 1.3 “can be violated by failing to advance the 
client’s cause or endeavor; failing to investigate a client’s matter; and repeatedly failing to 
return phone calls, respond to letters, or provide an accounting for earned fees[.]”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Bah, 468 Md. 179, 208–09 (2020) (quoting Edwards, 462 Md. at 
699 (alteration in original)).  Notably, the same justifications for finding a violation of Rule 
1.1 can support a Rule 1.3 violation.  Id. at 209. 
 
The hearing judge concluded that based on Ms. Smith-Scott’s conduct, discussed in 
reference to Rule 1.1, supra at 53–54, and Rule 1.4, infra at 56–60, Ms. Smith-Scott 
violated Rule 1.3.  Ms. Smith-Scott does not except to these conclusions.  Our independent 
review of the record reveals that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.3. 
4. 
1.4 (Communication). 
 
Rule 1.4 provides: 
(a) An attorney shall: 
 
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with 
respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 19-
301.0 (f) (1.0), is required by these Rules; 
(2) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; 
(3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and 
(4) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the 
attorney’s conduct when the attorney knows that the client expects 
57 
assistance not permitted by the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of 
Professional Conduct or other law. 
 
(b) An attorney shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to 
permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. 
 
Pursuant to Rule 1.4, an attorney is required “to communicate with their clients and 
keep them reasonably informed of the status of their legal matters.”  Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Planta, 467 Md. 319, 349 (2020).  A violation of this Rule occurs when a client 
repeatedly attempts to contact the attorney, but the attorney fails to respond.  Id.  Moreover, 
Rule 1.4 is violated “when an attorney ‘fails to communicate crucial information about the 
status of the case,’” or where “the attorney fails to comply promptly with a client’s 
reasonable requests for information, which may include a general status update or for 
documents pertaining to the case.”  Id. (quoting Hamilton, 444 Md. at 185). 
Ms. Combs 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.4(a)(2)–(3) and 
(b) by failing to provide Ms. Combs with timely or accurate billing statements, despite Ms. 
Combs’ repeated requests.  The hearing judge reasoned that Ms. Combs could not have 
made informed decisions regarding the representation without knowing the extent of the 
legal fees that had accrued. 
At the meeting between Ms. Smith-Scott and Ms. Combs on February 2, 2017, Ms. 
Smith-Scott provided an invoice with apparent inaccuracies.  Ms. Combs requested a 
corrected invoice, yet Ms. Smith-Scott failed to provide one.  On February 22, 2017, Ms. 
Smith-Scott emailed Ms. Combs two more inaccurate invoices, which sought nearly $5,000 
of fees Ms. Combs did not actually owe.  Ms. Combs reviewed the invoices and informed 
58 
Ms. Smith-Scott that the invoices contained inaccuracies and failed to account for 
payments already made.  Again, on February 28, 2017, Ms. Combs emailed Ms. Smith-
Scott and requested an invoice “on any unpaid balance” to date.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to 
provide a corrected invoice. 
Additionally, the hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 
1.4(a)(2) and (b) when she (1) failed to adequately communicate about the November 3, 
2016 hearing; and (2) intentionally misrepresented to Ms. Combs that she had filed the 
Motion for Reconsideration in Ms. Combs’ case before December 28, 2016. 
The Bankruptcy Court set a hearing for November 3, 2016 to hear arguments on 
whether to lift the automatic stay pertaining to Ms. Combs’ investment property.  Prior to 
the hearing, Ms. Smith-Scott misinformed Ms. Combs that the hearing had been 
rescheduled and she need not appear on that date.  The hearing had not been rescheduled.  
It occurred on November 3, and Ms. Smith-Scott and Ms. Combs failed to appear.  
The Bankruptcy Court entered an order lifting the automatic stay on November 14, 
2016.  Ms. Combs immediately requested Ms. Smith-Scott file a Motion for 
Reconsideration, to which Ms. Smith-Scott agreed.  Ms. Combs emailed Ms. Smith-Scott 
on December 12, 2016 to inquire if the court had issued a ruling.  Before this date, Ms. 
Smith-Scott informed Ms. Combs that she had filed the motion, when in fact she had not.  
On December 28, 2016, more than two weeks later—six weeks after the Bankruptcy Court 
lifted the automatic stay—Ms. Smith-Scott filed an untimely Emergency Motion for 
Reconsideration. 
59 
Accordingly, we agree with the hearing judge that clear and convincing evidence 
supports the conclusion that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.4(a) and (b) in her 
representation of Ms. Combs. 
Ms. Plater 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.4(a)(2)–(3) and 
(b) in her representation of Ms. Plater before the Court of Special Appeals. 
 
In late August 2016, Ms. Plater confirmed her interest in pursuing an appeal related 
to her foreclosure action; specifically, the circuit court’s denial of her Motion to Vacate 
Foreclosure Sale.  The Court of Special Appeals established a filing deadline of September 
29, 2016.  To advance the appeal, Ms. Plater paid Ms. Smith-Scott $1,000 on September 
7, 2016 and $1,000 on September 22, 2016.  However, after agreeing to the representation 
and accepting Ms. Plater’s payments, Ms. Smith-Scott determined that she would not file 
the appellate brief by its filing deadline.  Yet, Ms. Smith-Scott did not inform Ms. Plater.  
In early October, after the filing deadline passed, Ms. Smith-Scott spoke with Ms. Plater 
over the phone.  During that conversation, Ms. Smith-Scott neglected to inform Ms. Plater 
that the filing deadline passed and that she had failed to seek an extension.  Instead, Ms. 
Smith-Scott represented that she intended to file the brief in one week.  Ms. Smith-Scott 
did not author the appellate brief, file it within the one-week period, or inform Ms. Plater 
of her inaction. 
 
The Court of Special Appeals dismissed Ms. Plater’s appeal for the failure to file an 
appellate brief.  Ms. Smith-Scott concealed the dismissal for approximately six weeks.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott ignored several of Ms. Plater’s attempts to learn about the status of the appeal.  
60 
Additionally, Ms. Plater twice requested a copy of the appellate brief she believed Ms. 
Smith-Scott filed on her behalf.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to respond in any manner.  Only 
in December 2016 did Ms. Smith-Scott first notify Ms. Plater that the Court of Special 
Appeals dismissed Ms. Plater’s appeal.  Therefore, we agree with the hearing judge that 
this conduct—failing to communicate about the status of a client’s appeal and intentionally 
concealing the dismissal of the same—violates Rule 1.4(a) and (b). 
 
The hearing judge further found that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.4(a)(2) and 
(b) when she intentionally misrepresented to Ms. Plater that she completed additional legal 
work on the appeal to justify keeping a portion of the $2,000 in installment payments.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott performed no substantive legal work on Ms. Plater’s appeal.  Ms. Smith-Scott 
failed to specify the legal services she allegedly provided and failed to provide an invoice.  
Accordingly, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that 
Ms. Smith-Scott’s conduct violated Rule 1.4(a)(2) and (b). 
5. 
Rule 1.5 (Fees). 
 
Rule 1.5 provides, in pertinent part: 
(a) An attorney shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an 
unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses.  The factors to be 
considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: 
 
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the 
questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service 
properly; 
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the 
particular employment will preclude other employment of the 
attorney; 
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal 
services; 
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained; 
61 
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; 
(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the 
client; 
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys 
performing the services; and 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
 
(b) The scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and 
expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to 
the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation, except when the attorney will charge a 
regularly represented client on the same basis or rate.  Any changes in the 
basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated to the client. 
 
Rule 1.5 obligates an attorney to charge a reasonable fee.  “An advance fee given in 
anticipation of legal service that is reasonable at the time of the receipt can become 
unreasonable if the attorney does not perform the agreed-upon services.”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Blair, 440 Md. 387, 403 (2014); see also Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 224 (2012) (“The reasonableness of a fee is not measured 
solely by examining its value at the outset of the representation; indeed[,] an otherwise-
reasonable fee can become unreasonable if the lawyer fails to earn it.”).  In Garrett, we 
concluded that a Rule 1.5 violation occurred where the attorney (1) failed to earn his legal 
fee; (2) failed to appeal at his client’s court proceedings; (3) failed to pursue the interests 
of his clients; and (4) above all, refused to return the unearned fees to his clients.  427 Md. 
at 224–25. 
Ms. Combs 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.5(a) when she 
charged Ms. Combs’ credit card in the amount of $4,986.13—some of which Ms. Combs 
had already paid—without Ms. Combs’ authorization.  The hearing judge further found 
62 
that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.5(b) when she charged Ms. Combs on an hourly basis 
for services Ms. Combs never agreed to pay.  Ms. Smith-Scott generally excepts to the 
hearing judge’s conclusion that she violated Rule 1.5.  She asserts that her acceptance and 
retention of Ms. Combs’ payment related to legal work already performed or performed 
within a “very short time” after receiving the payment. 
Ms. Combs retained Ms. Smith-Scott and agreed to pay a flat fee of $4,200 to 
represent her in Bankruptcy Court.  Ms. Combs paid $4,000 by two installment payments: 
$1,500 on September 12, 2016 and $2,500 on February 2, 2017.  Ms. Smith-Scott emailed 
Ms. Combs two invoices on February 22, 2017.  The first invoice, Invoice #23, contained 
twenty-six billing entries, most of which related to services rendered in the bankruptcy case 
for which Ms. Combs had already paid.  Still, Ms. Smith-Scott demanded Ms. Combs pay 
$4,986.13 for work related to bankruptcy fees already charged and collected by Ms. Smith-
Scott. 
On January 10, 2017, Ms. Smith-Scott appealed an order of the Bankruptcy Court 
to the U.S. District Court of Ms. Combs’ behalf.  Ms. Combs agreed to pay Ms. Smith-
Scott a flat fee to pursue the appeal.  However, before Ms. Smith-Scott completed any 
substantive work, Ms. Combs elected to forgo the appeal.  Despite the flat fee agreement, 
Ms. Smith-Scott’s second invoice, Invoice #31, contained hourly billing entries for legal 
work purportedly performed on the appeal.  Ms. Smith-Scott did not advise Ms. Combs 
that she would charge on an hourly basis if she chose not to pursue the appeal.  This conduct 
runs afoul of Rule 1.5(b).  Nevertheless, Ms. Smith-Scott demanded that Ms. Combs pay 
for services to which she never agreed, in the amount of $3,300. 
63 
Ms. Combs emailed Ms. Smith-Scott on February 23, 2017 and raised concerns 
about inaccuracies in Invoice #23 and Invoice #31.  Ms. Smith-Scott did not review or 
revise these invoices.  Instead, she proceeded to charge Ms. Combs’ credit card in the 
amount of $4, 986.13.  This charge occurred without Ms. Combs’ authorization.  Moreover, 
Ms. Smith-Scott was keenly aware that Ms. Combs disputed the amount and pursued 
collection of the charge even after Ms. Combs disputed the same with her credit card 
company.  Therefore, Ms. Smith-Scott collected an unreasonable fee in violation of Rule 
1.5(a) when she charged Ms. Combs’ credit card in the amount of $4,986.13. 
Ms. Plater 
 
The hearing judge also concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.5 as it relates 
to Ms. Plater.  Ms. Smith-Scott excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusion and makes 
identical arguments as those in reference to Ms. Combs’ payments.  Ms. Plater paid Ms. 
Smith-Scott $2,000 to prosecute an appeal before the Court of Special Appeals.  
Specifically, Ms. Smith-Scott agreed to author and file an appellate brief on Ms. Plater’s 
behalf.  However, after collecting Ms. Plater’s payments, Ms. Smith-Scott failed to perform 
any meaningful legal work on the appeal.  Ms. Smith-Scott then refused to provide Ms. 
Plater a full refund.  Instead, Ms. Smith-Scott twice offered Ms. Plater approximately half 
of the amount actually due to Ms. Plater. 
Ms. Smith-Scott attempted to justify her retention of Ms. Plater’s payment by 
claiming that she provided Ms. Plater with additional legal services.  Ms. Smith-Scott did 
not specify the legal services performed or provide Ms. Plater with an invoice.  The hearing 
judge specifically rejected Ms. Smith-Scott’s testimony that she performed additional legal 
64 
services in Ms. Plater’s foreclosure action—i.e., related to Ms. Plater’s Motion for 
Reconsideration.  The hearing judge did, however, credit Ms. Plater’s testimony that she 
paid for the preparation of the Motion for Reconsideration on July 12, 2016. 
We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusions and overrule Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
exception.  Clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Ms. Smith-Scott’s conduct 
vis-à-vis Ms. Combs and Ms. Plater violated Rule 1.5. 
6. 
Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality). 
Rule 1.6 provides: 
(a) An attorney shall not reveal information relating to representation of a 
client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly 
authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is 
permitted by section (b) of this Rule. 
 
(b) An attorney may reveal information relating to the representation of a 
client to the extent the attorney reasonably believes necessary: 
 
 
*** 
 
(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the attorney in a 
controversy between the attorney and the client, to establish a defense 
to a criminal charge, civil claim, or disciplinary complaint against the 
attorney based upon conduct in which the client was involved or to 
respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the attorney’s 
representation of the client[.] 
 
Comment 6 to Rule 1.6 addresses the manner in which an attorney may, to the extent 
necessary, disclose confidential information adverse to the client.  Comment 6 provides, in 
pertinent part: 
Where practicable, the attorney should first seek to persuade the client to take 
suitable action to obviate the need for disclosure.  In any case, a disclosure 
adverse to the client’s interest should be no greater than the attorney 
65 
reasonably believes necessary to accomplish the purpose.  If the disclosure 
will be made in connection with a judicial proceeding, the disclosure should 
be made in a manner that limits access to the information to the tribunal or 
other persons having a need to know it and appropriate protective orders or 
other arrangements should be sought by the attorney to the fullest extent 
practicable. 
 
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Powers, we noted the “broad ethical duty not 
to divulge information about a client.”  454 Md. 79, 94 (2017) (quoting Charles W. 
Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics § 6.1.1, at 242 (1986) (emphasis in original)).  There, we 
concluded that an attorney violated Rule 1.6 by disclosing confidential information without 
the client’s informed consent in a lawsuit brought in federal court—i.e., a public forum—
to recover money the attorney believed the client owed.  Id. 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.6 when she 
intentionally attached, as exhibits, confidential email communications exchanged with Ms. 
Saunders in a motion filed with the Bankruptcy Court.  Ms. Smith-Scott neither attempted 
to obtain Ms. Saunders’ permission to disclose these confidential communications nor take 
any preventative measures to limit the disclosure, such as filing the motion under seal.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott excepts to this conclusion and argues that under Rule 1.6(b) generally, and 
(b)(5) in this case, an attorney is not required to obtain informed consent or place a 
confidential disclosure under seal. 
Ms. Saunders filed a pro se Motion/Request for Release of Attorney requesting that 
the Bankruptcy Court “release” Ms. Smith-Scott as her attorney “based upon unsatisfactory 
actions and irreconcilable differences in miscommunication that may have affected [Ms. 
Saunders’] bankruptcy process and may impact the outcome of [her] case.”  Ms. Smith-
66 
Scott filed a Response in Support of Debtor’s Motion/Request for Release of Attorney.  
With this filing, Ms. Smith-Scott attached confidential email exchanges with Ms. Saunders 
that occurred between August 4, 2017 and December 20, 2017.  Even after confronted by 
Ms. Saunders about the disclosure of confidential material, Ms. Smith-Scott failed to take 
any remedial action. 
We overrule Ms. Smith-Scott’s exception based on a plain reading of Rule 1.6(b)(5).  
We pause to emphasize that Ms. Smith-Scott supported Ms. Saunders’ motion to remove 
Ms. Smith-Scott as counsel.  Clearly then, Ms. Smith-Scott did not disclose the 
communications “to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the attorney.”  Rule 1.6(b)(5).  
Indeed, Ms. Smith-Scott herself indicated the reason for the disclosure: to “allow[] the 
Court to get a better understanding of the actions of Legal Counsel.”  Rule 1.6(b) does not 
permit an attorney to indiscriminately disclose confidential communications simply for 
context—especially where an attorney disregards the protective measures contemplated in 
the comments to Rule 1.6 in the event a disclosure is necessary.  Therefore, we agree with 
the hearing judge that clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Ms. Smith-Scott 
violated Rule 1.6 during her representation of Ms. Saunders. 
7. 
Rule 1.15 (Safekeeping Property) & Rule 19-404 (Trust Account—Required 
Deposits). 
 
Rule 1.15 provides, in pertinent part: 
(a) An attorney shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in an 
attorney’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the 
attorney’s own property.  Funds shall be kept in a separate account 
maintained pursuant to Title 19, Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules, and 
67 
records shall be created and maintained in accordance with the Rules in that 
Chapter.[16] 
 
*** 
 
(c) Unless the client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, to a 
different arrangement, an attorney shall deposit legal fees and expenses that 
have been paid in advance into a client trust account and may withdraw those 
funds for the attorney’s own benefit only as fees are earned or expenses 
incurred. 
 
Simply put, when an attorney is entrusted with a client’s money, “[s]uch funds are to be 
placed in an attorney trust account in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-404.”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Singh, 464 Md. 645, 673 (2019).  An attorney violates Rule 1.15 
“when the attorney ‘does not deposit trust funds into an attorney trust account and does not 
obtain the client’s informed consent to do otherwise.’”  Planta, 467 Md. at 352 (quoting 
Hamilton, 444 Md. at 189–90).  An attorney may also violate this Rule by depositing a 
client’s money into his or her personal or operating account before the money is earned.  
Guida, 391 Md. at 53. 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.15 and Rule 19-
404 by failing to deposit and maintain the unearned portion of Ms. Combs’ $2,500 payment 
                                                          
 
16 Rule 19-404 provides: 
 
Except as otherwise permitted by rule or other law, all funds, including cash, 
received and accepted by an attorney or law firm in this State from a client 
or third person to be delivered in whole or in part to a client or third person, 
unless received as payment of fees owed the attorney by the client or in 
reimbursement for expenses properly advanced on behalf of the client, shall 
be deposited in an attorney trust account in an approved financial institution. 
This Rule does not apply to an instrument received by an attorney or law firm 
that is made payable solely to a client or third person and is transmitted 
directly to the client or third person. 
68 
on October 14, 2015 in an attorney trust account until earned as fees or used for expenses.  
Ms. Smith-Scott did not obtain Ms. Combs’ informed consent in writing to deposit the 
funds in a non-attorney trust account. 
In its conclusions of law, the hearing judge noted “Bar Counsel represented . . . that 
it was withdrawing, among other things, its allegations pursuant to [Rule] 1.15 . . . with 
respect to Ms. Plater.  Accordingly, the Court does not find that [Ms. Smith-Scott] violated 
[Rule 1.15] as to Ms. Plater.”  Bar Counsel excepts to the hearing judge’s failure to 
conclude that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.15 with respect to Ms. Plater’s property.  
Bar Counsel argues that it withdrew the Rule 1.15 charge in connection with Ms. Plater’s 
payments before July 2016 and not after July 2016.  Moreover, the hearing judge found 
that Ms. Smith-Scott failed to deposit and maintain Ms. Plater’s two September 2016 
installment payments of $1,000 each in an attorney trust account until earned.   
Ms. Smith-Scott excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusion that she violated Rule 
1.15 and Rule 19-404.  She reiterates the same argument she asserted in relation to Rule 
1.5 and adds that “her failure to correctly deposit the fees was not intentional 
misappropriation of fees; rather[,] it was negligent management.”  However, a violation of 
Rule 1.15 does not turn on an attorney’s intent.  A violation of this Rule plainly occurs 
when an attorney fails to deposit a client’s funds into an attorney trust account. 
Ms. Combs paid Ms. Smith-Scott $2,500 on October 14, 2015.  Of this lump sum, 
Ms. Combs paid $1,000 for legal services already provided; the remaining $1,500 
constituted a retainer against which Ms. Smith-Scott would bill future legal services.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott did not deposit the unearned portion—$1,500—in an attorney trust account.  
69 
Ms. Plater paid two $1,000 installments to Ms. Smith-Scott on September 7, 2016 and 
September 22, 2016 to advance an appeal before the Court of Special Appeals.  Ms. Smith-
Scott failed to deposit and maintain Ms. Plater’s checks in an attorney trust account. 
Based on our independent review, we sustain Bar Counsel’s exception and overrule 
Ms. Smith-Scott’s exception.  Clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Ms. Smith-
Scott violated Rule 1.15 with respect to both Ms. Combs and Ms. Plater.  
8. 
Rule 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation). 
 
 
Rule 1.16 provides, in pertinent part: 
(d) Upon termination of representation, an attorney shall take steps to the 
extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of another 
attorney, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and 
refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned 
or incurred.  The attorney may retain papers relating to the client to the extent 
permitted by other law. 
 
“The failure to return unearned fees and documents regarding the representative matter 
violates this Rule.”  Planta, 467 Md. at 354 (citing Hamilton, 444 Md. at 1921). 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 1.16 by (1) failing 
to refund to Ms. Combs the unearned portion of the $4,986.13 charge on February 23, 
2017, some or most of which Ms. Combs did not owe; (2) failing to refund Ms. Combs the 
$200 payment made on April 12, 2017 that Ms. Smith-Scott conceded Ms. Combs did not 
owe; and (3) failing to refund Ms. Plater unearned legal fees totaling $2,000. 
Ms. Smith-Scott does not except to this conclusion.  Our independent review of the 
record confirms that clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion 
that Ms. Smith-Scott’s conduct violated Rule 1.16. 
70 
9. 
Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions). 
Rule 3.1 provides: 
An attorney shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an 
issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which 
includes, for example, a good faith argument for an extension, modification 
or reversal of existing law.  An attorney may nevertheless so defend the 
proceeding as to require that every element of the moving party’s case be 
established. 
 
Comment 2 to Rule 3.1 states that an “action is frivolous . . . if the attorney is unable either 
to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action 
taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.”  
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kane, we recognized a violation of Rule 3.1 in 
connection to an attorney’s serial bankruptcy filings, which were all designed to delay the 
proceedings and frustrate the creditors.  465 Md. 667, 716–17 (2019). 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 3.1 when she filed 
numerous baseless pleadings, motions and appeals in her personal bankruptcy action.  
Moreover, the hearing judge found that Ms. Smith-Scott’s “sole objective in her 
bankruptcy case after April 8, 2015—the date the Chapter 7 Trustee was appointed—was 
to obstruct, delay and frustrate the Chapter 7 Trustee’s ability to administer the estate in a 
timely and orderly fashion.”  Ms. Smith-Scott’s actions over the two-year bankruptcy 
action were not supported by law or fact, and in most instances, were not legally permitted. 
 
Evidence of Ms. Smith-Scott’s frivolous litigation includes: (1) several motions and 
appeals in her federal lawsuit against U.S. Bank, including two appeals to the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, despite the Trustee’s admonishment that she lacked 
71 
standing; (2) motions to alter or amend in the Bankruptcy Court when that court had no 
jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters because of Ms. Smith-Scott’s own actions; (3) 
motions to re-appeal Bankruptcy Court orders that had already been affirmed on appeal; 
(4) filings that opposed the Trustee’s attempts to sell real property despite a lack of 
standing; (5) the filing of appeals and other pleadings and then intentionally failing to 
prosecute the matters; (6) the filing of untimely appeals and motions; (7) the continuous 
advancement of arguments that were meritless; and (8) the numerous unfounded 
allegations of misconduct against all involved parties, including the court, that Ms. Smith-
Scott knew, or should have known, to be false. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott does not except to this conclusion.  The hearing judge’s conclusion 
that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 3.1 is abundantly supported by clear and convincing 
evidence. 
10. 
Rule 3.2 (Expediting Litigation). 
Rule 3.2 provides that “[a]n attorney shall make reasonable efforts to expedite 
litigation consistent with the interests of the client.”  Rule 3.2 applies with equal force to 
an attorney who represents himself or herself.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Trye, 
444 Md. 201, 216–17 (2015) (concluding that the language of Rule 3.2 “does not except 
attorneys who represent themselves from the obligation to make reasonable efforts to 
expedite litigation”).  This Court has noted that “[a]n attorney violates this rule by delaying 
to take fundamental litigation steps in pursuit of the client’s interest.”  Garrett, 427 Md. at 
226.  Indeed, we have found a violation of this Rule when an attorney fails to file an 
72 
appellate brief and appendix, causing a significant delay in the resolution of an appeal.  See 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Allenbaugh, 450 Md. 250, 271 (2016). 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 3.2 when she (1) 
failed to file Ms. Plater’s appellate brief by the filing deadline or otherwise prosecute Ms. 
Plater’s appeal; and (2) intentionally hindered—for two years—the Chapter 7 Trustee’s 
ability to administer her bankruptcy case in a timely fashion. 
Ms. Smith-Scott does not except to this conclusion.  Based on our independent 
review of the record, we agree with the hearing judge that Ms. Smith-Scott’s conduct 
violated Rule 3.2. 
11. 
Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal). 
Rule 3.3 provides, in pertinent part: 
(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; 
(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is 
necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client[.] 
 
We have observed that “the requirement of candor towards the tribunal . . . requires every 
attorney to be fully honest and forthright.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dore, 433 Md. 
685, 703 (2013) (quoting In re Discipline of Wilka, 638 N.W.2d 245, 249 (S.D. 2001)).  
This is because “[e]very court . . . has the right to rely upon an attorney to assist it in 
ascertaining the truth of the case before it.  Therefore, candor and fairness should 
characterize the conduct of an attorney at the beginning, during, and at the close of 
litigation.”  Id. (quoting In re Discipline of Wilka, 638 N.W.2d at 249.  Accordingly, an 
73 
attorney violates Rule 3.3(a)(1) “when he or she knowingly provides the court with false 
information . . . or fails to correct any false information previously provided.”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Steinhorn, 462 Md. 184, 195 (2018) (citations omitted). 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 3.3 when she (1) 
indicated that Ms. Plater agreed to pay a flat fee of $4,200 on a Disclosure of Compensation 
of Attorney for Debtor, yet Ms. Plater actually agreed to pay a flat fee of $1,500; and (2) 
knowingly made numerous false statements of fact in motions and appeals before the 
Bankruptcy Court and U.S. District Court throughout the course of her personal bankruptcy 
action.  Ms. Smith-Scott generally excepts to this conclusion.  As best we can tell, she 
argues that she had “competency and diligence issues caused by personal involvement and 
inexperience, but the record does not support a conclusion that Ms. Smith-Scott was 
knowingly and intentionally dishonest.” 
 
However, as to the misrepresentation made on the Disclosure of Compensation of 
Attorney for Debtor, Ms. Smith-Scott knew the statement to be false at the time she filed 
the disclosure.  Ms. Plater even challenged Ms. Smith-Scott’s decision to list $4,200 as the 
agreed upon fee, because that did not comport with their agreement.  Nonetheless, Ms. 
Smith-Scott filed the petition fully aware of the misrepresentation. 
As to Ms. Smith-Scott’s false statements in her personal bankruptcy action, Ms. 
Smith-Scott knowingly made false statements of fact in motions and appeals before the 
Bankruptcy Court and U.S. District Court.  Specifically, she falsely alleged that Mr. 
Shively engaged in criminal conduct when he acted to secure 367 Main Street and had 
committed perjury at the May 16, 2017 contempt hearing. 
74 
Consequently, we agree with the hearing judge and overrule Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
exceptions.  Clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Ms. Smith-Scott violated 
Rule 3.3. 
12. 
Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney). 
“An attorney shall not . . . knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a 
tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.” 
Rule 3.4(c).  On this point, Attorney Grievance Commission v. Byrd is particularly 
instructive.  408 Md. 449 (2009).  In Byrd, we concluded that a Rule 3.4(c) violation 
occurred where the attorney “contravened the bankruptcy court’s order . . . after already 
having been found in contempt for violating” a prior order of the court.  Id. at 469.  We 
found an additional violation of the Rule in Byrd’s failure to vacate his property, as ordered 
by the bankruptcy court.  We recognized then, and because of its applicability here we 
reiterate today, “that we will not ‘go behind’ the bankruptcy court’s finding of contempt” 
and we accept the hearing judge’s “findings concerning those rulings.”  Id. at 482. 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 3.4 when she (1) 
knowingly and intentionally disobeyed several orders of the Bankruptcy Court; and (2) 
failed to disclose to the Bankruptcy Court the receipt of additional fees related to her 
representation of Ms. Combs in violation of Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b).  Again, Ms. Smith-
Scott generally excepts without offering any degree of specificity as to why the hearing 
judge’s conclusion is erroneous. 
Ms. Smith-Scott intentionally defied the following: (1) the October 29 Order 
prohibiting Ms. Smith-Scott’s use of cash collateral—which resulted in a contempt finding; 
75 
(2) the September 24 Order compelling Ms. Smith-Scott to attend the § 341 meeting of 
creditors; (3) the Bankruptcy Court’s September 29, 2015 Order compelling Ms. Smith-
Scott to turn over documentation related to her tenancies, security deposits, and taxes; and 
(4) the Bankruptcy Court’s May 16, 2016 Order directing that Ms. Smith-Scott pay the 
Trustee sanctions as a result of her contempt.  Most egregious of all, Ms. Smith-Scott 
openly defied the Bankruptcy Court’s March 22, 2016 Order compelling her to vacate 367 
Main Street, which resulted in a second contempt finding.  Indeed, Ms. Smith-Scott only 
vacated the premises after U.S. Marshals accompanied Mr. Shively to 367 Main Street and 
explained to Ms. Smith-Scott’s employees that they would be handcuffed if they did not 
vacate the property. 
We overrule Ms. Smith-Scott’s exception.  Clear and convincing evidence supports 
the hearing judge’s conclusion that Ms. Smith-Scott’s conduct violated Rule 3.4. 
13. 
Rule 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others). 
 
Rule 4.1 provides, in pertinent part: 
(a) In the course of representing a client an attorney shall not knowingly: 
 
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or 
(2) fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to 
avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client. 
 
This Rule is exceedingly straightforward.  The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-
Scott violated Rule 4.1 when she falsely stated in her August 3, 2015 letter to the tenants 
of her Laurel Properties that Patapsco Bank did not have a court order to collect rents.  On 
June 25, the Bankruptcy Court issued orders permitting Patapsco Bank to foreclose on the 
properties and collect rent.  Ms. Smith-Scott intentionally concealed the existence of these 
76 
orders so that the tenants would continue to pay rent to her directly.  Ms. Smith-Scott 
generally excepts to this conclusion.  We shall overrule it because we agree with the hearing 
judge; clear and convincing evidence exists to support its conclusion that Ms. Smith-Scott 
violated Rule 4.1. 
14. 
Rule 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters). 
 
Rule 8.1 provides, in pertinent part: 
An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or an attorney in 
connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a 
disciplinary matter, shall not: 
 
(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or 
 
(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by 
the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a 
lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, 
except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise 
protected by Rule 19-301.6 (1.6). 
 
“Rule 8.1(b) compels attorneys to demonstrate candor and cooperation with the 
disciplinary authorities of the Bar.”  Planta, 467 Md. at 356.  A violation of Rule 8.1(b) 
occurs if an attorney “does not ‘answer timely requests from the Attorney Grievance 
Commission regarding a complaint in a potential disciplinary matter.’”  Id. (quoting 
Hamilton, 444 Md. at 192). 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.1 when she (1) 
attached a knowingly false statement, originally made to Wells Fargo, in her response to 
Bar Counsel regarding the $4,986.13 charge to Ms. Combs’ credit card; (2) intentionally 
misrepresented to Bar Counsel that she justifiably withheld fees in Ms. Plater’s 
representation, when in fact she intentionally concealed the fact that Ms. Plater had paid 
77 
separately for that legal work; (3) knowingly misrepresented to Bar Counsel that the 
Chapter 7 Trustee intentionally omitted and misrepresented facts to the Bankruptcy Court; 
and (4) failed to timely and completely respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries.  Ms. Smith-
Scott generally excepts to these conclusions. 
 
Ms. Combs filed a complaint against Ms. Smith-Scott with the Commission in 
relation to the unauthorized $4,986.13 credit card charge.  Ms. Smith-Scott submitted a 
response to the complaint and attached (1) the written submission she sent to Wells Fargo 
during its independent investigation and (2) two invoices Ms. Smith-Scott knew to be 
inaccurate.  The written statement included false representations concerning Ms. Combs’ 
authorization.  Ms. Smith-Scott thereby intentionally gave Bar Counsel the false 
impression that Ms. Combs owed the $4,986.13 amount, despite knowing that it was not 
an accurate figure.  Ms. Smith-Scott relied on her knowingly false statements in the Wells 
Fargo statement to intentionally mislead Bar Counsel into believing the invoices were 
accurate and the charge was authorized.  Ms. Smith-Scott submitted a second response to 
Bar Counsel intentionally misrepresenting that Invoice #23 and Invoice #31 were accurate, 
despite knowing full well that they were not. 
 
Ms. Plater also filed a complaint against Ms. Smith-Scott with the Commission.  Ms. 
Smith-Scott’s response intentionally misrepresented that she earned $825 for legal work 
performed during the pendency of Ms. Plater’s appeal.  The response further claimed that 
Ms. Smith-Scott “met with Ms. Plater; identified legal issues to pursue on appeal; prepared 
a Civil Information Sheet; filed a motion to stay the foreclosure pending the appeal; and 
78 
filed a motion to mitigate the necessity of a supersedeas bond.”  Ms. Smith-Scott 
intentionally concealed from Bar Counsel that Ms. Plater paid separately for those fillings. 
 
We therefore agree with the hearing judge that clear and convincing evidence 
supports a conclusion that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.1.  We overrule Ms. Smith-
Scott’s exception. 
15. 
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct). 
Rule 8.4 provides, in pertinent 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[.] 
 
An attorney violates Rule 8.4(a) when he or she violates other Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Foltz, 411 Md. 359, 195 (2009).  Regarding 
the criminal act in Rule 8.4(b), “[i]t is well established that a conviction is not required to 
find a violation.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 695, 729 (2014).  
Instead, in determining if an attorney violated Rule 8.4(b), we consider “whether an 
attorney’s criminal act reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or 
fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”  Id. at 729–30 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n 
79 
v. Thompson, 367 Md. 315, 324 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted)).  Rule 8.4(c) 
encompasses a “broad universe of mis-behavior.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
McDonald, 437 Md. 1, 39 (2014).  The Rule “is violated by making misrepresentations to 
the client, which includes the concealment of material information from the client.”  
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rand, 445 Md. 581, 640 (2015); see Brown, 426 Md. at 
324 (finding a violation of Rule 8.4(c) where an attorney concealed the dismissal of client’s 
case by misrepresenting status as pending);  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Bleecker, 414 
Md. 147, 168 (2010) (finding a violation of Rule 8.4(c) where an attorney failed to disclose 
that the court dismissed client’s case with prejudice). 
“[C]onduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” is that which “reflects 
negatively on the legal profession and sets a bad example for the public at large.”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n v. Goff, 399 Md. 1, 22 (2007).  An attorney’s failure “to appear in court 
at a hearing on behalf of his or her client constitutes conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 440 Md. 523, 556 
(2014).  Indeed, this is because “[a]n attorney plays such an integral role in the judicial 
process that without his [or her] presence the wheels of justice must, necessarily, grind to 
a halt.”  Id. (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Walker-Turner, 428 Md. 214, 232 
(2012)).  Furthermore, we have said that 
[an attorney’s] failure to promptly, completely and truthfully respond to Bar 
Counsel’s requests for information, to keep his client advised of the status of 
the representation and to diligently represent the complainant constitutes 
conduct which tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute and is 
therefore prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
 
80 
Brown, 426 Md. at 324–25 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Rose, 391 Md. 101, 
111 (2006)). 
 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4 in a plethora 
of ways: 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(b) and (c) when she charged Ms. 
Combs’ credit card in the amount of $4,986.13 without Ms. Combs’ 
authorization and with knowledge that Ms. Combs disputed the 
balance. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(c) when she refused to provide Ms. 
Combs with accurate billing statements and then intentionally 
misappropriated Ms. Combs’ fees that were not yet earned. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(c) when she misrepresented to Ms. 
Combs that she had filed the Motion for Reconsideration in the 
Bankruptcy Court. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(c) when she accepted Ms. Plater’s 
payments, did not complete any substantive work toward Ms. Plater’s 
appeal, and misappropriated a portion of Ms. Plater’s funds for her 
personal use and benefit. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(c) and (d) when she made several 
knowing and intentional misrepresentations to Bar Counsel discussed 
in relation to Rule 8.1. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(c) when she knowingly and 
intentionally disobeyed court orders in her personal bankruptcy case 
and interfered with Patapsco Bank’s efforts to collect rent from the 
tenants of the Laurel Properties. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(c) when she repeatedly and 
intentionally made arguments in bad faith and filed documents 
without substantial justification in her personal bankruptcy case for 
the sole purpose of retaining her property and obscuring her creditors’ 
rights to collect on debts owed to them. 
 
81 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(c) when she intentionally 
misrepresented to the Bankruptcy Court that Mr. Shively (1) engaged 
in criminal activity while taking possession of 367 Main Street; and 
(2) perjured himself at the May 16, 2016 contempt hearing. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(c) when she was dishonest in her 
communications with Bar Counsel. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(d) because her conduct, taken as a 
whole, brings the legal profession into disrepute, and is therefore 
prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(d) when she filed several actions 
or motions on behalf of Ms. Combs, Ms. Plater, and Ms. Deeba and 
then intentionally failed to prosecute the matters. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(d) when she failed to attend court 
hearings on behalf of Ms. Combs, Ms. Deeba, Mr. Jones, and herself 
in her personal bankruptcy case. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(d) when she engaged in a vexatious 
and harassing litigation strategy in her personal bankruptcy case with 
the objective of frustrating and obstructing the orderly resolution of 
the case; specifically, Ms. Smith-Scott (1) filed bad faith pleadings, 
motions and appeals; and (2) failed to appear at several hearings, 
defied and ignored several court orders, and was held in civil contempt 
on two occasions. 
 
• Ms. Smith-Scott violated Rule 8.4(a) because she violated Rules 1.1, 
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.15, 1.16, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 8.1, 8.4, and 
19-404. 
 
Ms. Smith-Scott generally excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusion that she violated Rule 
8.4.  Based on our independent review, a majority of which has already been discussed in 
relation to other rule violations, we agree with the hearing judge.  We overrule her 
exception because clear and convincing evidence exists to support violations of Rule 
8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d). 
82 
SANCTION 
As we have often stated, the purpose of attorney disciplinary proceedings is to 
protect the public and deter other lawyers from engaging in misconduct rather than simply 
to punish the lawyer.  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mollock, 450 Md. 133, 158 (2016).  
The public is protected when sanctions are “commensurate with the nature and gravity of 
the violations and the intent with which they were committed.”  Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565, 596 (2005) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Ellison, 384 Md. 688, 714 (2005)). 
Bar Counsel recommended that we disbar Ms. Smith-Scott for her “persistent course 
of dishonest and deceitful conduct with her clients, the courts, her tenants, and bar 
Counsel.”  Ms. Smith-Scott, instead, argues that a reprimand is a more appropriate sanction 
because she has no “prior record of discipline” and there is “no evidence of improper 
motive.” 
“In fashioning an appropriate sanction in attorney disciplinary proceedings, ‘[w]e 
determine the appropriate sanction by considering the facts of the case, as well as balancing 
any aggravating or mitigating factors.’”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sanderson, 465 
Md. 1, 67 (2019) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325, 337 
(2013)).  An attorney bears the burden of proving evidence of mitigation by a 
preponderance of the evidence.  See Md. Rule 19-727(c). 
83 
We have noted that “[a]ggravating factors[17] militate in favor of a more severe 
sanction[.]”  Sanderson, 465 Md. at 67 (alterations in original) (quoting Kremer, 432 Md. 
at 337).  The hearing judge found the following aggravating factors: (1) a dishonest or 
selfish motive; (2) a pattern of misconduct; (3) multiple violations of the MLRPC and 
MARPC; (4) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices 
during the attorney discipline proceeding; and (5) an indifference to making restitution or 
rectifying the misconduct’s consequences.   
Ms. Smith-Scott contends that the hearing judge should not have found a dishonest 
or selfish motive, submission of false evidence, or an indifference to making restitution.  
The record, however, belies Ms. Smith-Scott’s arguments.  Mindful of Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
cursory arguments as to why we should part ways with these factors found by the hearing 
judge, we decline to do so.  We believe Bar Counsel proved the existence of these factors 
in accord with the standards of Md. Rule 19-727(c). 
                                                          
 
17 Aggravating factors include: 
 
(1) prior attorney discipline; (2) a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) a pattern 
of misconduct; (4) multiple violations of the [rules of professional conduct]; 
(5) bad faith obstruction of the attorney discipline proceeding by 
intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; 
(6) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive 
practices during the attorney discipline proceeding; (7) a refusal to 
acknowledge the misconduct’s wrongful nature; (8) the victim’s 
vulnerability; (9) substantial experience in the practice of law; (10) 
indifference to making restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s 
consequences; (11) illegal conduct, including that involving the use of 
controlled substances; and (12) likelihood of repetition of the misconduct. 
 
Allenbaugh, 450 Md. at 277. 
 
84 
Unlike aggravating factors, “the existence of mitigating factors[18] tends to lessen or 
reduce the sanction an attorney may face.”  Id. at 70 (citing Kremer, 432 Md. at 338).  The 
hearing judge found the following mitigating factors: (1) the absence of prior attorney 
discipline; (2) personal or emotional problems; (3) inexperience in the practice of law; (4) 
remorse; and (5) the unlikelihood of repetition of the misconduct. 
Ms. Smith-Scott asserts that the hearing judge should have found the following 
additional mitigating factors: (1) the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (2) timely 
good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify the misconduct’s consequences; (3) a 
cooperative attitude toward the attorney discipline proceeding; and (4) character or 
reputation.  Ms. Smith-Scott failed to establish the existence of these mitigating factors by 
a preponderance of evidence.  See Md. Rule 19-727(c).  Aside from excerpts of witness 
                                                          
 
18 Mitigating factors include: 
 
(1) the absence of prior attorney discipline; (2) the absence of a dishonest or 
selfish motive; (3) personal or emotional problems; (4) timely good faith 
efforts to make restitution or to rectify the misconduct’s consequences; (5) 
full and free disclosure to Bar Counsel or a cooperative attitude toward the 
attorney discipline proceeding; (6) inexperience in the practice of law; (7) 
character or reputation; (8) a physical disability; (9) a mental disability or 
chemical dependency, including alcoholism or drug abuse, where: (a) there 
is medical evidence that the lawyer is affected by a chemical dependency or 
mental disability; (b) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused 
the misconduct; (c) the lawyer’s recovery from the chemical dependency or 
mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of 
successful rehabilitation; and (d) the recovery arrested the misconduct, and 
the misconduct’s recurrence is unlikely; (10) delay in the attorney discipline 
proceeding; (11) the imposition of other penalties or sanctions; (12) remorse; 
(13) remoteness of prior violations of the [rules of professional conduct]; and 
(14) unlikelihood of repetition of the misconduct. 
 
Allenbaugh, 450 Md. at 277–78. 
85 
testimony regarding her character, Ms. Smith-Scott does not, and cannot, point to evidence 
contained in the record to show the existence of these mitigating factors. 
In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Vanderlinde, we stated that 
in cases of intentional dishonesty, misappropriation cases, fraud, stealing, 
serious criminal conduct and the like, we will not accept, as “compelling 
extenuating circumstances,” anything less than the most serious and utterly 
debilitating mental or physical health conditions, arising from any source that 
is the “root cause” of the misconduct and that also result in an attorney’s utter 
inability to conform his or her conduct in accordance with the law and with 
the [Rules of Professional Conduct.]  Only if the circumstances are that 
compelling, will we even consider imposing less than the most severe 
sanction of disbarment in cases of stealing, dishonesty, fraudulent conduct, 
the intentional misappropriation of funds or other serious criminal conduct, 
whether occurring in the practice of law, or otherwise. 
 
364 Md. 376, 413–14 (2001).  We further explained that disbarment is often the appropriate 
sanction in these types of cases because “[u]nlike matters relating to competency, diligence 
and the like, intentional dishonest conduct is closely entwined with the most important 
matters of basic character to such a degree as to make intentional dishonest conduct by a 
lawyer almost beyond excuse.”  Id. at 418. 
 
We have also held that “the misappropriation of entrusted funds ‘is an act infected 
with deceit and dishonesty, and, in the absence of compelling extenuating circumstances 
justifying a lesser sanction, will result in disbarment.’”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. 
Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. 124, 161 (2005) (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. James, 
385 Md. 637, 666 (2005)).  “Fiduciaries in general, and attorneys in particular, must 
remember that the entrustment to them of the money and property of others involves a 
responsibility of the highest order.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 
334, 345 (1991).  An attorney “must carefully administer and account for those funds. 
86 
Appropriating any part of those funds to their own use and benefit without clear authority 
to do so cannot be tolerated.”  Id. 
 
In this case, we have concluded that Ms. Smith-Scott engaged in intentional 
dishonest conduct and that she misappropriated client funds entrusted to her.  While this 
conduct is troubling in its own right, the magnitude of Ms. Smith-Scott’s misconduct is 
exacerbated by the fact that she violated sixteen different rules of professional conduct, 
often numerous times and across the representation of multiple clients.  Ms. Smith-Scott’s 
conduct in her personal bankruptcy case further compounds the problematic nature of this 
case.  Ms. Smith-Scott willfully disregarded lawful orders of the Bankruptcy Court and 
U.S. District Court and was found in civil contempt by those courts. 
One order of the Bankruptcy Court fittingly describes much of the vexatious, three-
year bankruptcy proceeding: allegations replete with “unsupported, irrational, [and] highly 
tenuous speculation.”  Or, another by the U.S. District Court, describing one of Ms. Smith-
Scott’s motions, devoid of factual predicate, as “rely[ing] upon the sheer audacity of her 
[own] allegations.”  Surely, this misuse of the judicial system and misconduct of this sort 
is that which “casts our noble profession in a most unfavorable light.”  Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n v. Collins, ___ Md. ___, ___ (2020).  It follows, then, that a reprimand or 
suspension would not be sufficient to protect the public or serve as a deterrent to other 
attorneys. 
CONCLUSION 
Based on our assessment of Ms. Smith-Scott’s wide-ranging misconduct, the 
existence of aggravating factors, and the limited mitigating factors present here, we agree 
87 
with Bar Counsel and hold that the appropriate sanction is disbarment.  For the above 
reasons, we disbarred Ms. Smith-Scott and awarded costs against her by per curiam order 
dated January 10, 2020.