Case Title: Application of Wright for Admission to the Bar

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1m/23

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2023-12-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Show cause hearing held November 6, 2023. 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
Misc. No. 1 
 
 
 
September Term, 2023 
 
 
 
          
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION 
OF IAN PATRICK WRIGHT FOR 
ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND  
 
      
     
 
 
Fader, C.J. 
Watts 
Hotten 
Booth 
Biran 
Gould 
Eaves, 
 
 JJ. 
 
 
 
Order. 
Hotten, J. dissents. 
 
 
 
 
Filed: December 29, 2023  
 
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials 
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this 
document is authentic. 
 
Gregory Hilton, Clerk 
Kisha 
Taylor-Wallac
e
Digitally signed by Kisha Taylor-Wallace
DN: cn=Kisha Taylor-Wallace c=US 
l=Annapolis o=Court of Appeals, Maryland 
State e=kisha.taylor-wallace@mdcourts.gov
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location: 
Date: 2023-12-29 09:36-05:00
 
ORDER 
 
The Court having considered the favorable recommendations of the Character 
Committee for the Third Appellate Judicial Circuit and the State Board of Law Examiners 
concerning the application of Ian Patrick Wright for admission to the Bar of Maryland, it 
is this 29th day of December 2023, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, a majority of the 
Court concurring,  
ORDERED that the favorable recommendations of the Character Committee for the 
Third Appellate Judicial Circuit and State Board of Law Examiners are accepted, and it is 
further 
ORDERED that the applicant shall be admitted to the Bar upon taking the oath 
prescribed by the statute.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
                              /s/ Matthew J. Fader      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Chief Justice
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
APPLICATION OF IAN 
PATRICK WRIGHT FOR 
ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF 
MARYLAND 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
     IN THE 
 
     SUPREME COURT 
 
     OF MARYLAND 
 
     Misc. No. 1 
 
     September Term, 2023     
 
 
Show cause hearing held November 6, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. 1 
 
September Term, 2023 
______________________________________ 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION 
OF IAN PATRICK WRIGHT FOR 
ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND 
 
______________________________________ 
 
Fader, C.J., 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
Gould, 
Eaves, 
 
JJ. 
__________________________________ 
 
 
Dissent to the Order by Hotten, J. 
 
__________________________________ 
 
Filed:  December 29, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully, I dissent.  I am not persuaded that Mr. Wright has met his burden for 
admission to the Bar of Maryland.  As the record reflects, Mr. Wright’s conduct suggests 
a troubling pattern of omissions and failures to appear at court proceedings.  The judgment 
exercised under the circumstances is inconsistent with the requisite character and fitness to 
practice law.  
This Court holds the solemn responsibility of determining the fitness of those who 
seek the privilege to practice law in our State.  The highest requirements are demanded of 
those who would practice since “[t]he virtues of character, honesty, and integrity are the 
cornerstone of our legal profession.”  Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Vasiliades, 475 Md. 520, 
564, 257 A.3d 1061, 1086 (2021); see also Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Myers, 333 Md. 
440, 449, 635 A.2d 1315, 1319 (1994) (“Candor and truthfulness are two of the most 
important moral character traits of a lawyer.”) (citations omitted).  Lawyers must also 
comply with the law and appear in court when required.  Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. 
Ficker, 477 Md. 537, 566, 271 A.3d 227, 244 (2022) (“Competen[ce] … requires the 
attorney’s presence at any court proceeding for which he or she was retained, absent an 
acceptable explanation for that attorney’s absence.”).  
Mr. Wright is a recovering alcoholic.  According to the State Bar of Law Examiner’s 
report, Mr. Wright had been sober for fourteen years.  However, Mr. Wright had several 
brushes with the law, including two DUIs associated with his alcoholism, trespassing and 
disorderly conduct, and a citation for an expired motor vehicle registration.  Further, Mr. 
Wright failed to appear at two separate court proceedings after he began his journey to the 
legal profession.  The first non-appearance, for the trespassing and disorderly conduct, 
2 
 
occurred in 2014 while Mr. Wright was attending law school.  The second, for the expired 
vehicle registration, was in 2017 and after Mr. Wright had graduated from law school, 
where his driver’s license was suspended for failing to appear.  During those times, Mr. 
Wright knew or should have known the importance of adhering to court orders and 
summons. 
It is also troubling that Mr. Wright neglected to disclose his criminal record to a 
sitting judge during the interview and hiring process as a law clerk.  See State Board of 
Law Examiners Hearing Transcript 36–39 (“I thought if somebody’s hiring me, they would 
do some research.” … “If asked, I would have been forthcoming.”).  While sensitive 
medical information and battles with substance abuse are delicate subjects to navigate, Mr. 
Wright did not appreciate the importance of disclosing even his criminal history to a judge 
who hired and supervised him for two years.  Mr. Wright’s lack of candor is concerning.1    
Mr. Wright’s conduct is alarming and suggests that he lacks the necessary character 
and fitness to practice law in Maryland.  Accordingly, I dissent. 
  
 
 
1 When directly confronted, Mr. Wright appears forthcoming with investigators, the 
Character and Fitness Committee, and the State Board of Law Examiners (“SBLE”).  One 
noted exception is the failure to appear for the expired vehicle registration, where the 
Character and Fitness investigator discovered this transgression, despite its omission on 
Mr. Wright’s Bar application.  Mr. Wright claimed to be unaware of the circumstance, but 
upon SBLE’s notification, he promptly rectified the matter.  Lack of awareness of the 
matter could speak to Mr. Wright’s future competence and diligence as an attorney.  See 
Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Walker-Turner, 428 Md. 214, 227–31, 51 A.3d 553, 560–63 
(2012) (“[M]aintaining Maryland’s position that a single failure to appear, even if 
inadvertent or not associated with a pattern of irresponsibility, is actionable neglect.”).