Case Title: Reinstatement of Wescott

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2ag/23

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2023-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Argued on:  September 7, 2023 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
AG No. 2 
 
September Term, 2023 
____________________________________ 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
FOR REINSTATEMENT OF SHERWOOD 
R. WESCOTT TO THE BAR OF 
MARYLAND 
____________________________________ 
 
Fader, C.J., 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
Gould, 
Eaves, 
JJ. 
____________________________________ 
 
ORDER 
____________________________________ 
 
Filed: September 8, 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 
2023-09-08 12:07-04:00
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
* 
IN THE 
FOR REINSTATEMENT OF 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SHERWOOD R. WESCOTT 
 
 
* 
SUPREME COURT 
TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 
OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 
AG No. 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 
September Term, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the Petition for Reinstatement of Petitioner, Sherwood R. 
Wescott, Bar Counsel’s Objection to Reinstatement, and Petitioner’s “Reply to 
Respondent,” filed in the above-captioned case,  
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, this Court suspended Petitioner from the 
practice of law in Maryland for 60 days, to begin 30 days after the date on which the 
opinion was filed, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Wescott, 483 Md. 111, 290 A.3d 
1014 (2023), 
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2023, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reinstatement, in 
which he stated that he had served the period of suspension, he had “not engaged in the 
practice of law during that time period of suspension[,]” he had complied with the terms 
of the suspension, there are no other disciplinary actions or complaints pending against 
him, and he had complied with all of the requirements of Maryland Rule 19-741, 
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2023, Acting Bar Counsel filed an Objection to 
Reinstatement raising two objections: (1) Petitioner has not complied with Maryland Rule 
19-741 in that he has not submitted to Bar Counsel any of the information or documentation 
required by Maryland Rule 19-741(c)(1)(B) and 19-741(c)(3)(C); and (2) Petitioner has 
failed to pay costs in the amount of $1,588.40 assessed in favor of the Attorney Grievance 
Commission against Petitioner as a result of this Court’s February 28, 2023 opinion, 
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2023, Petitioner filed a reply, in which he stated that he has 
“not engaged in the practice of law before, during, and after the terms of the suspension of 
practicing law[,]” that he “has complied with any and all of the Rules for reinstatement[,]” 
and that it would be unreasonable and unfair to require him to pay costs prior to 
reinstatement,  
WHEREAS, in light of Bar Counsel’s objection to Petitioner’s reinstatement, 
pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-751(e)(2), this Court scheduled a hearing for Thursday, 
September 7, 2023, and ordered Petitioner to report for the hearing at 9:30 a.m. that day, 
WHEREAS, Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing on September 7, 2023, and 
Bar Counsel appeared and submitted on its Objection to Reinstatement, 
WHEREAS, in neither the petition nor reply did Petitioner demonstrate that he has 
complied with Maryland Rule 19-741(c)(1)(B) and 19-741(c)(3)(C) by providing the 
information required under those sections to Bar Counsel; rather, in his filings, Petitioner 
states that he advised Bar Counsel that he did not engage in the practice of law during the 
suspension and contends that he has complied with the Maryland Rules pertaining to 
reinstatement, 
NOW, therefore, it is this 8th day of September, 2023, 
ORDERED, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that Bar Counsel’s objection #1 is 
SUSTAINED, as Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has submitted to Bar Counsel the 
information or documentation required by Maryland Rule 19-741(c)(1)(B) and 19-
741(c)(3)(C); and it is further 
ORDERED, that Bar Counsel’s objection #2 is OVERRULED, as the payment of 
costs was not imposed by this Court as a condition of reinstatement in the February 28, 
2023 opinion, and Maryland Rule 19-751 does not require payment of costs before 
reinstatement where an attorney has been suspended for a fixed period of time not 
exceeding six months; and it is further 
ORDERED, for the reasons stated above, that the Petition for Reinstatement is 
DENIED. 
 
 
/s/ Matthew J. Fader 
     Chief Justice