Title: Attorney Grievance v. Jalloh (Ghatt)

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeneba Jalloh (Ghatt), Misc. Docket AG 
No. 2, September Term, 2017.  Opinion by Getty, J. 
 
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – DISBARMENT  
The Court of Appeals disbarred an attorney who engaged in intentionally dishonest conduct 
and misused trust money.  Specifically, the attorney entered into two escrow agreements 
with clients, which effectively allowed the clients to misuse the attorney’s trust account as 
part of an advanced fee scam.  Although the attorney may not have been originally involved 
in the fraudulent scheme, the attorney did not verify the security of the funds as required 
and disbursed trust money in ways not authorized by any agreement or by the owner.  The 
attorney subsequently misrepresented the existence of the escrow agreements creating the 
scam, her involvement in the scam, and her disbursements of the money.  These actions 
violated the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 (Safekeeping 
Property), 3.3 (Candor toward the Tribunal), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary 
Matters); 8.4 (Misconduct), former Maryland Rule 16-607 (Commingling of Funds), 
former Maryland Rule 16-609 (Prohibited Transactions), and Business Occupations and 
Professions Article of the Maryland Code § 10-306 (Misuse of Trust Money) and § 10-606 
(Penalties).   
 
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County 
Case No. CAE17-07833 
Argued: April 10, 2018 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
OF MARYLAND 
 
Misc. Docket AG No. 2 
 
September Term, 2017 
 
 
  
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 
OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
v. 
 
JENEBA JALLOH (GHATT) 
 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
Greene, 
Adkins, 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Getty, 
 
JJ. 
 
 
Opinion by Getty, J. 
 
 
Filed:  August 29, 2018 
 
 
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 
2019-02-12 
08:57-05:00
 
This attorney disciplinary matter concerns a Maryland-barred attorney who acted as 
a facilitator in a complex money laundering scheme that induced investors to advance funds 
in exchange for a false promise of a full return of the advanced fees and a future 
construction loan under the guise of an escrow agreement.  Specifically, Respondent 
Jeneba Jalloh Ghatt1 (“Respondent” or “Ms. Ghatt”) agreed that her law firm would serve 
as escrow agent, which in effect converted her attorney trust account into a repository for 
the advanced fee scam.  Although Respondent may not have initially been a knowing 
participant involved in the complex fraudulent scheme, she ultimately became complicit in 
the scam when she failed to verify and safeguard the advanced funds and then 
misrepresented her disbursements of those funds.  For these reasons, we disbar Ms. Ghatt. 
On March 9, 2017, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland 
(“Commission”), through Bar Counsel, filed with this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or 
Remedial Action (“Petition”) against Ms. Ghatt.  The Commission charged Respondent 
with violating Rules 1.15 (safekeeping property), 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), 8.1 (bar 
admission and disciplinary matters), and 8.4(a)-(d) (misconduct) of the Maryland Lawyers’ 
Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”).2  The Petition also alleged the Respondent 
                                                 
1 Although the entire record reflects that the Respondent’s name is Jeneba Jalloh Ghatt, the 
Respondent is barred in Maryland as Jeneba Jalloh.  No document or pleading in the record 
provides a reason for the discrepancy between her name as appears in this matter and her 
name as appears in the Maryland Attorney listing.  This discrepancy explains the title in 
this matter, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeneba Jalloh (Ghatt), which 
uses a parenthetical around the Respondent’s purported last name.  To avoid confusion, 
this opinion will refer to the Respondent as Ms. Ghatt or simply Respondent.   
2 Effective July 1, 2016, the MLRPC were renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of 
Professional Conduct (“MARPC”), which were moved to Title 19, Chapter 200 of the 
 
2 
 
violated former Maryland Rules 16-607 (commingling of funds) and 16-609 (prohibited 
transactions),3 as well as Sections 10-306 (misuses of trust money) and 10-606 (penalties) 
of the Business Occupations and Professions Article of the Maryland Code.  After the 
complaint was filed, Ms. Ghatt obtained the law firm Cunningham & Associates, PLC to 
represent her in the attorney grievance matter. 
 
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-722, this Court designated the Honorable Krystal 
Alves of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to conduct an evidentiary hearing 
(“the attorney grievance hearing” or “hearing”) and to provide findings of fact and 
recommended conclusions of law.  After being served with a copy of the Petition, Ms. 
Ghatt filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 6, 2017.  After the circuit court denied the motion 
to dismiss, Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition on July 6, 2017.  After the 
conclusion of discovery, Ms. Ghatt filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, which 
the circuit court denied by order dated October 23, 2017.  The attorney grievance hearing 
was held on October 23, 24, 25 and 26, 2017.  Although she had previously obtained 
counsel, Ms. Ghatt represented herself throughout the attorney grievance hearing.  
The attorney grievance hearing judge issued findings of fact and recommended 
conclusions of law on January 23, 2018.  Specifically, the hearing judge concluded that the 
Respondent violated MLRPC 1.15(a), (b), (d), and (e); 3.3(a)(1); 8.1; and 8.4(a), (b), (c), 
                                                 
Maryland Rules.  This opinion refers to the MLRPC rather than the MARPC because all 
relevant conduct took place before July 1, 2016.   
3 Effective July 1, 2016, these two rules were re-codified as Maryland Rules 19-408 and 
19-410 respectively.   
 
3 
 
and (d).  In addition, the hearing judge further concluded that Ms. Ghatt violated former 
Maryland Rules 16-607 and 16-609 as well as Sections 10-306 and 10-606 of the Business 
Occupations and Professions Article (“BOP”) of the Maryland Code.   
 
Respondent filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and 
recommended conclusions of law.  Ms. Ghatt takes four extensive exceptions to the hearing 
judge’s factual findings, arguing that the circuit court adopted the proposed findings of 
facts and conclusions of law submitted by the Commission in its entirety.  In addition, 
Respondent excepts to the hearing judge’s recommended conclusions of law regarding 
MLRPC 1.15, 3.3, 8.1, and 8.4 as well as Sections 10-306 and 10-606 of the Business 
Occupations and Professions Article.  Ms. Ghatt does not take exception to the hearing 
judge’s recommended conclusion that she violated former Maryland Rules 16-607 and 16-
609.  Ultimately, Ms. Ghatt requests that this Court impose a reprimand as the appropriate 
sanction in this case because she alleges the only violation was commingling of funds.  On 
April 10, 2018, this Court heard oral arguments in this matter.  Ms. Ghatt appeared and 
argued on her own behalf.    
BACKGROUND 
 
We summarize the hearing judge’s findings of fact and the record submitted at the 
attorney grievance hearing as follows.  
Ms. Ghatt’s Law Practice 
 
Ms. Ghatt was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 16, 1998.   After being 
admitted to the Bar of this Court, Ms. Ghatt worked as a staff attorney at Georgetown 
University Law Center, a lawyer at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP, then served as assistant 
 
4 
 
general counsel to the District of Columbia Office of Cable, Television, and 
Telecommunications.   In 2007, Ms. Ghatt opened her own law firm, the Ghatt Law Group, 
LLC, in Prince George’s County, Maryland.  At the time she formed her solo law practice, 
Ms. Ghatt also formed what she called Strategic Partnership, which was an informal 
referral system between herself and two other out-of-state attorneys.  During the period 
pertinent to this case, Ms. Ghatt worked as a solo practitioner at the Ghatt Law Group.  Ms. 
Ghatt supplemented her solo practice with work as a blogger, columnist, and speaker.  
 
In June 2007, Ms. Ghatt opened an attorney trust account at Citibank in the name of 
the Ghatt Law Group, LLC.  The Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account has an account 
number ending in 8589.  Ms. Ghatt signed a CitiEscrow Control Account Application, 
which provided that the Control Account Title was the Ghatt Law Group, LLC Attorney 
Trust.  Ms. Ghatt also signed a General Deposit Resolution for Limited Liability Company, 
in which Ms. Ghatt listed herself as the sole signatory with authority to control and access 
the attorney trust account.    
Escrow Agent Agreement with the Chore Group, LLC 
 
Ms. Ghatt entered into an “Escrow Agreement” with Strategic Capital Enterprises 
(a Delaware limited liability company) and Zion Capital, Inc. (a Maryland corporation) 
that provided for funds to be deposited in escrow to the attorney trust account of the Ghatt 
Law Group, serving as the “Escrow Agent.”  The Escrow Agreement was signed by Zion 
Capital Ventures and Strategic Capital, LLC as a collective joint venture entitled “The 
Chore Group, LLC.”  The name Solomon Jalloh (“Mr. Jalloh), who Ms. Ghatt 
acknowledged is her brother, appears underneath the collective joint venture signature line 
 
5 
 
as program manager and JV partner and principal.  The Chore Group dated the Escrow 
Agreement on September 1, 2014.  Although a signature line for the Ghatt Law Group, 
LLC, identifying Jeneba Jalloh Ghatt as managing partner, also appears on the Escrow 
Agreement, the signature and date line of the copy in the record appear blank.  
 
The Escrow Agreement further provided that “the Escrow Agent is authorized to 
use the following funds transfer instructions to disburse funds without a verifying call-back 
[].  If distribution is in accordance with this Section [], by providing written instructions to 
the Escrow Agent in the form of Exhibit A, no call-back [] is required.”  Exhibit A to the 
Escrow Agreement was a Disbursement Request form, which states that a certain specified 
amount will be disbursed from the Ghatt Law Group’s attorney trust account to an account 
identified by either Strategic Capital or Zion Capital.  The Escrow Agreement also 
indicated that the “parties hereto agree that escrow fees shall be due and payable in the 
amount of $1,000.00 each month, and .05% of any disbursement upon which Escrow Agent 
must be a signatory of any agreement related to the release and control of funds.”   
 
As such, a plain reading of the Escrow Agreement indicates that Ms. Ghatt agreed 
to disburse an amount specified by Strategic Capital or Zion Capital from her firm’s 
attorney trust account to an account also identified by Strategic Capital or Zion Capital.  In 
return, Ms. Ghatt would receive $1,000 each month as well as half a percent of any 
disbursement that requires Ms. Ghatt to sign an agreement relating to the disbursement.  
Grove Construction Management, LLC and Grove Plaza, LLC 
 
Kraig Robinson was a partner of Grove Construction Management, LLC, a company 
owned by himself and Lyle Kenney (“Mr. Kenney”) as equal partners.  Mr. Robinson stated 
 
6 
 
that Grove Construction Management assists clients in designing buildings.  Mr. 
Robinson’s role in Grove Construction Management was to deal with the contractors and 
engineers as well as supervise the field construction.  Around 2008 or 2009, Grove 
Construction Management wanted to build a 45,000 square foot warehouse building on a 
piece of property adjacent to the company’s current offices.  In pursuit of that goal, the 
company obtained an appraisal of the building, which concluded that the project would 
cost $5,000,000.   
 
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Kenney from Grove Construction Management, LLC 
contacted Gene Parrish from New Freedom Group, LLC, who indicated that he knew a 
company that could assist with funding the warehouse building project.  New Freedom 
Group explained to Grove Construction Management that the funding company, Strategic 
Capital, required an appraisal and ten percent of the appraisal amount upfront.  Therefore, 
Mr. Robinson anticipated that Strategic Capital would provide the complete funding 
amount, $5,000,000, as long as Grove Construction Management submitted the appraisal 
and ten percent of the funding amount, $500,000.  
 
Mr. Robinson spoke with James C. Yates (“Mr. Yates” or “James Yates”), who he 
had met in either 2011 or 2012 after buying a piece of equipment from him.  After 
discussing the warehouse building project, Mr. Yates agreed to provide $500,000 to secure 
the funding in exchange for becoming an equity partner of Grove Construction 
Management, LLC or for a lump sum fee of $100,000.   
After Mr. Yates agreed to pay the initial $500,000, Mr. Robinson contacted New 
Freedom Group and Strategic Capital Enterprises about how the process would work.  
 
7 
 
Gene Parrish from New Freedom Group explained that Mr. Yates’s $500,000 would be 
placed in the Ghatt Law Group’s attorney trust account and that nobody would be able to 
encumber that deposit.  As such, Mr. Robinson believed that if the warehouse building 
project was not funded by February 1, 2015, then Grove Construction Management would 
submit a written request to the Ghatt Law Group to wire the funds directly to Mr. Yates, 
refunding him in full.  Mr. Robinson testified that it was his understanding that if the deal 
did go through, then Strategic Capital would release $5,000,000 to Grove Construction 
Management in order to fund the project and to return $500,000 to Mr. Yates.  In other 
words, Mr. Robinson believed that Mr. Yates’s $500,000 would be fully refundable and 
not be at risk.  Mr. Robinson stated that he discussed this with Mr. Yates.  
Pursuant to the common goals of funding and building the warehouse building, the 
parties created a limited liability company named Grove Plaza, LLC.  Specifically, the 
parties executed an Limited Liability Company Agreement on January 25, 2015.  The 
limited liability company agreement included the following members: Strategic Capital 
Enterprises, Inc.; Kraig Robinson; Lyle Kenney; and New Freedom Group.  Each of the 
members signed the limited liability company agreement with Ken Phillips (“Mr. Phillips”) 
signing on behalf of Strategic Capital Enterprises, Inc. and Gene Parrish signing on behalf 
of New Freedom Group, LLC.   
Escrow Agent Agreement with Grove Plaza, LLC and Strategic Capital Enterprises 
Ms. Ghatt entered into a second “Escrow Agreement” with “Strategic Capital 
Enterprises, Inc[.], a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey,” “Grove Plaza, 
LLC, a Utah limited liability company[,]” and the “Ghatt Law Group[.]”  The second 
 
8 
 
Escrow Agreement provided an effective date of December 1, 2014.4  The Escrow 
Agreement stated that the “parties hereby appoint the Ghatt Law Group as the Escrow 
Agent[.]”  Mr. Phillips signed the agreement on December 4, 2014 on behalf of Strategic 
Capital Enterprises, Inc.  Kraig Robinson signed the agreement on behalf of Grove Plaza, 
LLC on December 2, 2014.  However, the signature line for the Ghatt Law Group (Escrow 
Agent) appears blank and undated.5  
This second Escrow Agreement provided the following purpose of the escrow 
agreement:   
to hold and to disburse the proceeds of $500,000.00 deposited into escrow 
by Grove Plaza, LLC to be disbursed to Strategic Capital Enterprises, Inc. 
once Ghatt Law Group has verified $500,000 has been deposited into a sub-
account opened in the name of Grove Plaza, LLC and Ghatt Law Group has 
delivered 1) CONFIRMATION OF DEPOSIT LETTER, and 2) a copy of 
the LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION – ACTION REQUIRED document 
from Citi Private Bank to Grove Plaza, LLC, Strategic Capital Enterprises, 
Inc., and New Freedom Group, LLC as the two conditions to the release of 
escrow.  
 
                                                 
4 There is no explanation in the record why the Escrow Agreement naming Grove Plaza, 
LLC was dated December 1, 2014 even though the limited liability company agreement 
forming Grove Plaza, LLC was dated January 25, 2015.  
5 It appears from the record that there are multiple copies of this signature page.  Ms. Ghatt 
testified that the unsigned version is the original signature page of the second Escrow 
Agreement.  After a review of the record, this Court can only gather that Ms. Ghatt 
subsequently submitted a separate signature page to the Commission with her signature.  
At that time, it appears Ms. Ghatt purported the document to be the official signature page 
of the second Escrow Agreement.  On this separate signature page, Ms. Ghatt’s signature 
appears to be dated December 10, 2014.   
 
9 
 
The agreement further indicated that the “[d]eposit of $500,000.00 will be used by Strategic 
Capital Enterprises, Inc. to pay the costs associated with the cash deposit at Citi Private 
Bank, financial transaction and banking fees related to the JOINT VENTURE6 acquisition 
of financing, with any additional escrow proceeds to be disbursed pursuant to this Escrow 
Agreement.”  
 
The Escrow Agreement instructed the Ghatt Law Group, as escrow agent, to provide 
a “‘Notification of the Escrow Cash Deposit’ to Grove Plaza, LLC, Strategic Capital 
Enterprises, Inc[.] and New Freedom Group, LLC (‘Exhibit A’)” on the same business day 
that the $500,000 is wired to the Ghatt Law Group’s Citibank attorney trust account, ending 
in number 8589.  Within seven days of Ms. Ghatt’s confirmation, the agreement indicated 
that Strategic Capital would deposit $500,000.00 into a “sub-account at Citi Private Bank 
in the name of Grove Plaza, LLC and cause Citi Private Bank to notify Escrow Agent.”   
Once Ms. Ghatt verified that Strategic Capital had deposited $500,000 into a Citi 
Private Bank “sub-account” of her attorney trust account, Ms. Ghatt was to send a 
“Confirmation of Deposit” and a “Letter of Authorization – Action Required” to all parties 
and “immediately disburse the $500,000.00 to Strategic Capital Enterprises, Inc. as 
instructed by an authorized representative of Strategic Capital Enterprises, Inc.”   
Under a section entitled “Escrow Disbursement Instructions,” the second Escrow 
agreement indicated that the “Parties recognize the sub-account at Citi Private Bank is a 
sub-account of the Ghatt Law Group.  Any and all questions regarding the sub-account or 
                                                 
6 This Escrow Agreement did not define or explain the “joint venture.”  
 
10 
 
of the banking relationship of the Ghatt Law Group with Citi Private Bank are to be directed 
to the Ghatt Law Group. The Ghatt Law Group will accommodate any questions and or 
verifications regarding the accounts.”  Further, the agreement provided that “[a]ny attempt 
to make direct contact with Citi Private Bank without the direct, written consent of the 
Ghatt Law Group will be cause for immediate termination of the Escrow Agreement and 
of the related transaction.”  
The Escrow Agreement also stated that the “Escrow Agent is hereby instructed that 
if the notification of the $500,000.00 deposited into Grove Plaza, LLC’s account at Citi 
Private Bank is not received by the Escrow Agent within seven (7) days from the date the 
[cash from Grove Plaza, LLC] is received” in the attorney trust account, then “the Escrow 
Agent shall immediately return the $500,000.00 by wire transfer to the banking coordinates 
of Grove Plaza, LLC to the account where the $500,000.00 [] originated.”  
 
Pursuant to the stated purpose and provisions of the second Escrow Agreement, the 
agreement provided an Exhibit A, Notification of the Escrow Cash Deposit, which appears 
to be an undated version of the notification document that Ms. Ghatt was required to send 
to all the parties once James Yates wires $500,000 on behalf of Grove Plaza, LLC to the 
Ghatt Law Group’s attorney trust account.   
The second Escrow Agreement also has an Exhibit B, Confirmation of Deposit/ 
Terms of Disbursement, which appears to be an unsigned version of the document Ms. 
Ghatt was required to send to all parties once she received notice that Strategic Capital had 
placed $500,000 into a separate sub-account at Citi Private Bank.  The Confirmation of 
Deposit exhibit is dated December 1, 2014 and is to the attention of Kraig Robinson and 
 
11 
 
Grove Plaza, LLC.  However, the letter is addressed “Dear Jim[.]”  The Confirmation of 
Deposit stated that Ms. Ghatt “personally verified the Citi Private Bank Letter of 
Authorization – Action Required document from Citi Private Bank” and “ha[d] 
confirmed:” (1) A sub-account has been opened in the name of Grove Plaza, LLC at 
Citibank; (2) $350,000 has been deposited into the account; and (3) the Beneficiary of the 
sub-account is James Yates.  (Emphasis added).  The Confirmation of Deposit further 
provided: 
The funds in the account will be released upon the earliest occurrence of one 
of the following three events: A. The funding of the $5,000,000 loan to Grove 
Plaza, LLC. . . . B. Should the loan from Strategic Capital Enterprises, Inc. 
in the amount of $5,000,000 to Grove Plaza, LLC not fund on or before 
February 1, 2015, the $350,000, upon written request from Grove Plaza, LLC 
to The Ghatt Law Group, will be wired immediately to James Yates . . .  C. 
The Expire date occurs. Upon expiration of the account the funds will be 
disbursed to the Beneficiary. 
 
As is clear from Exhibit B, in its unaltered state, the Confirmation of Deposit read that 
$350,000 had been deposited into a sub-account and that amount would be returned once 
the $5 million loan did not fund and Mr. Robinson or Mr. Yates submitted a written request 
for the return of the funds.  Ms. Ghatt later testified that she should have edited this amount 
to read $500,000 as this was the amount Strategic Capital alleged was required to obtain 
the loan.   
Also attached was Exhibit C, a Letter of Authorization – Action Required, which 
appears to be a blank version of a document purporting to be a bank institution’s 
 
12 
 
authorization of a transfer of funds from one bank account to another.  The header of the 
Letter of Authorization reads as follows:  
The Bank 
Client Services 
Address of the bank 
New York, New York 
10005 
 
In the body of the Letter of Authorization, there are blank spaces for the “Main 
Account of Investment Firm providing Financial Guarantee” along with the corresponding 
blank space for the bank account number.  There is also a space for the “Sub-Account 
Name” and the “Sub-Account Number[.]”  Exhibit C indicated that the “letter is regarding 
the distribution to the beneficiaries of Borrower and may be used as my Letter of 
Authorization to make the appropriate distribution of the funds in the above referenced 
account [].”  The letter then has blank spaces for the beneficiary name, beneficiary 
percentage, and beneficiary address.  The Letter of Authorization included a section stating, 
“Please indicate how you would like to receive your distribution share (check one)[.]”  The 
letter also has an already marked box next to the option for transferring to a bank with a 
line for the beneficiary to put the account name, account number, and routing number.    
Exhibit D to the second Escrow Agreement is untitled.  However, the document 
states that “[t]his is the information that will be used to open the account at Citi Private 
Bank and for receiving funds.”  The document then lists the account name as Grove Plaza, 
LLC, and the signatory name as Kraig D. Robinson.  Exhibit D then indicates that “upon 
distribution the funds are to be wired to:” James Yates as beneficiary, under a James C. 
Yates account name, with a specific account number and routing number.  
 
13 
 
 
The second Escrow Agreement along with the four exhibits (Exhibit A through 
Exhibit D) constitute the entire twelve-page agreement between Strategic Capital 
Enterprises, Inc, Grove Plaza, LLC, and the Ghatt Law Group as Escrow Agent.  
Events following the Escrow Agreements 
On December 3, 2014, Mr. Yates wired $500,000 from his Commonwealth financial 
network account to the Ghatt Law Group Citibank account, which has an account number 
ending in 8589.  The wire instructions from Mr. Yates specifically noted additional banking 
information that further credit was to Grove Plaza/Strategic Capital.  In addition to Mr. 
Yates’s signature, an advisor/staff of Commonwealth financial network signed and dated 
the wire request form on December 3, 2014.  The Ghatt Law Group’s attorney trust account 
statement from December 2014 reflects that prior to December 3, 2014, the account held 
$151.73.  The statement also showed that the attorney trust account received a funds 
transfer from James Yates in the amount of $500,000 on December 3, 2014.  As such, the 
attorney trust account statement reflected a balance of $500,151.73 on December 3, 2014.  
 
After Mr. Yates wired the $500,000 to the Ghatt Law Group Citibank account on 
December 3, 2014, Ms. Ghatt edited and completed the blank exhibits to the second Escrow 
Agreement.  Ms. Ghatt re-dated the exhibits, signed the exhibits, and then sent them to the 
parties in her role as escrow agent.  Specifically, Ms. Ghatt dated Exhibit A, the 
Notification of the Escrow Cash Deposit, on December 3, 2014.  The Notification still had 
a header noting “EXHIBIT A,” and further stated that the “Ghatt Law Group received an 
Escrow Cash Deposit from Grove Plaza, LLC in the amount of $500,000.  These funds will 
be held as per the terms of the Escrow Agreement between Strategic Capital Enterprises, 
 
14 
 
Inc., Grove Plaza, LLC, and THE GHATT LAW GROUP.”  Ms. Ghatt testified that she 
did, in fact, send the dated version of the Notification of the Escrow Cash Deposit to the 
following parties per the instructions of the second Escrow Agreement: Grove Plaza, LLC, 
Strategic Capital Enterprises, Inc., and New Freedom Group, LLC.   
 
  Ms. Ghatt also completed Exhibit B to the second Escrow Agreement, the 
Confirmation of Deposit,7 which Ms. Ghatt dated December 1, 2014.   The Confirmation 
of Deposit stated that it is to the attention of Kraig Robinson and Grove Plaza, LLC.  
Moreover, the Confirmation of Deposit stated that Ms. Ghatt has “personally verified the 
Citi Private Bank Letter of Authorization – Action Required document from Citi Private 
Bank (attached hereto)[.]”  The Confirmation of Deposit also provided the following: the 
Bank Ref Code was 61XXXXXX; that a sub-account had been opened in the name of 
Grove Plaza, LLC; that $350,0008 had been deposited into the account; the beneficiary of 
                                                 
7 There appears to be two completed versions of Exhibit B, Confirmation of Deposit/ Terms 
of Disbursement, in the record.  The two versions provided different dates (one dated 
December 1, 2014 and one dated December 10, 2014), but both appeared on the Ghatt Law 
Group letterhead and both were signed by Ms. Ghatt.  The only significant differences 
between the two versions is that the December 1, 2014 copy provided that $350,000 had 
been wired from Mr. Yates to Citibank.  Ms. Ghatt later testified that this was a typo that 
was meant to read $500,000.  The December 1, 2014 version still contained the header 
“EXHIBIT B,” which did not appear on the December 10, 2014 version.  The December 
1, 2014 copy also included Instructions for Distribution, which were absent from the 
December 10, 2014 copy.  In his complaint, Mr. Yates alleged that he received the 
Confirmation of Deposit dated December 1, 2014, and so this Court will concentrate on 
that version of the completed Exhibit B. 
8 As stated supra, Ms. Ghatt testified that this amount was an error; she further testified 
that the document should have read $500,000 to reflect the amount Mr. Yates transferred 
into the Ghatt Law Group Citibank attorney trust account.  
 
15 
 
the sub-account was James Yates; the account was to expire on December 5, 2015; and no 
third party had access to the account.   
The Confirmation of Deposit further stated that the funds in the account would be 
released on the earliest of one of the following three events: (1) the funding of the 
$5,000,000 loan to Grove, Plaza, LLC, upon which the $350,000 in the account will be 
returned to Strategic Capital Enterprises, Inc.; (2) should the loan of $5,000,000 not fund 
on or before February 1, 2015, the $350,000 would be wired immediately to James Yates 
upon written request from Grove Plaza, LLC to The Ghatt Law Group; or (3) the expire 
date occurs, upon which the funds will be distributed to “the Beneficiary[,]” James Yates.  
In addition, the Confirmation provided “Instructions for Distribution,” which stated:  
Should the loan not fund on or before the 1st day of February, 2015 please 
make a written request for the distribution of the $500,000, attach a copy of 
the Letter of Authorization – Action Required document with the information 
for distribution filled in and The Ghatt Law Group shall be responsible for 
the funds in the amount to be immediately wired to James Yates as per your 
instruction. 
  
Ms. Ghatt signed the Confirmation of Deposit at the end of the document.  
 
Attached to the Confirmation of Deposit was the completed version of Exhibit C to 
the second Escrow Agreement: the Letter of Authorization – Action Required.  The header 
provided the Citibank logo followed by Client Services, 111 Wall Street, New York, New 
York 10005.  The Letter of Authorization was dated December 5, 2014.  The Letter 
purported to show that the individually-managed account (“IMA”) name was Ghatt Law 
Group, the primary account number was *****8589, the sub-account name was Grove 
Plaza, LLC, the sub-account number was 4488-805, and the bank reference number was 
 
16 
 
6100052992.9  The Letter stated that the beneficiary name was Grove Plaza, LLC and that 
the beneficiary percentage as 100% of the $500,000.  There were blank spaces left open 
for the beneficiary to indicate how he would like to receive the distribution.   
 
After Ms. Ghatt sent the completed versions of the exhibits attached to the second 
Escrow Agreement to the parties, Ms. Ghatt started wiring money out of The Ghatt Law 
Group attorney trust account to Strategic Capital Enterprises beginning on December 5, 
2014.  The Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account statement from December 2014 
specifically showed that Ms. Ghatt10 wired $50,000 out of her attorney trust account to 
Strategic Capital Enterprises on December 5, 2014.  Subpoenaed documents related to The 
Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account from Citibank also revealed that Ms. Ghatt 
transferred another $50,000 to a Morgan Stanley account owned by Zion Capital on 
December 8, 2014.  The subpoenaed Citibank documents further showed that Ms. Ghatt 
wired out $399,860.83 to Strategic Capital Enterprises on December 9, 2014.  Overall, Ms. 
Ghatt disbursed a total of $449,860.83 to Strategic Capital and $50,000 to Zion Capital, 
which totals $499,860.83.11  After Ms. Ghatt wired the money to Strategic Capital and Zion 
                                                 
9 Although this is the bank reference number as it appears on the Letter of Authorization, 
the Confirmation of Deposit that Ms. Ghatt sent to Mr. Yates stated that the bank reference 
code was 61XXXXXX.  There is nothing in the record or Ms. Ghatt’s testimony that 
explains the discrepancy between the suggested eight-digit bank reference code on the 
Confirmation of Deposit and the ten-digit bank reference number on the Letter of 
Authorization.  
10 Ms. Ghatt testified that she was the one who wired the money out of the attorney trust 
account.  
11 The record also showed that there were fees associated with the transfer of funds out of 
the attorney trust account.  These fees totaled $79.00.  After subtracting the transfer fees, 
 
17 
 
Capital, Ms. Ghatt received a funds transfer in the amount of $5,000 into the Ghatt Law 
Group attorney trust account from Strategic Capital Enterprises for her services as an 
escrow agent.12  
In addition to the specific wire transfers of Mr. Yates’s $500,000, Ms. Ghatt 
continued to accept wire transfers related to other investments and then disbursed the funds 
to accounts held by either Strategic Capital Enterprises or Zion Capital.  These transactions 
continued from January 2015 to May 2015, at which time the attorney trust account was 
closed.  At one point, Ms. Ghatt incurred a negative balance on the Ghatt Law Group 
attorney trust account in January 2015 when she disbursed $125,000 twice.13 
Ms. Ghatt testified that she received instructions from Strategic Capital in emails 
and phone calls to wire certain amounts transferred into her attorney trust account to other 
accounts.  Therefore, the hearing judge found that Ms. Ghatt’s true role as escrow agent 
was her unquestioning use of the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account, which was 
ultimately at the disposal of Strategic Capital and Zion Capital.  In addition, the hearing 
judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt’s argument that her actions 
were governed by the two escrow agreements and that she followed those instructions was 
not credible because she did not enter into the escrow agreement with Grove Plaza, LLC 
                                                 
that leaves $60.17 of Mr. Yates’s $500,000 that remained in Ms. Ghatt’s attorney trust 
account.  
12 See supra the Escrow Agreement provision for escrow fees at 5.  
13 Ms. Ghatt testified that she accidentally disbursed $125,000 twice and only intended to 
disburse this amount once.   
 
18 
 
until December 10, 2014, by which time she had already received and disbursed Mr. 
Yates’s $500,000 from the attorney trust account.  
Ms. Ghatt also made debit card purchases from the attorney trust account after Mr. 
Yates had wired $500,000 into the account.  Specifically, Ms. Ghatt made a $13.28 and 
purchase at Old Navy on December 3, 2014 and a $132.62 purchase from Amazon on 
December 9, 2014.  In addition, Ms. Ghatt made an ATM withdrawal of $60 on December 
12, 2014 and another ATM withdrawal of $40 on December 17, 2014.  Ms. Ghatt continued 
to make additional ATM withdrawals and conduct personal transactions from December 
2014 to May 2015.  As such, the hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence 
that Ms. Ghatt improperly used the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account as her personal 
bank account.   
The hearing judge also found by clear and convincing evidence that there was never 
a “sub-account” as described in the second Escrow Agreement, Confirmation of Deposit, 
or the Letter of Authorization.  The hearing judge further found that Ms. Ghatt never 
opened a sub-account under her attorney trust account.  Instead, Ms. Ghatt contended that 
someone other than her was to open the sub-account and that she relied on the Confirmation 
of Deposit and Letter of Authorization dated December 1, 2014 as evidence that a sub-
account with $500,000 was created.  The hearing judge found that the Confirmation of 
Deposit and Letter of Authorization did not confirm any such sub-account.  As such, the 
hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt made multiple 
misrepresentations as to the existence of a sub-account when she sent the December 1, 
2014 Confirmation of Deposit and Letter of Authorization to the parties, which indicated 
 
19 
 
in pertinent part: “I have personally verified the Citi Private Bank Letter of Authorization 
– Action Request document from Citi Private Bank (attached hereto) and have confirmed: 
1. A sub-account has been opened in the name of Grove Plaza, LLC at Citibank.” 
(Emphasis added).  
The $5,000,000 loan did not fund on February 1, 2015.  Two days later, Mr. 
Robinson, Mr. Kenney, along with Strategic Capital and New Freedom Group signed a 
“resolution” that extended the last day for funding to February 5, 2015.  The resolution 
specified that Strategic Capital would provide $5,500,000 to Grove Plaza, LLC of which 
$500,000 would be wired to Mr. Yates to repay his deposit in escrow.  Mr. Yates was not 
a party to the resolution and did not sign the resolution.  Subsequently, the loan did not 
fund or close on February 5, 2015 despite the averments in the resolution.  
Mr. Yates’s Attorney Communications with Ms. Ghatt & the Utah Civil Lawsuit 
 
After the loan to Grove Plaza, LLC did not fund and Mr. Yates did not receive his 
$500,000 from Ms. Ghatt or Strategic Capital, Mr. Yates retained Thomas Seiler, Esquire 
(“Mr. Seiler”) to assist him in recovering his funds.  Mr. Seiler reviewed the Confirmation 
of Deposit and Letter of Authorization, which Mr. Yates had previously received from Ms. 
Ghatt.  On February 24, 2015, Mr. Seiler sent Ms. Ghatt an email, which stated that he 
represented Mr. Yates and requested information about Mr. Yates’s funds.  The next day, 
Mr. Yates and Mr. Robinson signed and completed the Letter of Authorization, which 
provided that the beneficiary, Grove Plaza, LLC, should indicate how they would like to 
receive the distribution.  Mr. Yates chose to transfer the funds to his bank, filled out the 
bank name, account name, account number, and routing number.  Mr. Robinson and Mr. 
 
20 
 
Yates also executed a second document that requested Ms. Ghatt to return the $500,000 to 
Mr. Yates. 
 
On behalf of Mr. Yates, Mr. Seiler sent Ms. Ghatt a letter requesting the return of 
Mr. Yates’s $500,000.  Attached to the letter was the Letter of Authorization (completed 
and signed by Mr. Yates and Mr. Robinson), the Confirmation of Deposit dated December 
1, 2014, and Mr. Seiler’s February 24, 2015 email to Ms. Ghatt.  On the same day, Ms. 
Ghatt responded to the letter, confirming that she was “processing it and [would] get back 
to [him] within 48 hours with further instructions and actions.” Although Mr. Seiler again 
expressed concern over the delay in the return of Mr. Yates’s $500,000 and requested an 
immediate return, Ms. Ghatt either responded with conflicting explanations or did not 
respond at all.  
 
On March 3, 2015, Mr. Seiler emailed Respondent and asked for a detailed 
explanation of why she had not returned Mr. Yates’ funds as instructed by the Letter of 
Authorization signed by Mr. Yates and Mr. Robinson.  Ms. Ghatt replied on the same date, 
stating that she “understand[s] the funds are being returned and the account, per the ARD, 
has been funded.  Can you please check with Mr. Robinson also to confirm?”  Mr. Seiler 
responded, explaining that Mr. Yates had not received his returned funds and Mr. Robinson 
confirmed that no loan had funded.  Mr. Seiler again demanded to know what Ms. Ghatt 
had done with the $500,000 and why she refused to wire the money to Mr. Yates as 
instructed.  In response, Ms. Ghatt stated that her “escrow agreement is with a three 
member [sic] partnership and per that agreement, release of the funds can only be 
authorized by all or the majority of that three member/parties . . .  I did not spend your 
 
21 
 
client’s money, did not authorize any party to take it from escrow neither [sic] did I 
personally give not give [sic] it to anyone.”  (Emphasis added).  
Mr. Seiler filed a civil suit in the Fourth District Court, Utah County, Utah on Mr. 
Yates’ behalf in order to recover the $500,000.  The civil suit alleged theft and breach of 
contract against Strategic Capital, New Freedom Group, Grove Plaza, Gene Parrish, Ken 
Phillips, Kraig Robinson, and Lyle Kenney.  In addition, the civil suit alleged that the Ghatt 
Law Group and Ms. Ghatt committed theft, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, 
and legal malpractice.14  Pertinent to this attorney grievance matter, Ms. Ghatt filed several 
initial disclosures with the Utah court, stating that all parties to the escrow agreements 
knew that Ms. Ghatt never had control of the $500,000, that Ms. Ghatt never had control 
of the funds or the ability to remove the funds, and that Citibank was responsible for wiring 
the $500,000 to Mr. Yates rather than Ms. Ghatt or the Ghatt Law Group.  The hearing 
judge found that Ms. Ghatt made knowing and intentional misrepresentations to the Utah 
court, noting that Ms. Ghatt had control over some or all of Mr. Yates’s funds, which is 
shown by the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account transactions.     
On April 23 and 24, 2015, Mr. Seiler sent two more emails to Ms. Ghatt asking for 
an accounting of the $500,000.  Ms. Ghatt responded on both dates, first stating that Mr. 
                                                 
14 Ultimately, the Utah court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Mr. Yates 
and against Ms. Ghatt and the Ghatt Law Group.  The Utah District Court specifically 
found that Ms. Ghatt breached her fiduciary duties as escrow agent, awarding Mr. Yates 
damages in the amount of $500,000.  However, Mr. Yates still has not received the 
$500,000 damages award from the Ghatt Law Group or Ms. Ghatt.  
 
22 
 
Yates’s money was delayed and that she would try to show Mr. Seiler and Mr. Yates the 
escrow account holding the money.  Second, Ms. Ghatt emailed Mr. Seiler stating: 
I have attached a screen grab of the client holding account at Citi linked to 
Morgan Stanley which shows about 3.4M in various client holdings, and 
within that amount is Mr. Yates’ [sic] $500,000.  I blurred out bank account 
numbers for security and confidentiality reasons.   
 
I finally got the go ahead from Strategic to release it back to him.  
 
You will need to withdraw your complaint in court and have Mr. Yates 
withdraw his bar counsel complaint as well . . .   
 
Please confirm your intention to withdraw all complaints upon you client 
receiving his funds today.  
 
(Emphasis added).  
 
Ms. Ghatt attached to her email a “screen grab”15 of her Citi bank web accounts, 
showing an external personal investments account with an amount of $3,888,493.28.  The 
external account was entitled Morgan Stanley Online (ClientServ).  The hearing judge 
found that Ms. Ghatt led Mr. Seiler to believe that the Citi accounts held Mr. Yates’s funds.  
Moreover, the hearing judge further found that Mr. Seiler believed that Ms. Ghatt was 
threatening him by suggesting that the only way Mr. Yates would receive his $500,000 
                                                 
15 Ms. Ghatt used the phrase “screen grab” to refer to a screenshot.  This Court has 
previously explained that a “‘screenshot’ is an image that depicts only the content of the 
computer screen.”  Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632, 638 n. 3 (2015).  We will use the terms 
screen grab, screenshot, and screen capture interchangeably consistent with how the 
terminology was used in the record.   
 
 
23 
 
would be if Mr. Seiler dismissed the lawsuit in Utah.  Ultimately, the hearing judge found 
by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt made a knowing and intentional 
misrepresentation regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Yates’s $500,000 by sending the 
screen grab to Mr. Seiler.  
Attorney Grievance Complaint & Bar Counsel’s Investigation  
Mr. Seiler also assisted Mr. Yates with submitting to Bar Counsel an attorney 
grievance complaint, which alleged that Ms. Ghatt was improperly withholding $500,000 
that was wired to her attorney trust account.  Specifically, Mr. Yates explained that Ms. 
Ghatt was required to return the $500,000 to Mr. Yates once the loan to Grove Plaza, LLC 
did not fund on or before February 1, 2015.  On March 30, 2015, Bar Counsel forwarded 
the complaint to Ms. Ghatt and requested a written response.   
Ms. Ghatt submitted that written response to Bar Counsel on April 22, 2015.  Ms. 
Ghatt’s written response stated, in part, that “[o]n more than one occasion, I let Mr. Yates’ 
[sic] attorney know that I did NOT spend his clients’ [sic] money nor did I give it away 
[nor] caused it to be taken or used by another party.  (A screen capture of my bank statement 
showing the funds availability is attached.)”  The screen capture attached to the written 
response to Bar Counsel was similar to the screen grab Ms. Ghatt had sent to Mr. Seiler.  
Both documents purport to be Ms. Ghatt’s Citibank account.  However, the amounts in the 
two business checking accounts had changed.  In addition, the names of the business 
checking accounts had been changed to “Escrow Operating” and “Strategic Capital 
Enterp[.]”  The amount held in the business checking account named Strategic Capital 
Enterprises was blurred out.  The external personal investments account still showed the 
 
24 
 
same balance of $3,888,493.28, but the name was blurred out in such a way that “(Client 
Serv)” was the only portion of the external account name revealed.  Ms. Ghatt later testified 
that the money in the external personal investments account was not being held by her, 
were not available to her, and was instead held by her brother, Mr. Jalloh.  As such, the 
hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt made a knowing and 
intentional misrepresentation to Bar Counsel that she was holding the $500,000 in an 
account shown in the screen capture attached to her response.          
After Ms. Ghatt submitted her written response to the attorney grievance complaint 
on April 22, 2015, she wrote a subsequent letter to Bar Counsel on July 9, 2015.  The 
second letter to Bar Counsel stated that the $500,000 had either been transferred to her 
brother, Mr. Jalloh, or to Strategic Capital Enterprises.  
 
In conducting their investigation, Bar Counsel requested all bank records and bank 
statements for the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account, ending in 8589, as well as the 
sub-account number 4488-805.  After Ms. Ghatt failed to respond to the request, Bar 
Counsel again sent communications to Ms. Ghatt, asking why she allowed her brother to 
have access to the $500,000 after she represented to Mr. Yates that the funds would be held 
in an escrow account and whether that violated the MLRPC.  Ms. Ghatt finally responded 
by stating that Mr. Jalloh did not have access to the funds in the attorney trust account, 
enclosing only the first Escrow Agreement with “the Chore Group, LLC” and monthly 
statements from the attorney trust account.  
 
During Ms. Ghatt’s December 21, 2015 sworn statement and September 5, 2017 
deposition, Ms. Ghatt testified to the following: (1) she had never reported her Citibank 
 
25 
 
attorney trust account in her annual IOLTA reporting requirements because she did not 
realize it was an attorney trust account; (2) that she was simply serving as a pass through 
agent, holding the funds in her attorney trust account for a short period of time while she 
could confirm a sub-account, and then pass the funds out of her attorney trust account; (3) 
that she did not realize that she was involved in a fraudulent scheme until after she had 
signed the escrow agreements; (4) that she believed Citibank authorized Strategic Capital 
to open a sub-account under the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account without her 
authorization; (5) that Mr. Phillips informed Ms. Ghatt that they had orally extended the 
date to finish the transaction with Grove Plaza, LLC; (6) that Mr. Jalloh represented to Ms. 
Ghatt that Mr. Yates had received his $500,000; (7) that Ms. Ghatt received a document 
from Citibank stating that a sub-account with $500,000 had been opened by Strategic 
Capital for the benefit of Mr. Yates; (8) that Mr. Jalloh linked his Morgan Stanley account, 
holding approximately $3,800,000, to her attorney trust account but that neither she nor 
Mr. Jalloh had access to the account or could liquidate that amount; (9) that Zion Capital 
Ventures paid her $100 on January 15, 2015 for fees related to the escrow agreement; (10) 
that she had helped with five or six transactions involving Strategic Capital or Zion Capital; 
and (11) that Ms. Ghatt never requested a statement of transactions for a sub-account and 
never went into a local branch to inquire about the existence of a sub-account.  
The hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt was aware 
that the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account was, in fact, an attorney trust account.  In 
addition, the hearing judge found that Ms. Ghatt made certain statements to Bar Counsel 
that she knew were false.   
 
26 
 
Attorney Grievance Hearing 
 
During the attorney grievance hearing, Bar Counsel called Mr. Seiler, Mr. 
Robinson, and Mr. Kenney as witnesses to testify about the events before and after Mr. 
Yates wired $500,000 to the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account for the purpose of 
assisting Grove Plaza, LLC to obtain a loan with the help of Strategic Capital Enterprises.  
In addition to the three witnesses, Bar Counsel offered, and the hearing judge admitted, 
Professor James Byrne as an expert in the field of advanced fee schemes.  Professor Byrne 
testified as to advanced fee schemes generally as well as whether the events leading Mr. 
Yates to wire $500,000 to the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account constituted a 
fraudulent scheme.  
 
Professor Byrne specifically testified that an advanced fee scheme is a species of 
fraud.  In addition, Professor Byrne testified that, although there is no formal definition of 
advanced fee scheme, all such schemes share the following elements: (1) money is solicited 
and induced to be paid in advance of any promised return; (2) promises and security that 
the funds are safe, risk-free and that the funds will be returned or the funds will lead to 
rewards; (3) a disproportionate promised return or reward; (4) the source of the return or 
reward is obscure; (5) there are distractors used to shift the victim’s focus from the crucial 
questions regarding the complex transactions and complex instruments; (6) secrecy; (7) 
excuses, offers, suggestions, or alternatives after the promised funds and rewards are not 
forthcoming.  
 
With respect to one of the key elements, Professor Byrne explained that the safety 
or security is often provided by way of promises from banks, or promises embodied in the 
 
27 
 
instruments used by banks, such as letters of credit and independent guarantees.  He 
testified that the victims of the fraudulent schemes cannot determine whether these 
sophisticated documents are authentic or not.  Significantly, Professor Byrne stated that 
this security is more often being provided by way of an attorney trust account and escrow 
agreements: 
 
The reputation, I think, generally deserved of the legal profession in 
ensuring the integrity of escrow accounts gives it a certain flavor that 
commands trust and respect. 
 
Most people [] have some experience with escrow if only in terms of 
personal mortgage and so if an attorney is holding the money[,] and holding 
it particularly in an escrow account, victims have a sense that this is 
something on which they can rely and know that their investment is relatively 
risk-free.  They’re sure that they’re going to get their money back, and that 
has a powerful factor.  
 
It’s something that has been increasing in my experience of the 3,000 
or so schemes that I’ve looked at in my career.  I would say that there have 
been maybe [300] to 400, maybe 500 of them[,] have involved attorney 
escrow accounts and that number has been relatively recent and, in my 
experience, increasing.  So it’s a very powerful scheme on the part of 
fraudsters to induce victims to depart with their money.  
 
 
Professor Byrne also testified that he reviewed the documents related to the 
transaction for which Mr. Yates wired $500,000 into the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust 
account.  First, Professor Byrne examined the Confirmation of Deposit document in which 
Ms. Ghatt informed Mr. Yates, Mr. Robinson, and Grove Plaza, LLC that she had 
personally verified that a sub-account had been created under the name Grove Plaza, LLC 
at Citibank.  Professor Byrne stated that the document looked immediately suspicious due 
to the terms “verify” and “confirm.”  Specifically, Professor Byrne testified that he was 
 
28 
 
concerned about the Confirmation of Deposit’s statement that Ms. Ghatt had confirmed 
that $350,00016 had been deposited into a sub-account.  He explained that it would be hard 
for anyone besides the bank to verify and confirm that funds had been deposited into an 
account and that the funds remain in that account.  
In addition, Professor Byrne explained that Citibank, along with all of the banks that 
he has examined, do not operate something called a “sub-account.”  He further testified 
that “sub-account” is a term that he has often encountered in advanced fee schemes; a sub-
account is used to suggest that there was an isolation of funds, adding assurance that the 
funds will be returned or cannot be reached.  Overall, Professor Byrne stated that the 
presence of the term “sub-account” on the Confirmation of Deposit document suggests to 
him that the document is not authentic and could be part of an advanced fee scheme.  
 Professor Byrne further testified that he had never seen the statements on the 
Confirmation of Deposit to the effect that “no third-party had access to the account nor can 
it be encumbered by a third-party,” that the “account expires on [a certain date],” and that 
“Citibank is taking full bank responsibility to insure the funds in the sub-account remain 
in place and are available to the listed beneficiaries until disbursed” do not appear as 
terminology in the commercial banking industry.  Instead, Professor Byrne explained that 
these types of statements often appear in advanced fee schemes that involve escrow 
accounts.   
                                                 
16 As noted on page 14 footnote 8, supra, Ms. Ghatt testified that the $350,000 was a typo 
that should have read $500,000.  
 
29 
 
Overall, Professor Byrne summarized that: (1) the Confirmation of Deposit is not a 
document that would appear in a real commercial transaction; (2) the document was likely 
drafted, instead, by someone who didn’t understand banking transactions; and (3) the 
Confirmation of Deposit is the type of document that would play a role in an advanced fee 
scheme, seeking to induce an investor to put money into an account.   
Professor Byrne also reviewed the Letter of Authorization that Ms. Ghatt sent to 
Mr. Yates; this was the same document that Mr. Yates subsequently filled out with 
instructions on how to return his $500,000 with his signature and Mr. Robinson’s signature.  
During his testimony, Professor Byrne explained that this document is not one that Citibank 
would generate despite the header that indicated it was from the bank.  Instead, Professor 
Byrne testified that the Letter of Authorization appears to him “like something that was [] 
rigged together out of a Citi form that, to me, looks suspicious.”   
Professor Byrne also testified about how attorney trust accounts are misused for 
purposes of advanced fee schemes.  Specifically, Professor Byrne explained that large 
amounts of money would come in and go out of attorney trust accounts when they were 
used as a tool in the fraudulent scheme.  Professor Byrne compared this misuse of attorney 
trust account as 
operating almost like a revolving door.  The victim is given the notion that 
this money is safe, it’s secured, it will not be touched . . . .  The attorney looks 
to the fraudster for instructions, follows those instructions without regard to 
whoever put the money in and quite typically, it’s literally a revolving door.  
The money comes in one day and goes out the next day without any regard 
to whatever the underlying transaction may be, which, of course, gives rise 
to an excuse or a defense that “well, I was following the instructions of my 
 
30 
 
client who is the one who caused the account to be set up and I had no 
knowledge of whether this was proper or not.  
 
(Cleaned up).   
Professor Byrne had an opportunity to review the sworn statement of Ms. Ghatt as 
well as the bank records of the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account.  Professor Byrne 
testified that the sums going in and out of the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account were 
striking and concerning given the proximity in timing of funds coming into the account 
and funds going out.  Specifically, Professor Byrne stated that the account showed “on the 
one hand, relatively minor sums, some of which appear to be personal and then these large 
sums coming in and going right out and that’s a pattern I’ve seen in situations where 
attorney escrow accounts have been abused.”   
 
In sum, Professor Byrne stated that it was his professional opinion, within a 
reasonable degree of professional certainty and based on the examination of the materials 
he discussed in his testimony, that the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account was misused 
“to induce investors to advance funds in connection with a fraudulent scheme.”   
 
On cross-examination, Professor Byrne testified that it was certainly possible for a 
lawyer to be a victim in a fraud that misuses an attorney trust account.  However, Professor 
Byrne clarified that the “question is whether or not, in my opinion, the attorney has 
knowingly lent him or herself to the use of the account in a way that would let his or her 
professional reputation add to the credibility without doing the diligence that’s necessary 
in order to assure them that this was a credible or reasonable exercise. So it’s possible to 
 
31 
 
both be victimized and also to allow one’s self to be misused in the same action.” (Emphasis 
added) (cleaned up).  Professor Byrne expounded on this distinction:  
it’s one thing for a normal genuine commercial transaction to be structured 
in a way that’s based on its nuances there’s misuse, and it’s another where 
an account is effectively being used as a revolving door for money to go in 
and money to go out.  Once, maybe that’s understandable, but where it 
happens a number of times, it is not.  I mean, at the very least it would seem 
to me that professional responsibility would require a much higher degree of 
due diligence to avoid the possibility of facilitating money laundering which 
is what, frankly, this looks like, money being moved in, money being moved 
out.  
 
The hearing judge accepted the observations and expert opinion of Professor Byrne.  
In addition, the hearing judge found by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt 
participated in an advanced fee scheme to induce Mr. Yates and Grove Plaza, LLC to wire 
$500,000 by misusing her attorney trust account and failing to safeguard the funds.   
After Bar Counsel’s case, Ms. Ghatt testified in her own behalf.17  In her own 
testimony, Ms. Ghatt stated that she was misled by her brother, Mr. Jalloh, and Mr. Phillips 
of Strategic Capital in entering as escrow agent to the various transactions, including the 
one in which Mr. Yates wired $500,000 to assist Grove Plaza, LLC.  Ms. Ghatt also stated 
that she called a number, purporting to be a Citibank number, which she received from her 
brother and Ken Phillips.  Ms. Ghatt testified that she called this number to verify whether 
a sub-account was created to guarantee Mr. Yates’s $500,000 and available as a refund 
                                                 
17 After testifying, Ms. Ghatt also called her husband, Dave Ghatt, as a character witness.  
Mr. Ghatt testified that Ms. Ghatt was a good person and a hard worker.  He testified that 
he did not believe she was the type to be involved in fraud  
 
32 
 
should the loan to Grove Plaza, LLC not materialize.  However, Ms. Ghatt did not explain 
what she was told by the alleged Citibank employee.  Moreover, Ms. Ghatt conceded that 
it was a fake number and that she did not ever speak to a real Citibank employee before 
sending the Confirmation of Deposit and Letter of Authorization to Mr. Yates.   
Ms. Ghatt also testified that she relied on the second Escrow Agreement, which 
stated that the escrow agent was to disburse the $500,000.00 deposited into escrow directly 
to Strategic Capital Enterprises, when she wired Mr. Yates’s $500,000 from her attorney 
trust account to Strategic Capital Enterprises.  Ms. Ghatt also testified that her brother, Mr. 
Jalloh, sent her the screenshot of certain funds, allegedly containing the $500,000 owed 
Mr. Yates, in an account purportedly linked to the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account; 
she then “passed that on to Mr. Seiler[.]”  Ms. Ghatt stated that in the time between Mr. 
Yates had wired the $500,000 into the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account and her 
communications with Mr. Seiler, she believed that she had total control over the $500,000 
in a sub-account.  She further testified that she relied on false statements from her brother 
and Mr. Phillips about if and when Mr. Yates would receive his $500,000 back, and then 
relayed those statements to Mr. Seiler as attorney for Mr. Yates.   
On cross-examination, Ms. Ghatt conceded that she should have verified that 
$500,000 in a sub-account was available and was in her control before sending her response 
to Bar Counsel, which stated in pertinent part that “[o]n more than one occasion, I let Mr. 
Yates’ [sic] attorney know that I did NOT spend his clients’ [sic] money nor did I give it 
away [nor] caused it to be taken or used by another party.  (A screen capture of my bank 
statement showing the funds availability is attached.)”  Ms. Ghatt also conceded that she 
 
33 
 
did not immediately inform Mr. Seiler, Mr. Yates, or Bar Counsel that she had entered into 
a prior escrow agreement with Strategic Capital Enterprises and Zion Capital, that her 
brother, Mr. Jalloh, had linked the account with over $3.8 million to the Ghatt Law Group 
attorney trust account, or that her brother had sent her the screenshots of the accounts.    
Ms. Ghatt also testified with regard to the specific transactions in the Ghatt Law 
Group attorney trust account.  During cross-examination, she stated that “I did what 
Strategic Capital told me to do.  I wired to who they told me to do because they were the 
ones authorized to have the funds.”  Specifically, Ms. Ghatt testified that after Mr. Yates 
wired the $500,000 to the attorney trust account, she first wired $50,000 to Strategic Capital 
and then wired $50,000 to a Morgan Stanley account that was not Strategic Capital; Ms. 
Ghatt stated that it was, instead, “an account that Strategic Capital gave me instructions to 
wire the funds to. . . .  that’s the account per their instructions that I was supposed to send 
that to.”  (Cleaned up).  Ms. Ghatt also testified that there was “no requirement that 
Strategic Capital identif[y] who specifically gets the fees.”  In sum, Ms. Ghatt testified that 
she would follow Strategic Capital’s, or Mr. Phillip’s, instructions on where to wire Mr. 
Yates’s money regardless of whether it was being wired to an account owned by Strategic 
Capital.   
In addition to the specific transactions, Ms. Ghatt also testified that Strategic Capital 
paid her $5,000 for her duties as an escrow agent in which she was owed one-half of one 
percent of any disbursement that she did for Strategic Capital.  In addition to the 
transactions involving the $500,000 wired from Mr. Yates, Ms. Ghatt also testified that she 
wired money to Strategic Capital and Zion Capital after receiving certain large sums into 
 
34 
 
the attorney trust account for separate business deals unrelated to Grove Plaza, LLC.  Ms. 
Ghatt further testified that the attorney trust account received large sums of money for deals 
related to Strategic Capital after Mr. Yates had sent her the completed Letter of 
Authorization with wire instructions and Mr. Seiler had sent emails demanding a return of 
the $500,000.  Ms. Ghatt stated that she wired those funds immediately out of the attorney 
trust account despite having knowledge that Mr. Yates sought return of funds from 
Strategic Capital.  Ultimately, Ms. Ghatt testified that when she entered into the escrow 
agreements, she believed the transactions to be legitimate, but realized it was not legitimate 
when she could not access the sub-account to return the $500,000 to Mr. Yates.  
During cross-examination, Ms. Ghatt also conceded that she was making personal 
transactions using her attorney trust account, including ATM withdrawals and debit card 
purchases for clothes and food.  At the end of Ms. Ghatt’s testimony and cross-
examination, the hearing judge asked Ms. Ghatt whether she would agree that she, at the 
very least, misused the attorney trust account.  In a labored response, Ms. Ghatt ultimately 
stated yes, that she conceded that she was responsible for misusing the attorney trust 
account.   
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 
This Court reviews a hearing judge’s findings of fact for clear error, giving due 
regard to the hearing judge’s opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses.  Md. 
Rule 19-741(b)(2)(B).  See also Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Dyer, 453 
Md. 585, 643, cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 508 (2017).  We review a hearing judge’s 
conclusions of law de novo without deference.  Md. Rule 19-741(b)(1); Attorney Grievance 
 
35 
 
Comm’n of Maryland v. Shuler, 443 Md. 494, 501 (2015).  This Court determines whether 
clear and convincing evidence establishes that a lawyer violated an MLRPC.  Md. Rule 19-
727(c) (“Bar Counsel has the burden of proving the averments of the petition by clear and 
convincing evidence.”).   
DISCUSSION 
Bar Counsel does not except to any of the hearing judge’s findings of fact or 
conclusions of law.  However, Respondent takes exception to both the judge’s findings of 
fact and conclusions of law.  
At the outset we will note that the Respondent takes great issue with the hearing 
judge’s findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law because the hearing judge 
“essentially adopted the Commission’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.”  
However, this Court has consistently made clear that a hearing judge in an attorney 
grievance matter may adopt one party’s filings in full as long as the hearing judge 
concludes that the pleading reflects his or her own independent factual findings and legal 
conclusions proven by clear and convincing evidence.  Attorney Grievance v. Joseph, 422 
Md. 670, 696 (2011) (“A judge hearing an attorney grievance matter does not need to meld 
together his or her own opinion, . . . but may adopt one party's filing in its entirety, as long 
as it accurately reflects the judge's independent factual findings, proven by clear and 
convincing evidence at the hearing, and the legal conclusions flowing therefrom.”); 
Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136, 180 (2014); Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Davy, 435 Md. 674, 696 (2013); Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n of Maryland v. Barton, 442 Md. 91, 129 (2015).   
 
36 
 
A.  
Exceptions to the Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact 
 
Ms. Ghatt notes several exceptions to the hearing judge’s factual findings.  In all of 
these exceptions, Ms. Ghatt primarily argues that the hearing judge did not properly 
consider that she was fulfilling her duties as escrow agent by following the specific and 
limited directions of the two escrow agreements when she disbursed Mr. Yates’s $500,000 
to Strategic Capital Enterprises immediately after Mr. Yates had wired the funds to the 
Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account.     
 
Specifically, Ms. Ghatt first excepts to the hearing judge’s finding that she was 
required to hold Mr. Yates’s $500,000 until the $5,000,000 loan was funded to Grove 
Plaza, LLC despite the fact that two escrow agreements contained clear directions that 
escrow agent was to immediately disburse the $500,000 to Strategic Capital.  In doing so, 
Ms. Ghatt argues that the hearing judge ignored critical language in the escrow agreements.   
 
The hearing judge made the following explicit finding of fact: “The undisputed 
evidence was that Respondent disbursed the funds in ways not authorized pursuant to the 
terms set forth in the [Letter of Authorization.]”  To the extent that Ms. Ghatt excepts to 
this finding of fact, the exception is overruled.  Although the Escrow Agreement with 
Grove Plaza, LLC and Strategic Capital does direct Ms. Ghatt to disburse the $500,000 to 
Strategic Capital, the Escrow Agreement also specifically states that Ms. Ghatt was to 
disburse the funds only “once Ghatt Law Group has verified $500,000 has been deposited 
into a sub-account opened in the name of Grove Plaza, LLC[.]”  As the hearing judge 
properly found, there was absolutely no evidence that a sub-account was opened in the 
name of Grove Plaza, LLC.   
 
37 
 
Ms. Ghatt testified that she relied on the Letter of Authorization, which she 
subsequently sent to Mr. Yates, for her belief that a sub-account was in fact created.  
However, the Letter of Authorization and the Escrow Agreement both make plain that the 
sub-account held for the benefit of Mr. Yates and Grove Plaza, LLC was a sub-account of 
the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account.  Specifically, the second Escrow agreement 
indicated that the “Parties recognize the sub-account at Citi Private Bank is a sub-account 
of the Ghatt Law Group.  Any and all questions regarding the sub-account or of the banking 
relationship of the Ghatt Law Group with Citi Private Bank are to be directed to the Ghatt 
Law Group. The Ghatt Law Group will accommodate any questions and or verifications 
regarding the accounts.”  Further, the agreement provided that “[a]ny attempt to make 
direct contact with Citi Private Bank without the direct, written consent of the Ghatt Law 
Group will be cause for immediate termination of the Escrow Agreement and of the related 
transaction.”  Ms. Ghatt had notice and understanding that the sub-account was supposed 
to be created under her attorney trust account.  As such, Ms. Ghatt was required to do more 
than rely on a Letter of Authorization in order to confirm and personally verify that a sub-
account was created.   
 
In the conclusions of law, the hearing judge also stated that the “Respondent failed 
to hold funds in that or any other properly designated trust account until the loan was 
funded and/or the funds returned to Mr.  Yates.”  To the extent that Ms. Ghatt intended to 
 
38 
 
except to this finding,18 the exception is overruled.  As we have noted, Ms. Ghatt is correct 
that the Escrow Agreement with Grove Plaza, LLC and Strategic Capital did instruct her 
to disburse the $500,000 from her attorney trust account to Strategic Capital after she 
verified that a sub-account was created under her attorney trust account.  However, Ms. 
Ghatt also had a “duty to act with the care of a professional fiduciary for any property held 
by an attorney on behalf of third persons.”  Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. 
Johnson, 409 Md. 470, 492 (2009).  By agreeing to receive the funds as well as sending 
Mr. Yates the Confirmation of Deposit and Letter of Authorization, Ms. Ghatt assumed the 
role of a fiduciary for Mr. Yates’s funds and the corresponding responsibility of 
safeguarding those funds.  See id. at 494 (holding that an attorney “assumed the role of a 
fiduciary” for a third person’s funds after signing a document, which stated that to the best 
of his knowledge the funds received had been or would be disbursed by the attorney).  As 
a fiduciary of those funds, Ms. Ghatt was required to either hold and safeguard the money 
in her attorney trust account or provide Mr. Yates with a complete disclosure and 
explanation of what will happen to his funds as outlined in the escrow agreement, how his 
funds will be safeguarded by a sub-account, and how she had personally confirmed that 
the sub-account was created.  Because Ms. Ghatt failed to do so, her exception as to this 
finding is overruled.   
                                                 
18 We also note that this statement appeared in the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.  As 
such, this statement was not an explicit finding of fact that the hearing judge found by clear 
and convincing evidence.   
 
39 
 
 
Ms. Ghatt also excepts to the hearing judge’s “decision to insert itself into a fully 
executed Escrow Agreement and apply brand new additional duties and responsibilities 
that were not anticipated.”  However, the hearing judge never made the finding that Ms. 
Ghatt was required to perform duties beyond those contained in the Escrow Agreement.  
Therefore, this exception is without merit and is overruled.  See Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n of Maryland v. Smith, 457 Md. 159, 212 (2018) (“Thus, the exception is without 
merit, and therefore overruled, because the hearing judge never made the finding that 
respondent [now excepts to.]”) 
 
Next, Ms. Ghatt excepts to the hearing judge’s “refusal to acknowledge and 
recognize that [Mr.] Kenney and [Mr.] Robinson ratified their own understanding that the 
funds were properly released to Strategic because [] they signed a resolution” and “elected 
to ignore the evidence on the [r]ecord that shows [Mr.] Kenney and [Mr.] Robinson had 
ample time and opportunity to review the Escrow Agreement[.]”  There is nothing in the 
findings of fact or conclusion of law that indicates the hearing judge ignored the fact that 
Mr. Kenney and Mr. Robinson of Grove Plaza, LLC entered into a resolution with Strategic 
Capital.  In fact, the hearing judge specifically outlined and detailed the events leading up 
to the resolution, the terms of the resolution, and the parties to the resolution in her findings 
of fact.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md. 376, 385 
(2001) (“Exceptions to the findings of our hearing judges in attorney discipline matters 
should be directed to facts that he [or she] finds, or facts that he [or she] expressly rejects 
or expressly refuses to consider.”).  In any event, the resolution bears little if any 
significance to whether Mr. Yates had knowledge of what was going to happen to his funds 
 
40 
 
and whether Ms. Ghatt properly safeguarded those funds.  As the hearing judge properly 
pointed out, Mr. Yates was not a party to the resolution nor did he have any opportunity to 
review the resolution or the Escrow Agreement.  Therefore, this exception is overruled.  
 
Fourth and finally, Ms. Ghatt takes exception to the hearing judge’s rejection of any 
and all evidence showing the actions Ms. Ghatt took to recover Mr. Yates’s $500,000.  
However, we do not find anything in the findings of fact or conclusions of law that indicates 
the hearing judge did not consider the actions that Ms. Ghatt took in attempting to locate 
Mr. Yates’s $500,000 that was supposed to be held in a sub-account of the Ghatt Law 
Group attorney trust account.  There is no indication that the hearing judge expressly 
rejected these actions.  Simply because the hearing judge did not mention those particular 
facts does not necessarily indicate that the hearing judge rejected or refused to consider 
such evidence.  See id. at 384–85 (“We initially note that there is nothing in the findings, 
or the memoranda of the parties, that indicates that Judge Cawood did not consider the 
disease (or condition) in question. There is certainly nothing that we can find that indicates 
that Judge Cawood rejected the proffer, or the medical opinions of Drs. Blumberg and 
Tellefesen that respondent suffers from the condition. . . .  The mere failure to mention a 
particular fact in its findings, normally is not the equivalent of failing to consider it.”) 
(Emphasis added).  As such, Ms. Ghatt’s final exception is also overruled.  
B. 
Exceptions to the Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law 
 
Ms. Ghatt takes exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion that she violated the 
following: (1) MLRPC 1.15 Safekeeping Property; (2) MLRPC 3.3 Candor Toward the 
Tribunal; (3) MLRPC 8.1 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters; (4) MLRPC 8.4 
 
41 
 
Misconduct; (5) BOP § 10-306 Misuse of Trust Money and BOP § 10-606 Penalties.  Ms. 
Ghatt does not take exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion that she violated Md. Rule 
16-607 Commingling of Funds or the conclusion that she violated Md. Rule 16-609 
Prohibited Transactions.   
MLRPC 1.15 Safekeeping Property 
The hearing judge concluded that Ms. Ghatt violated her fiduciary duty to Mr. 
Yates.  Specifically, the hearing judge concluded that Ms. Ghatt placed the interests of her 
clients, Strategic Capital and Zion Capital, and herself above the interests of Mr. Yates and 
Grove Plaza, LLC by doing little to ensure that the sub-account was a genuine account 
prior to disbursing Mr. Yates’s funds. The hearing judge noted that Ms. Ghatt did not 
disclose to Mr. Yates that $50,000 would be disbursed to Zion Capital and $450,000 would 
be immediately disbursed to Strategic Capital.  The hearing judge further concluded that 
Ms. Ghatt owed a duty to investigate the suspicious nature of the transactions and hold the 
funds in safekeeping until that was resolved.  Moreover, the hearing judge concluded that 
Ms. Ghatt failed to keep the trust funds separate from her personal funds, using her attorney 
trust account for personal transactions.  Finally, the hearing judge concluded that Ms. Ghatt 
failed to promptly deliver to Mr. Yates the $500,000 that he was entitled to receive after 
the $5 million loan did not fund.  Based on these conclusions, the hearing judge found by 
clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 1.15(a), (b), (d), and (e).  
The pertinent sections of MRPC 1.15 provide: 
(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a 
lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the 
lawyer’s own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained 
 
42 
 
pursuant to Title 16, Chapter 600 of the Maryland Rules, and records shall 
be created and maintained in accordance with the Rules in that Chapter. 
Other property shall be identified specifically as such and appropriately 
safeguarded, and records of its receipt and distribution shall be created and 
maintained. Complete records of the account funds and of other property 
shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for a period of at least five 
years after the date the record was created. 
(b) A lawyer may deposit the lawyer’s own funds in a client trust account 
only as permitted by Rule 16–607 b. . . .   
(d) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person 
has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third 
person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by 
agreement with the client, a lawyer shall deliver promptly to the client or 
third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is 
entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall render 
promptly a full accounting regarding such property. 
(e) When a lawyer in the course of representing a client is in possession of 
property in which two or more persons (one of whom may be the lawyer) 
claim interests, the property shall be kept separate by the lawyer until the 
dispute is resolved. The lawyer shall distribute promptly all portions of the 
property as to which the interests are not in dispute. 
 
Based on our independent review of the record, we agree with the hearing judge that 
Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 1.15(a), (b), (d), and (e).  
It is clear from the record and her own testimony that Ms. Ghatt did not 
personally verify or confirm that a sub-account under her attorney trust account was 
created and held $500,000 for the benefit of Mr. Yates before she disbursed the 
$500,000 that Mr. Yates had wired into her attorney trust account.  Moreover, Ms. 
Ghatt did not simply disburse Mr. Yates’s funds to Strategic Capital as directed by 
the Escrow Agreement; instead, Ms. Ghatt also disbursed $50,000 to Zion Capital, 
which was not authorized by the Escrow Agreement and occurred unbeknownst to 
 
43 
 
Mr. Yates. Therefore, Ms. Ghatt did not appropriately safeguard Mr. Yates’s funds 
as required by MLRPC 1.15(a).  
 
We also agree with the hearing judge that Ms. Ghatt did not keep Mr. Yates’s 
funds separate from her personal funds and deposited her own money into the same 
account that held Mr. Yates’s $500,000 in violation of MLRPC 1.15(b).  It is clear 
from the bank records from Citibank that Ms. Ghatt made personal purchases the 
same day Mr. Yates had wired the money into the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust 
account.  In addition, Ms. Ghatt continued to use her attorney trust account, holding 
Mr. Yates’s money, as her personal account throughout the following five months, 
using the account to make personal purchases and depositing funds into the account.  
As such, there is clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 
1.15(b).  
 
It is also clear from the record that Ms. Ghatt did not provide a full accounting 
of Mr. Yates’s funds as required by MLRPC 1.15(d).  Instead, Ms. Ghatt 
continuously evaded and ignored Mr. Seiler’s requests for a full accounting of the 
$500,000 from February 2015 to May 2015. Therefore, we agree with the hearing 
judge that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 1.15(d).  
 
Although there is insufficient evidence that Mr. Yates disputed the 
distribution of his $500,000 at the time he wired the funds, Ms. Ghatt did not deliver 
or distribute the $500,000 that Mr. Yates was entitled to receive after the $5 million 
loan did not fund.  As such, we agree with the hearing judge that Ms. Ghatt violated 
both MLRPC 1.15(d) and (e).   
 
44 
 
 
We, therefore, overrule Ms. Ghatt’s exceptions to the hearing judge’s 
conclusion that she violated MLRPC 1.15(a),(b),(d), and (e).   
 MLRPC 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal 
 
The hearing judge also found that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 3.3 when she 
knowingly made misrepresentations during the civil action Mr. Yates brought against 
Respondent and the Ghatt Law Group in Utah.  Pursuant to MLRPC 3.3, “[a] lawyer shall 
not knowingly ... 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 lawyer.”  In her 
initial disclosures to the Utah District Court, Ms. Ghatt stated that all parties to the escrow 
agreements knew that Ms. Ghatt never had control of the $500,000, that Ms. Ghatt never 
had control of the funds or the ability to remove the funds, and that Citibank was 
responsible for wiring the $500,000 to Mr. Yates rather than Ms. Ghatt or the Ghatt Law 
Group.   
We agree with the hearing judge that these representations to the court constituted 
statements that Ms. Ghatt knew to be false.  Ms. Ghatt had knowledge, based on the Escrow 
Agreement, that she was required to personally verify $500,000 in a sub-account of the 
attorney trust account, that Mr. Yates was to wire $500,000 into her account to wire to 
Strategic, and that she was specifically assigned the duty of delivering the $500,000 from 
the sub-account to Mr. Yates if the $5 million loan did not fund.  These were directions 
specifically contained in the Escrow Agreement with Strategic Capital and Grove Plaza, 
LLC, which Ms. Ghatt signed.  We find that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 3.3 and overrule 
Ms. Ghatt’s exception.  
 
45 
 
MLRPC 8.1 Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters 
 
MLRPC 8.1 provides, in relevant part, that “a lawyer 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[.]”  The hearing judge found that Ms. Ghatt violated 
MLRPC 8.1 when she submitted the screen grab of her attorney trust account to Bar 
Counsel and when she failed to provide all requested bank records and information to Bar 
Counsel in a timely fashion.  
 
We also find by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 8.1.  
The record shows that on April 22, 2015, Ms. Ghatt submitted a written response to Bar 
Counsel in which Ms. Ghatt claimed that a “screen capture of my bank statement showing 
the funds availability is attached.”  Ms. Ghatt attached the same screen grab that she 
previously sent to Mr. Seiler with minor variations.  The screenshot showed a Morgan 
Stanley Online (ClientServ) account holding approximately $3,800,000.  Ms. Ghatt 
claimed that the funds were available in her attorney trust account.  However, Ms. Ghatt 
later testified that Mr. Jalloh, her brother, had linked his account to her attorney trust 
account and had sent her the screenshots.  We agree with the hearing judge that Ms. Ghatt 
violated MLRPC 8.1 when she falsely claimed to Bar Counsel that she had the available 
funds in her attorney trust account when she knew that the funds were actually in a separate 
account owned by her brother, Mr. Jalloh.  
 
46 
 
 
We also find clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 8.1 
when she failed to timely provide Bar Counsel with the requested bank records and 
accounting until October 2015, nearly four months after first requested.   There is also 
nothing in the record that shows Ms. Ghatt ever completely responded to Bar Counsel’s 
request for information relating to other bank accounts that she mentioned during her 
testimony.  Therefore, we overrule Ms. Ghatt’s exception as to MLRPC 8.1  
BOP § 10-306 Misuse of Trust Money and BOP § 10-606 Penalties 
 
The hearing judge found that Ms. Ghatt violated BOP §§ 10-306 and 10-606.  Under 
BOP § 10-306, a “lawyer may not use trust money for any purpose other than the purpose 
for which the trust money is entrusted to the lawyer.”  Trust money is defined as “a deposit, 
payment, or other money that a person entrusts to a lawyer to hold for the benefit of a client 
or a beneficial owner.”  BOP § 10-301(d).  When an attorney uses trust money for purposes 
other than for the purpose the money is entrusted to the lawyer, then the attorney “is guilty 
of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or 
imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or both.”   BOP § 10-606(b).   
 
Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that the $500,000 that 
Mr. Yates wired to the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account constituted “trust money” 
for purposes of BOP §§ 10-306 and 10-606 because it was money that Mr. Yates entrusted 
to Ms. Ghatt to hold and disburse for the benefit of Grove Plaza, LLC pursuant to the terms 
of the Escrow Agreement.  Ms. Ghatt violated BOP § 10-306 when she failed to personally 
confirm that a sub-account was opened with $500,000, which was required before the trust 
money was to be wired into her attorney trust account.  She also violated BOP § 10-306 
 
47 
 
when she disbursed a portion of the trust money to Zion Capital, which was not authorized 
by the Escrow Agreement that stated Ms. Ghatt was to wire the trust money to Strategic 
Capital only.  Therefore, Ms. Ghatt’s conduct also constituted a misdemeanor pursuant to 
BOP § 10-606.  We overrule Ms. Ghatt’s exceptions to the hearing judge’s conclusions as 
to BOP §§ 10-306 and 10-606.   
MLRPC 8.4 Misconduct 
 
The hearing judge found that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d).  
MLRPC 8.4 provides in pertinent part:  
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Lawyers’ 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 lawyer’s 
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer 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[.] 
 
 
Based on our independent review, we conclude that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 
8.4(a) when she violated other provisions of the MLRPC.  We also conclude that Ms. Ghatt 
violated MLRPC 8.4(b) when she misused trust money in violation of BOP § 10-306, 
which constituted a misdemeanor.  See BOP § 10-606(b).  Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 
8.4(c) when she dishonestly stated in the Confirmation of Deposit, which she sent to Mr. 
 
48 
 
Yates, that she had personally verified and confirmed the existence of a sub-account 
holding $350,00019 within the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account.   
In addition, Ms. Ghatt engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and 
misrepresentation when she continuously evaded Mr. Seiler’s questions and demands for 
an accounting of Mr. Yates’s $500,000.  Ms. Ghatt also violated MLRPC 8.4(c) when she 
continuously stated to Mr. Seiler that she did not give away Mr. Yates’s $500,000 despite 
the fact that she intentionally and knowingly disbursed the funds to Strategic Capital and 
Zion Capital.   
She also violated MLRPC 8.4(c) when Ms. Ghatt sent Mr. Seiler the screen grab of 
the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account with a Morgan Stanley account which Ms. 
Ghatt alleged “show[ed] about 3.4M in various client holdings, and within that amount is 
Mr. Yates’[s] $500,000.”  Ms. Ghatt knew that the Morgan Stanley account was owned by 
her brother, Mr. Jalloh, and that she could not access the money in the Morgan Stanley 
account at the time Ms. Ghatt made this misrepresentation to Mr. Seiler.  Ms. Ghatt violated 
MLRPC 8.4(c) when she implied that Mr. Yates would not receive his funds until Mr. 
Seiler and Mr. Yates withdrew the attorney grievance complaint and the complaint filed in 
the Utah District Court.  Although Ms. Ghatt testified that she was simply trying to suggest 
to Mr. Seiler that his actions were unnecessary and nearing on harassment, we agree with 
the hearing judge that this testimony was not credible.  Ms. Ghatt intentionally included 
                                                 
19 Again, Ms. Ghatt testified that the Confirmation of Deposit was supposed to read 
$500,000 rather than $350,000.   
 
49 
 
the demands to withdraw both complaints in the same email that she stated she was 
approved to deliver the funds back to Mr. Yates.    
 
Ms. Ghatt once again violated MLRPC 8.4(c) when she made knowingly false 
statements in her initial disclosures to the Utah District Court, when she made knowingly 
false statements to Bar Counsel during their investigation, and when she sent Bar Counsel 
a similar screenshot as the one she sent to Mr. Seiler, implying that she had access and 
control of Mr. Yates’s $500,000.  
 
We also conclude that Ms. Ghatt violated MLRPC 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice.  A lawyer violates MLRPC 8.4(d) when he or 
she acts in such a way that negatively impacts the public’s perception of the legal 
profession.  See Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Marcalus, 442 Md. 197, 205 
(2015).  This Court does not have sufficient evidence to find that Ms. Ghatt created or 
originally knew that the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account was being misused as part 
of an advanced fee scheme.  However, Ms. Ghatt acted in a way that negatively impacts 
the perception of the legal profession when she continuously evaded questions about Mr. 
Yates’s $500,0000, which was subsequently lost to an advanced fee scheme, 
misrepresented how she handled the $500,000, and falsely implied that she had control of 
the $500,000 when she sent the screenshots to Mr. Seiler and Bar Counsel.  This Court 
finds clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt should have investigated the suspicious 
nature of the advanced fee scheme rather than continuously acting in a way that covered 
up the scam.   
 
Therefore, we overrule Ms. Ghatt’s exception as to MLRPC 8.4.  
 
50 
 
Md. Rule 16-607 Commingling of Funds and Md. Rule 16-609 Prohibited 
Transactions 
 
Ms. Ghatt did not except to the hearing judge’s conclusion that she violated former 
Md. Rules 16-607 and 16-609.  Former Md. Rule 16-607 generally prohibited an attorney 
from depositing personal funds into an attorney trust account unless explicitly required or 
permitted by the Maryland Rules.  Ms. Ghatt violated Md. Rule 16-607 when she 
deposited, or permitted others to deposit on her behalf, $5,000 that she earned for serving 
as escrow agent for Strategic Capital and Zion Capital, which effectively commingled her 
funds with the attorney trust account.  
 
We also conclude that Ms. Ghatt violated former Md. Rule 16-609, which prohibited 
an attorney from using funds for any unauthorized purpose, prohibited an attorney from 
making cash disbursements from an attorney trust account, and prohibited a disbursement 
from an attorney trust account that would create a negative balance.  The record shows 
clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt disbursed $50,000 of Mr. Yates’s funds to 
Zion Capital, which was not authorized by the Escrow Agreement or Mr. Yates, resulting 
in a violation of both BOP § 10-306 and former Md. Rule 16-609(a).  We also find clear 
and convincing evidence that Ms. Ghatt made ATM withdrawals as well as debit card 
purchases from the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account in violation of former Md. Rule 
16-609(b).  Finally, we find clear and convincing evidence for the hearing judge’s 
conclusion that Ms. Ghatt violated former Md. Rule 16-609(c) when she incurred a 
negative balance on the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust account in January 2015 when she 
wired $125,000 out of the attorney trust account twice.  
 
51 
 
Based on our independent review of the record, we find clear and convincing 
evidence that Ms. Ghatt violated both former Md. Rule 16-607 and 16-609.     
SANCTION 
We now consider the appropriate sanction for Ms. Ghatt’s misconduct.  The 
Commission, through Bar Counsel, recommends that the appropriate sanction for Ms. 
Ghatt is disbarment.  Respondent, instead, argues that she should only be reprimanded 
because she was not part of the advanced fee scheme and did not commit intentional 
dishonest misconduct.  
In fashioning the appropriate sanction, this Court will take into account the facts and 
circumstances of the case, the gravity of the misconduct, and any aggravating or mitigating 
factors.  Overall, the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the lawyer, but rather to protect 
the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession.  See Attorney Grievance 
Comm’n of Maryland v. Jacobs, 459 Md. 291, 311 (2018).   
This Court has repeatedly stated:  
[I]n 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 MRPC.  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. 
 
 
52 
 
Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 413–14.  This Court further explained that disbarment is ordinarily 
the appropriate sanction because “unlike 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 similarly 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 of Maryland v. Cherry-Mahoi, 388 Md. 124, 161 (2005) (quoting Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n of Maryland 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. They must 
carefully administer and account for those funds. Appropriating any part of those funds to 
their own use and benefit without clear authority to do so cannot be tolerated.”  Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Owrutsky, 322 Md. 334, 345 (1991).   
 
In this case, we have concluded that Ms. Ghatt engaged in intentional dishonest 
conduct and that she misused trust money.  Ms. Ghatt specifically represented to Mr. Yates, 
by way of the Confirmation of Deposit, that she had personally verified and confirmed the 
existence of a sub-account holding $500,000 in the Ghatt Law Group attorney trust 
account.  However, Ms. Ghatt’s testimony revealed that she merely relied on the same 
Confirmation of Deposit that Strategic Capital had sent her rather than verifying the sub-
account by investigating with Citibank and her attorney trust account.  In addition, Ms. 
 
53 
 
Ghatt sent a screenshot of her Citibank attorney trust account to both Mr. Seiler, acting as 
Mr. Yates’s attorney, and Bar Counsel, suggesting that she was holding the $500,000 owed 
to Mr. Yates despite full knowledge that her brother had linked his own account to Citibank 
and that he had sent her the screenshots.  These are the two most troubling instances of 
dishonest conduct, which constituted violations of MLRPC 3.3, 8.1, and 8.4.   
In addition, Ms. Ghatt improperly used the trust money that Mr. Yates wired into 
her attorney trust account by wiring $50,000 directly to Zion Capital, which was not 
authorized by the Escrow Agreement or Mr. Yates.  Ms. Ghatt also used the attorney trust 
account, holding Mr. Yates’s money, as a personal bank account by making personal 
purchases, depositing personal funds, and making ATM withdrawals.  These actions 
constituted violations of MLRPC 1.15, BOP §§ 10-306 and 10-606, and former Md. Rules 
16-607 and 16-609.   
Both of these violations are the type this Court has repeatedly ordered disbarment 
absent compelling extenuating circumstances.  As such, we are inclined to order 
disbarment, but will first consider any mitigating or aggravating factors to assess whether 
they amount to “compelling extenuating circumstances.”  Vanderlinde, 364 Md. at 413.   
 
Although the hearing judge found that Ms. Ghatt did not establish any mitigating 
factors by a preponderance of the evidence, Ms. Ghatt urges this Court to consider the 
following mitigating circumstances: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; timely good 
faith efforts to make restitution; full and free disclosure and cooperative attitude toward 
Bar Counsel; inexperience in the practice of law; imposition of other penalties; remorse; 
and absence of a prior disciplinary record.  
 
54 
 
 
Contrary to Ms. Ghatt’s assertions, the record makes clear that Ms. Ghatt did not 
lack a dishonest or selfish motive during the events leading to the attorney grievance 
complaint.  Instead, Ms. Ghatt acted dishonestly and with a selfish motive when she 
continuously misled Mr. Seiler, Mr. Yates, and Bar Counsel about what happened to Mr. 
Yates’s $500,000.  Ms. Ghatt also acted with a selfish and dishonest motive when she sent 
the misleading screen grab purporting to be her attorney trust account with $3.4 million to 
Mr. Seiler and, in exchange, demanded that he withdraw the attorney grievance complaint 
and civil lawsuit in Utah.  
 
Ms. Ghatt also did not make timely good faith efforts to make restitution or make 
full and free disclosure with a cooperative attitude to Bar Counsel.  Instead, Ms. Ghatt still 
has not wired Mr. Yates $500,000 from a sub-account of her attorney trust account that she 
stated she had personally verified; Ms. Ghatt has also not paid Mr. Yates the $500,000 
judgment awarded against her and in favor of Mr. Yates in the Utah civil action.  Rather 
than cooperate with Bar Counsel, Ms. Ghatt either did not timely submit bank records or 
failed entirely to submit requested records.  Moreover, Ms. Ghatt made misrepresentations 
to Bar Counsel during their investigation when she sent the screen grab to the Commission 
without specifying that the Morgan Stanley account was owned by her brother, who also 
forwarded her the screenshots.   
 
Inexperience in the practice of law and the imposition of losses for representing 
herself in this matter also do not constitute mitigating circumstances.  Although Ms. Ghatt 
may not have had experience with banking transactions or escrow agreements, Ms. Ghatt 
had a duty to investigate and understand the two escrow agreements involved in this matter 
 
55 
 
rather than simply passing along information and money as requested by her clients, 
Strategic Capital and Zion Capital.  The fact that Ms. Ghatt represented herself and was 
exposed to damaging claims in this matter does not suffice as a mitigating circumstance 
when she had previously engaged in intentionally dishonest conduct and misappropriation 
of trust money.   
 
Ms. Ghatt finally contends that her remorse should be a mitigating factor.  However, 
this Court finds that whatever remorse Ms. Ghatt has shown for Ms. Yates’s lost $500,000 
is greatly offset by the fact that Ms. Ghatt continuously misrepresented and misled Mr. 
Yates, Mr. Seiler, and Bar Counsel about what happened to the funds, what documents she 
was relying on in disbursing the funds, and whether she had control of the funds.  
Therefore, any remorse that Ms. Ghatt displayed after such intentionally dishonest conduct 
is not a compelling extenuating circumstance.       
This Court finds that the only mitigating factor established by Ms. Ghatt is that she 
has no prior disciplinary record.  However, this Court has previously found that the lack of 
prior disciplinary actions and a good reputation does not constitute compelling extenuating 
circumstances that would warrant a sanction other than disbarment.  See Attorney 
Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Palmer, 417 Md. 185, 214 (2010).  In this case we also 
conclude that the lack of a prior disciplinary record is insufficient to rise to the level of 
“compelling extenuating circumstances.”  
Based on our review of the record, we agree with the hearing judge that there is 
clear and convincing evidence of the following aggravating factors: Ms. Ghatt acted with 
a dishonest or selfish motive when she failed to disclose the escrow agreements and 
 
56 
 
pertinent information to Mr. Seiler or Bar Counsel; she displayed a pattern of misconduct 
in misrepresenting the disbursements of the $500,000;  she refused to acknowledge that 
she played a role in the advanced fee scheme by unquestioningly providing use of her 
attorney trust account to Strategic Capital and Zion Capital; Ms. Ghatt had substantial 
experience in the practice of law; and, to date Ms. Ghatt has not paid Mr. Yates any portion 
of the $500,000 either as required by the Confirmation of Deposit or the judgment against 
her in the Utah action.   
In this case, we concluded that Ms. Ghatt was involved in intentionally dishonest 
conduct and misusing trust money, both of which ordinarily result in disbarment absent 
“compelling extenuating circumstances.”  Having been presented with multiple 
aggravating factors and no sufficient “compelling extenuating circumstances,” we hold that 
the appropriate sanction in this case is disbarment. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT 
SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED 
BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT,  
INCLUDING 
COSTS 
OF 
ALL 
TRANSCRIPTS, 
PURSUANT 
TO 
MARYLAND 
RULE 
19-709(d). 
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR 
OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 
COMMISSION AGAINST JENEBA 
JALLOH GHATT IN THE SUM OF 
THESE COSTS.