Title: Attorney Grievance v. Mahone

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Willie James Mahone, Miscellaneous 
Docket AG No. 82, September Term, 2015  
 
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE — SANCTIONS — INDEFINITE SUSPENSION — 
Respondent Willie James Mahone violated the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional 
Conduct (“MLRPC”), Maryland Rules regarding attorney trust accounts, and Maryland 
Code (1957, 2010 Repl. Vol.), § 10-306 of the Business Occupations and Professions 
Article (“BP”) when he failed to maintain records accurately reflecting the status of his 
attorney trust account.  Furthermore, Respondent commingled personal funds and client 
funds within the account, withdrew cash from his trust account, and created negative 
balances in multiple client accounts. 
 
On February 12, 2014, Sandy Spring Bank notified the Attorney Grievance Commission 
of Maryland (“AGC”) that Respondent’s attorney trust account was overdrawn by 
$86.48.  When the AGC investigated the matter, it found that Respondent could not 
produce records of his trust account activity.  In addition, Respondent failed to timely and 
completely respond to Bar Counsel’s requests for information.  Respondent violated (1) 
MLRPC 1.1 (Competence); (2) MLRPC 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary 
Matters); (3) MLRPC 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct); (4) Maryland Rule 16.606.1 (Attorney 
Trust Account Record-Keeping); (5) Maryland Rule 16-607 (Commingling of Funds); (6) 
Maryland Rule 16-609 (Prohibited Transactions); and (7) BP § 10-306 (Misuse of Trust 
Money) when he mismanaged his attorney trust account and failed to fully comply with 
the AGC’s disciplinary investigation.  Taken together, these violations warrant indefinite 
suspension. 
 
 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No.: 32111 
Argued: November 3, 2016 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Misc. Docket AG No. 82 
 
September Term, 2015 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 
OF MARYLAND 
 
v. 
 
 
WILLIE JAMES MAHONE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
 
Greene 
 
Adkins 
 
McDonald 
 
Watts 
 
Hotten 
 
Getty, 
 
JJ. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Opinion by Adkins, J. 
McDonald and Watts, JJ., concur and dissent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Filed:  December 19, 2016
On February 29, 2016, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland 
(“AGC”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial 
Action against Respondent Willie James Mahone.  Bar Counsel charged Mahone with 
violating the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”), Maryland 
Rules governing attorney trust accounts, and a statutory provision regarding misuse of 
trust money.1  Specifically, Bar Counsel alleged that Mahone violated the following 
provisions:  (1) MLRPC 1.1 (Competence);2 (2) MLRPC 1.4 (Communication);3 (3) 
                                              
1 Effective July 1, 2016, the Maryland Rules were revised.  The MLRPC were 
renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) and 
renumbered.  Rules Order (June 6, 2016).  The revised rules are now numbered as 
follows: MARPC 19-301.1 (Competence); MARPC 19-301.4 (Communication); 
MARPC 19-301.15 (Safekeeping Property); MARPC 19-308.1 (Bar Admission and 
Disciplinary Matters); and MARPC 19-308.4 (Misconduct).  The Maryland Rules 
regarding attorney trust accounts were also renumbered.  The revised rules are now 
numbered as follows: Rule 19-407 (Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping); Rule 19-
408 (Commingling of Funds); and Rule 19-410 (Prohibited Transactions).  We will refer 
to the MLRPC and the previous numbering of the Maryland Rules regarding attorney 
trust accounts because the misconduct at issue occurred before these changes.   
 
2 Rule 1.1. Competence. 
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.  
Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, 
thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation. 
 
3 Rule 1.4. Communication. 
(a)  A lawyer shall: 
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or 
circumstance with respect to which the client’s 
informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(f), is 
required by these Rules; 
(2) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter; 
     (continued . . .) 
2 
MLRPC 1.15(a), (c), and (d) (Safekeeping Property);4 (4) MLRPC 8.1(b) (Bar 
Admission and Disciplinary Matters);5 (3) MLRPC 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct);6  (4) 
                                                                                                                                                  
(3) promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information; and 
(4) consult with the client about any relevant 
limitation on the attorney’s conduct when the 
attorney knows that the client expects assistance 
not permitted by the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of 
Professional Conduct or other law.  
(b)  A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably 
necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions 
regarding the representation. 
 
4 Rule 1.15. Safekeeping Property. 
(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 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. 
*** 
(c)  Unless the client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, 
to a different arrangement, a lawyer shall deposit legal fees and 
expenses that have been paid in advance into a client trust 
account and may withdraw those funds for the lawyer’s own 
benefit only as fees are earned or expenses incurred. 
(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 
     (continued . . .) 
3 
Maryland Rule 16.606.1 (Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping);7 (5) Maryland Rule 
16-607 (Commingling of Funds);8 (6) Maryland Rule 16-609 (Prohibited Transactions);9 
                                                                                                                                                  
to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall 
render promptly a full accounting regarding such property. 
 
5 Rule 8.1. Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters. 
An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or a 
lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in 
connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not: 
*** 
(b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension 
known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or 
knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information 
from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this 
rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise 
protected by Rule 1.6. 
 
6 Rule 8.4. Misconduct. 
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;  
*** 
(c)   engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation;  
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice[.] 
 
7 Rule 16-606.1. Attorney trust account record-keeping. 
(a) Creation of records. The following records shall be created 
and maintained for the receipt and disbursement of funds of 
clients or of third persons: 
(1) Attorney trust account identification. An 
identification of all attorney trust accounts 
maintained, including the name of the financial 
institution, account number, account name, date 
the account was opened, date the account was 
closed, and an agreement with the financial 
     (continued . . .) 
4 
                                                                                                                                                  
institution establishing each account and its 
interest-bearing nature. 
(2) Deposits and disbursements. A record for each 
account that chronologically shows all deposits 
and disbursements, as follows: 
(A) for each deposit, a record made at or near 
the time of the deposit that shows (i) the 
date of the deposit, (ii) the amount, (iii) the 
identity of the client or third person for 
whom the funds were deposited, and (iv) 
the purpose of the deposit; 
(B) for 
each 
disbursement, 
including 
a 
disbursement made by electronic transfer, a 
record made at or near the time of 
disbursement that shows (i) the date of the 
disbursement, (ii) the amount, (iii) the 
payee, (iv) the identity of the client or third 
person for whom the disbursement was 
made (if not the payee), and (v) the purpose 
of the disbursement;  
(C) for each disbursement made by electronic 
transfer, a written memorandum authorizing 
the transaction and identifying the attorney 
responsible for the transaction. 
(3) Client matter records. A record for each client 
matter in which the attorney receives funds in 
trust, as follows: 
(A) for each attorney trust account transaction, 
a record that shows (i) the date of the 
deposit or disbursement; (ii) the amount of 
the deposit or disbursement; (iii) the 
purpose for which the funds are intended; 
(iv) for a disbursement, the payee and the 
check 
number 
or 
other 
payment 
identification; and (v) the balance of funds 
remaining in the account in connection with 
the matter; and  
(B) an identification of the person to whom the 
unused portion of a fee or expense deposit 
is to be returned whenever it is to be 
returned to a person other than the client. 
     (continued . . .) 
5 
                                                                                                                                                  
(4) Record of funds of the attorney. A record that 
identifies the funds of the attorney held in each 
attorney trust account as permitted by Rule 16-
607 b. 
(b) Monthly reconciliation. An attorney shall cause to be 
created a monthly reconciliation of all attorney trust account 
records, client matter records, records of funds of the attorney 
held in an attorney trust account as permitted by Rule 16-
607 b, and the adjusted month-end financial institution 
statement balance. The adjusted month-end financial 
institution statement balance is computed by adding 
subsequent 
deposits 
to 
and 
subtracting 
subsequent 
disbursements from the financial institution’s month-end 
statement balance. 
(c) Electronic records. Whenever the records required by this 
Rule are created or maintained using electronic means, there 
must be an ability to print a paper copy of the records upon a 
reasonable request to do so. 
(d) Records to be maintained. Financial institution month-end 
statements, any canceled checks or copies of canceled checks 
provided with a financial institution month-end statement, 
duplicate deposit slips or deposit receipts generated by the 
financial institution, and records created in accordance with 
section (a) of this Rule shall be maintained for a period of at 
least five years after the date the record was created. 
 
8 Rule 16-607. Commingling of funds. 
a. General prohibition. An attorney or law firm may deposit in 
an attorney trust account only those funds required to be 
deposited in that account by Rule 16-604 or permitted to be so 
deposited by section b. of this Rule. 
b. Exceptions. 1. An attorney or law firm shall either (A) deposit 
into an attorney trust account funds to pay any fees, service 
charges, or minimum balance required by the financial 
institution to open or maintain the account, including those fees 
that cannot be charged against interest due to the Maryland 
Legal Services Corporation Fund pursuant to Rule 16-610  b 1 
(D), or (B) enter into an agreement with the financial institution 
to have any fees or charges deducted from an operating account 
maintained by the attorney or law firm. The attorney or law 
firm may deposit into an attorney trust account any funds 
     (continued . . .) 
6 
and (7) Maryland Code (1957, 2010 Repl. Vol.), § 10-306 of the Business Occupations 
and Professions Article (“BP”) (Misuse of Trust Money).10 
                                                                                                                                                  
expected to be advanced on behalf of a client and expected to 
be reimbursed to the attorney by the client. 
2.  An attorney or law firm may deposit into an attorney 
trust account funds belonging in part to a client and in part 
presently or potentially to the attorney or law firm. The portion 
belonging to the attorney or law firm shall be withdrawn 
promptly when the attorney or law firm becomes entitled to the 
funds, but any portion disputed by the client shall remain in the 
account until the dispute is resolved. 
3.  Funds of a client or beneficial owner may be pooled and 
commingled in an attorney trust account with the funds held for 
other clients or beneficial owners.  
 
9 Rule 16-609. Prohibited transactions. 
a. Generally. An attorney or law firm may not borrow or pledge 
any funds required by the Rules in this Chapter to be deposited 
in an attorney trust account, obtain any remuneration from the 
financial institution for depositing any funds in the account, or 
use any funds for any unauthorized purpose. 
b. No cash disbursements. An instrument drawn on an attorney 
trust account may not be drawn payable to cash or to bearer, 
and no cash withdrawal may be made from an automated teller 
machine or by any other method. All disbursements from an 
attorney trust account shall be made by check or electronic 
transfer. 
c. Negative balance prohibited. No funds from an attorney trust 
account shall be disbursed if the disbursement would create a 
negative balance with regard to an individual client matter or 
all client matters in the aggregate. 
 
10 Business Occupations and Professions Article § 10-306. Misuse of trust 
money. 
A lawyer may not use trust money for any purpose other 
than the purpose for which the trust money is entrusted to the 
lawyer. 
 
7 
 
We transmitted the matter to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and 
designated the Honorable Cynthia Callahan (“the hearing judge”) to conduct an 
evidentiary hearing.  Following a one-day hearing, the hearing judge issued Findings of 
Fact and Conclusions of Law, in which she found by clear and convincing evidence that 
Mahone violated MLRPC 1.1, MLRPC 8.1(b), MLRPC 8.4(a), (c), and (d); Maryland 
Rules 16.606.1, 16-607, 16-609; and BP § 10-306. 
THE HEARING JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT 
Mahone was admitted to the Maryland Bar in May 1980.  The AGC’s 
investigation of Mahone was triggered when Sandy Spring Bank notified the AGC that 
an overdraft of his attorney trust account had occurred.  The hearing judge made the 
following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence:  
In February 2014, an overdraft in the amount of $86.48 occurred in Mahone’s 
attorney trust account.  On March 10, 2014, Bar Counsel sent Mahone a letter 
requesting an explanation of the overdraft and client ledgers, monthly bank statements, 
deposit slips, and canceled checks from November 2013 to March 2014.  The letter 
requested a response within 10 days.  Mahone responded on March 31, 2014, but did 
not provide the requested client ledgers or deposit slips.  His response was also 10 days 
late. 
Bar Counsel sent Mahone follow-up letters requesting the client ledgers and 
deposit slips on April 10, 2014, November 18, 2014, and December 10, 2014.  Despite 
these repeated requests, Mahone never responded. 
8 
Due to Mahone’s failure to provide the requested information, Bar Counsel 
subpoenaed Sandy Spring Bank for Mahone’s attorney trust account records for 
November 2013 to December 2014.  A forensic investigator for the AGC, Charles E. 
Miller, IV, analyzed Mahone’s attorney trust account records.  Miller created a 
transaction summary and client ledger summary from these records, which indicated: 
(1) negative balances in nine client trust accounts; (2) earned attorney’s fees deposited 
into nine client trust accounts; (3) remaining balances in five client trust accounts; (4) 
11 electronic transfers, including several checks Mahone made out to himself; and (5) a 
$1,500 cash withdrawal.  
On April 9, 2015, Bar Counsel provided Mahone with Miller’s summaries and 
requested additional information related to the transactions in the summaries by April 
24, 2015.  Although Mahone was granted a 14-day extension, Bar Counsel did not 
receive a response.  Bar Counsel then requested a response by May 18, 2015.  Mahone 
responded by letter on May 20, 2015, stating that he would provide the requested 
information by June 1, 2015.  Mahone finally responded to Bar Counsel’s request on 
August 16, 2015, but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or any of the requested 
supporting documentation.  Mahone later sent Bar Counsel a supplemental response, 
but none of the information he provided addressed Bar Counsel’s requests.   
On June 23, 2016, Bar Counsel deposed Mahone.  During his deposition, 
Mahone admitted that he failed to create and maintain proper records, failed to create 
records associated with electronic transactions, and commingled funds.  Mahone also 
answered questions related to four transactions in Miller’s summaries.  Miller updated 
9 
his summaries to reflect this new information, and the summaries were received into 
evidence.  The summaries demonstrated the following by clear and convincing 
evidence: 
1. 
Mahone caused negative balances in the following client matters: 
06/25/2014 
Acoota 
-$800.00 
12/01/2014 
Harrison 
-$525.00 
10/08/2014 
Juarez 
-$1,472.00 
10/16/2014 
Leppo 
-$1,365.00 
06/16/2014 
Mahmood 
-$516.00 
08/29/2014 
Mahmood 
-$2,035.20 
12/17/2014 
Patty 
-$2,000.00 
09/25/2014 
Rice 
-$1,575.11 
02/12/2014 
Unknown 
-$86.48 
 
2. 
Mahone deposited earned attorney’s fees into his attorney trust account in 
the following matters: 
11/16/2014 
Anzures 
$238.75 
11/04/2014 
Branson 
$125.00 
11/04/2014 
Fletcher 
$125.00 
11/16/2013 
Goldberg 
$300.00 
09/10/2014 
Knill 
$125.00 
09/10/2014 
Lopez 
$350.00 
11/04/2014 
Marks 
$125.00 
12/04/2014 
Marks 
$625.00 
11/08/2013 
Smith-Jasper 
$260.00 
 
3. 
Mahone improperly maintained funds in his attorney trust account 
belonging to clients, third parties, and sometimes himself in the following matters: 
04/02/2014 
Duckett 
$27.31 
08/06/2014 
Hickman 
$600.00 
01/27/2014 
Hopkins 
$200.00 
08/11/2014 
Salahudding 
$537.00 
08/19/2014 
Yamada 
$1,628.00 
 
10 
4. 
Mahone failed to maintain records associated with the following electronic 
funds transfers from his attorney trust account: 
01/29/2014 
Unknown 
-$1,000.00 
10/02/2014 
Unknown 
-$2,000.00 
 
5. 
Mahone failed to maintain any records associated with the following 
transactions and cannot identify whose money was withdrawn from the attorney trust 
account: 
09/09/2014 
Hopehill United 
Methodist 
Church 
-$100.00 
10/02/2014 
Check to 
Mahone 
-$2,000.00 
11/29/2013 
Check to 
Mahone 
-$800.00 
12/30/2013 
Check to 
Mahone 
-$900.00 
02/12/2014 
Cash Deposit 
$125.00 
02/18/2014 
Cash Deposit 
$100.00 
04/25/2014 
Cash Deposit 
$1,500.00 
11/19/2014 
Check to 
Mahone 
-$500.00 
11/25/2014 
Check to 
Mahone 
-$865.00 
 
6. 
On September 9, 2014, Mahone made a $100 personal donation to his 
church from his attorney trust account.  
11 
THE HEARING JUDGE’S CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
From these facts, the hearing judge concluded that Mahone violated MLRPC 1.1, 
8.1(b), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d).  The hearing judge also found that Mahone violated 
Maryland Rules 16-606.1, 16-607, and 16-609, and BP § 10-306.11 
MLRPC 1.1: Competence 
MLRPC 1.1 requires attorneys to represent their clients with the necessary legal 
knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation.  The hearing judge found that Mahone 
violated MLRPC 1.1 when “he failed to competently handle client and third party funds 
deposited into his trust account.”  In addition, the hearing judge found that Mahone 
violated MLRPC 1.1 when “he failed to create and maintain records of the deposits and 
withdrawals of client and third party funds.” 
MLRPC 8.1: Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters 
 
MLRPC 8.1 imposes an obligation on Maryland attorneys to fully cooperate with 
disciplinary investigations.  The hearing judge found that Mahone violated MLRPC 
8.1(b) by failing to timely and completely respond to Bar Counsel’s letters requesting 
additional information on March 10, 2014, April 10, 2014, and November 18, 2014.   
MLRPC 8.4: Misconduct 
MLRPC 8.4 defines professional misconduct for attorneys.  The hearing judge 
found that Mahone violated MLRPC 8.4(a), (c), and (d).  He violated MLRPC 8.4(a) by 
breaching other rules of professional conduct.  Mahone violated 8.4(c) “when he created 
                                              
11 The hearing judge did not find a violation of MLRPC 1.4 or 1.15.  The Findings 
of Fact and Conclusions of Law do not contain any mention of these charges.  
12 
negative balances in his trust account for individual client matters and when he over-
drafted his account.”  Lastly, the hearing judge concluded that Mahone’s conduct, taken 
as a whole, harms the reputation of the legal profession in violation of MLRPC 8.4(d).   
Rule 16-606.1: Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping 
Maryland Rule 16-606.1 requires attorneys to create and maintain records 
reflecting the status and activity of attorney trust accounts.  The hearing judge found that 
although Mahone did not act with “malice or for personal gain,” he violated this Rule: 
[Mahone] did not create and maintain records for the receipt 
[or] disbursement of funds [for] clients or [ ] third persons.  
He was unable to identify which client matters were 
associated with numerous transactions.  [Mahone] admits that 
he failed to perform monthly reconciliations of his trust 
account.  He was unable to reconcile many of the individual 
client ledgers or account for the balance of the funds 
maintained in his account at any given time.  [Mahone] failed 
to create or maintain any records associated with the 
electronic transfers from his account. 
 
Rule 16-607: Commingling of Funds 
Maryland Rule 16-607 prohibits attorneys from depositing personal funds into an 
attorney trust account.  The hearing judge found that Mahone violated Rule 16-607 by 
“routinely [leaving] his own funds in his trust account as a ‘buffer’” and depositing 
earned attorney’s fees into the trust account.  Additionally, the hearing judge found that 
none of the exceptions in Rule 16-607 b—which provides situations in which an attorney 
may commingle personal funds with the clients’—applied.   
13 
Rule 16-609: Prohibited Transactions 
Under Maryland Rule 16-609, attorneys are prohibited from using funds within a 
trust account for any unauthorized purpose, withdrawing cash from a trust account, and 
creating a negative balance within a trust account.  The hearing judge found that Mahone 
violated Rule 16-609 by using trust funds for unauthorized purposes, withdrawing $1,500 
in cash from his trust account, and creating negative balances in accounts belonging to 
Juarez, Leppo, Mahmood, Rice, and “Unknown.”   
BP § 10-306: Misuse of Trust Money 
 
BP § 10-306 prohibits attorneys from using trust money for any unauthorized 
purpose.  The hearing judge found that Mahone violated BP § 10-306 for the same 
reasons he violated MLRPC 8.4(c) and Rule 16-609. 
DISCUSSION 
“In attorney discipline proceedings, this Court has original and complete 
jurisdiction and conducts an independent review of the record.”  Att’y Grievance Comm’n 
v. Page, 430 Md. 602, 626 (2013) (citation omitted).  Within this independent review, 
however, we accept the hearing judge’s findings of fact unless they are determined to be 
clearly erroneous.  Id. (citation omitted).  If the hearing judge’s factual findings are 
founded on clear and convincing evidence, this Court will not disturb them.  Att’y 
Grievance Comm’n v. Ugwuonye, 405 Md. 351, 368 (2008) (citation omitted).  By 
contrast, this Court reviews the hearing judge’s conclusions of law without deference.  Id. 
(citation omitted). 
 
14 
Exceptions 
Both parties are permitted to file “(1) exceptions to the findings and conclusions of 
the 
hearing 
judge 
[and] 
(2) 
recommendations 
concerning 
the 
appropriate 
disposition . . . .”  Md. Rule 16-758(b).  If neither party files any exceptions, “the Court 
may treat the findings of fact as established for the purpose of determining appropriate 
sanctions, if any.”  Md. Rule 16-759(b)(2)(A).  Mahone takes exception to multiple 
conclusions in the hearing judge’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.12  Bar 
Counsel has filed no exceptions. 
First, Mahone excepts to the hearing judge’s finding that he “failed to respond” to 
Bar Counsel’s letters sent on April 10, 2014, November 18, 2014, and December 10, 
2014.  Mahone argues that because he did not willfully fail to respond to these inquires, 
the hearing judge’s finding is incorrect.  He asserts that he did not receive these letters 
because he had changed office locations.  Similarly, Mahone excepts to the hearing 
judge’s finding that he “failed to provide information, documentation, or explanation 
sufficient to account for the negative account balances, earned fee deposits, remaining 
balances, electronic transfers, unidentified transfers, and cash withdrawals for any of the 
                                              
12 Mahone, acting pro se, filed exceptions on October 4, 2016, in which he 
excepted to several of the hearing judge’s findings of fact and any conclusions of law 
premised on the factual findings.  Approximately three weeks later, Mahone requested 
leave to file a supplement in support of his exceptions.  During oral argument, this Court 
granted Mahone’s request and accepted his supplemental arguments.  Therefore, we 
considered Mahone’s supplemental arguments when ruling on his exceptions.   
   
15 
accounts in question.”  Mahone contends that he provided “information covering the 
substance of the requests.”  Therefore, he argues, this finding is inaccurate. 
Mahone also takes exception to the hearing judge’s findings that he created 
negative account balances, deposited earned attorney’s fees into his attorney trust 
account, improperly maintained client and third party funds in his trust account, and 
failed to maintain records identifying whose money was withdrawn from the trust 
account.  Mahone argues that these findings are erroneous, in part or in full, and 
unsupported by the record evidence.  Specifically, he asserts that Bar Counsel has not 
presented evidence definitively establishing negative account balances and the 
commingling of funds within the trust account.  Furthermore, Mahone argues that Bar 
Counsel did not prove that he failed to maintain proper bank records.  He contends that 
the fact that he did not provide sufficient records to Bar Counsel does not mean that he 
did not maintain them.  Mahone also excepts to any conclusions of law based on these 
factual findings.13   
Lastly, Mahone takes exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion that he violated 
MLRPC 8.4(c).  He argues that Bar Counsel has not presented any evidence that he acted 
with dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  Rather, Mahone contends, this case 
only involves negligence.  He points out that the hearing judge did not find that he acted 
with any intent to deceive or that he made any misrepresentations.  Moreover, Bar 
                                              
13 In his Exceptions to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Mahone also 
took exception to the hearing judge’s finding that he admitted to commingling funds.  At 
oral argument, however, Mahone, through counsel, stated that he was no longer 
maintaining that exception.  
16 
Counsel presented no evidence that any client was deprived of any funds.  Mahone 
asserts that his commingling of client and personal funds was due to his failure to move 
earned fees into his own account, and not any fraud or dishonesty on his part.   
We overrule Mahone’s exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact.  Bar 
Counsel submitted sufficient evidence that Mahone failed to respond to letters requesting 
information related to the disciplinary investigation.  Although Mahone’s failure to 
respond may not have been willful, the hearing judge only found that he did not 
respond—she made no factual determination as to willfulness.  In the Conclusions of 
Law, on the other hand, the hearing judge found a violation of MLRPC 8.1(b) based in 
part on Mahone’s failure to respond to Bar Counsel’s November 18, 2014 letter.  We 
agree that Bar Counsel did not present sufficient evidence that Mahone knowingly failed 
to respond to the November 18, 2014 letter, as required by the 8.1(b).  But the hearing 
judge’s conclusion that Mahone violated MLRPC 8.1(b) was also based on letters Bar 
Counsel sent on March 10, 2014 and April 10, 2014.  Mahone provided an incomplete 
response to Bar Counsel’s March 10, 2014 letter and completely failed to respond to the 
April 10, 2014 letter.  Bar Counsel’s November 18, 2014 letter reminded Mahone that he 
had not responded to the April letter and once again requested additional information.  
“Bar Counsel’s persistence will not absolve an attorney of the responsibility to make a 
reasonably prompt reply.”  Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Taylor, 405 Md. 697, 719 (2008).  
Therefore, we overrule Mahone’s exception on this issue. 
We also overrule Mahone’s exception to the hearing judge’s finding that he failed 
to maintain records reflecting the activity of his attorney trust account.  At oral argument 
17 
and through his supplemental briefings, Mahone admitted that he failed to maintain the 
required records concerning these accounts.  As to Bar Counsel’s requests for additional 
documentation, Mahone explained that “he could not produce what he admittedly failed 
to maintain.”  There is also sufficient evidence that Mahone created negative account 
balances, deposited earned attorney’s fees into his attorney trust account, and 
commingled attorney, client, and third party funds.  Therefore, we overrule Mahone’s 
exceptions to these findings. 
Lastly, we sustain Mahone’s exception to the hearing judge’s conclusion that he 
violated MLRPC 8.4(c).  As discussed below, we find that Bar Counsel has not presented 
clear and convincing evidence that Mahone intended to deceive a client or third party.  
Additionally, we find that he has not made any false statement or misrepresentation in 
violation of MLRPC 8.4(c).  
Conclusions of Law 
 
We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mahone violated MLRPC 1.1, 
MLRPC 8.1(b), MLRPC 8.4(a) and (d); Maryland Rules 16.606.1, 16-607, 16-609; and 
BP § 10-306.  We do not find, however, that Mahone violated MLRPC 8.4(c).   
Mahone violated MLRPC 1.1 and Rule 16-606.1 when he failed to maintain 
records for his attorney trust account.  He violated Rule 16-607 when he commingled his 
personal funds with client funds.  When Mahone used trust account funds for an 
unauthorized purpose, withdrew cash from the account, and created negative balances 
within multiple client accounts, Mahone violated Rule 16-609 and BP § 10-306.  
Additionally, Mahone’s failure to respond to Bar Counsel’s requests for information 
18 
completely and in a timely manner constitute a violation of MLRPC 8.1(b).  Taken 
together, these violations result in a breach of MLRPC 8.4(a).  Lastly, Mahone’s overall 
mismanagement of client funds constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice in violation of MLRPC 8.4(d). 
Although Mahone’s conduct clearly violated the provisions described above, he 
did not violate MLRPC 8.4(c), which prohibits attorneys from engaging in “conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”  Fraud is statutorily defined as 
“conduct that is fraudulent under the substantive or procedural law of [Maryland] and has 
a purpose to deceive.”  MLRPC 1.0(e) (emphasis added).  “This does not include merely 
negligent misrepresentation or negligent failure to apprise another of relevant 
information.”  Id. cmt. 5.  The MLRPC do not define dishonesty, deceit, or 
misrepresentation.  Therefore, we use the ordinary meanings of these words.  See Bd. of 
Educ. v. Marks–Sloan, 428 Md. 1, 28 (2012).  In doing so, “it is helpful to consult their 
dictionary definitions.”  Id.  Black’s Law Dictionary (“Black’s”) defines “deceit” as 
“[t]he act of intentionally leading someone to believe something that is not true” or “an 
act designed to deceive or trick.”  Deceit, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).   
Applying these definitions to this case, we conclude that Mahone did not engage 
in conduct involving fraud or deceit.  There is no evidence that Mahone acted with a 
purpose to deceive in failing to maintain his trust account records or in failing to timely 
and completely respond to Bar Counsel.  Furthermore, Bar Counsel has not presented any 
evidence suggesting that Mahone intentionally led Bar Counsel or any third party to 
19 
believe something that was not true.  In fact, the hearing judge found that Mahone acted 
“without malice or personal gain.”   
 As to the other two terms, Black’s defines “dishonesty” as “behavior that deceives 
or cheats people” or “untruthfulness.”  Dishonesty, Black’s Law Dictionary.  And 
“misrepresentation” is defined as “[t]he act or an instance of making a false or misleading 
assertion about something, [usually] with the intent to deceive.”  Misrepresentation, 
Black’s Law Dictionary.  As used in MLRPC 8.4(c), a “misrepresentation is made when 
the attorney ‘knows the statement is false,’ and cannot be ‘the product of mistake, 
misunderstanding, or inadvertence.’”  Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Zeiger, 428 Md. 546, 
556 (2012) (quoting Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Siskind, 401 Md. 41, 68–69 (2007)).  An 
attorney can violate MLRPC 8.4(c) through dishonesty or misrepresentation absent any 
intent to deceive.  Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Dore, 433 Md. 685, 707–08 (2013).  In this 
case, however, Mahone has not done so.  Although Mahone was certainly negligent in his 
handling of his attorney trust account, Bar Counsel has not presented clear and 
convincing evidence that Mahone made a dishonest or false assertion in violation of 
MLRPC 8.4(c).  See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. DiCicco, 369 Md. 662, 684 (2002) (“It 
is well settled that this Court will not find a violation of [MLRPC] 8.4(c) when the 
attorney’s misconduct is the product of ‘negligent rather than intentional misconduct.’” 
(citations omitted)). 
20 
Sanction for Violations of MLRPC 1.1, 8.1(b), 8.4(a) and (d); Maryland Rules 
16-606.1, 16-607, and 16-609; and BP § 10-306 
 
This Court imposes sanctions on errant attorneys “to protect the public and the 
public’s confidence in the legal profession” and “to deter other lawyers from violating the 
Rules of Professional Conduct.”  Taylor, 405 Md. at 720.  To accomplish this, the 
sanction should be “commensurate with the nature and the gravity of the misconduct and 
the intent with which it was committed.”  Id. (citation omitted).  Thus, the style and 
severity of the sanction “depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.”  Id.  This 
Court does not impose sanctions with the goal of punishing the attorney.  Id. 
When assessing the appropriate result, we often refer to the American Bar 
Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which advises that we consider 
four questions:  “(1) What is the nature of the ethical duty violated?; (2) What was the 
lawyer’s mental state?; (3) What was the extent of the actual or potential injury caused by 
the lawyer’s misconduct?; and (4) Are there any aggravating or mitigating 
circumstances?”  Id.; see also Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (Am. Bar Ass’n 
1992), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_respons
ibility/sanction_standards.authcheckdam.pdf [https://perma.cc/RAJ8-G6UH].  Possible 
mitigating factors include:   
[A]bsence of a prior disciplinary record; absence of a 
dishonest or selfish motive; personal or emotional problems; 
timely good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify 
consequences of misconduct; full and free disclosure to 
disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings; 
inexperience in the practice of law; character or reputation; 
physical or mental disability or impairment; delay in 
disciplinary proceedings; interim rehabilitation; imposition of 
21 
other penalties or sanctions; remorse; and finally, remoteness 
of prior offenses.  
 
Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 395 Md. 586, 599 (2006) (quoting Att’y Grievance 
Comm’n v. Glenn, 341 Md. 448, 488–89 (1996)). 
Bar Counsel recommends that Mahone be disbarred.  This case does not warrant 
such a severe sanction.  This Court has held that “[d]isbarment is warranted in cases 
involving flagrant neglect of client affairs, including the failure to communicate with 
clients or respond to inquiries from Bar Counsel.”  Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Thomas, 
440 Md. 523, 558 (2014) (citations omitted).  Additionally, absent “compelling 
extenuating circumstances,” disbarment is ordinarily the sanction for intentional 
dishonest conduct, including theft.  Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Gracey, 448 Md. 1, 27 
(2016) (citation omitted).  “Although ignorance does not excuse a violation of 
disciplinary rules, a finding with respect to the intent with which a violation was 
committed is relevant on the issue of the appropriate sanction.”  Att’y Grievance Comm’n 
v. Bell, 432 Md. 542, 559 (2013) (quoting Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Obi, 393 Md. 643, 
658 (2006)).  For the careless mishandling of funds that did not result in financial loss to 
the client, typically the appropriate sanction is indefinite suspension.  Id.  (collecting 
cases).   
Here, it is clear that Mahone did not act with a dishonest or selfish intent and there 
is no evidence that any of Mahone’s clients lost money due to his mismanagement.  
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Mahone’s mismanagement of his attorney trust 
account impacted the quality of his legal representation, and Mahone has taken steps to 
22 
remedy his admittedly “sloppy recordkeeping.”  He has resolved to more closely examine 
his monthly statements and has contacted an accountant who agreed to monitor his 
attorney trust account.       
In addition, even though Mahone failed to comply with Bar Counsel’s requests in 
a timely manner, and when he did, he did not provide all the requested information, there 
is no evidence that he intentionally failed to comply with the investigation.  Indeed, 
Mahone was deposed and attempted to clarify several of the questionable transactions 
highlighted in Miller’s reports.  Mahone could not satisfactorily explain every transaction 
for the very reason Bar Counsel pursued disciplinary action against him—
mismanagement of his accounts and poor record-keeping.  As Mahone himself pointed 
out, he cannot produce documentation that he failed to keep in the first place.  Finally, 
Mahone has expressed remorse and there is no evidence of a dishonest or selfish motive.           
 
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Bell and Attorney Grievance Commission v. 
DiCicco provide us with guidance on the appropriate sanction.  In Bell, the attorney only 
maintained an attorney trust account, not an operating account, and paid his personal 
expenses from the trust account.  Bell, 432 Md. at 556.  His trust account records revealed 
multiple transactions that could not be attributed to a specific client, negative balances, 
and 45 cash disbursements totaling nearly $62,000 that Bell paid to himself.  Id. at 548–
49.  In addition, Bell had received a prior reprimand for attempting to obtain an 
unreasonable fee from a client in violation of MLRPC 8.4(a).  Id. at 560.  Despite Bell’s 
disciplinary history and “continuous mishandling” of his trust account, we rejected Bar 
Counsel’s request for an indefinite suspension with right to re-apply after 90 days.  Id. at 
23 
563.  Instead, we imposed the sanction of indefinite suspension with the right to re-apply 
after 30 days.  Id.  As mitigating factors, we considered that Bell did not have the intent 
to defraud his clients, had attended a training on proper record-keeping, and had 
corrected his trust account overdrafts.  Id. at 562.  Thus, Bell illustrates that lack of intent 
to defraud and corrective action can mitigate trust account mismanagement.   
Similarly, in DiCicco, we imposed an indefinite suspension with a right to re-
apply after 90 days on an attorney who failed to maintain client funds in a separate trust 
account, frequently caused his trust account to have a negative balance, and used his trust 
account as his personal bank account.  In rejecting Bar Counsel’s recommendation for 
disbarment, we “consider[ed] the absence of fraudulent intent and the lack of evidence 
that any client suffered financial loss resulting from Respondent’s misconduct.”  
DiCicco, 369 Md. at 688.  Therefore, it is appropriate for us to consider Mahone’s intent, 
whether his clients suffered financial loss, and any corrective action he has taken in 
determining his sanction.  Here, there is no evidence that any of Mahone’s clients 
suffered financial loss or that Mahone intended to defraud them, and he has hired an 
accountant to help him manage his financial affairs—all mitigating factors.   
 
Arguing in favor of disbarment, Bar Counsel emphasizes that Mahone has violated 
the MLRPC on three previous occasions.  Although this history does constitute an 
aggravating factor, we do not agree that these prior violations were severe enough to 
warrant Mahone’s disbarment in this case.  In 1997, Mahone was sanctioned with an 
indefinite suspension for MLRPC violations related to withholding taxes.  In 2007, 
Mahone was reprimanded for failing to respond to Bar Counsel’s lawful requests for 
24 
information.  In 2012, Mahone was reprimanded for failing to safe-keep third party funds.  
Mahone’s last indefinite suspension was almost 20 years ago.  Additionally, his last two 
reprimands were both entered by consent order, which shows he cooperated with Bar 
Counsel and took responsibility for his conduct in these matters.  We find that these prior 
violations are outweighed by the lack of any intent to deceive or dishonesty in this case.   
That said, Mahone’s prior sanction and reprimands are still factors we must 
consider when fashioning a sanction.  Mahone requests that we impose indefinite 
suspension with the right to re-apply after a term this Court deems appropriate.  But given 
his disciplinary history—three different disciplinary actions, two of which involved the 
mishandling of money—we find that a more severe sanction is warranted.  See Att’y 
Grievance Comm’n v. Mba-Jonas, 397 Md. 690, 702 (2007) (characterizing definite 
suspensions and indefinite suspensions with right to re-apply as “more lenient” than 
permanent indefinite suspension).  Therefore, we decline to adopt Mahone’s requested 
sanction.   
Accordingly, we conclude that indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction. 
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 WILLIE J. MAHONE IN 
THE SUM OF THESE COSTS.
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
No. 82 
 
September Term, 2015 
______________________________________ 
 
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 
OF MARYLAND 
 
v. 
 
WILLIE JAMES MAHONE 
______________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
Greene 
Adkins 
McDonald 
Watts 
Hotten 
Getty, 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Watts, 
J., which McDonald, J., joins 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed:  December 19, 2016 
 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No. 32111-M  
 
Argued: November 3, 2016  
 
 
Respectfully, I concur in part and dissent in part.  I concur with respect to the 
violation of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”), and I 
dissent solely as to the appropriate sanction.  Even with the exception to the MLRPC 
8.4(c) violation having been sustained, given the seriousness of Willie James Mahone 
(“Mahone”)’s misconduct and his prior disciplinary record, from my perspective, 
disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
The hearing judge concluded that Mahone had violated MLRPC 1.1 
(Competence), 8.1(b) (Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or 
Misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (Conduct That Is Prejudicial to the Administration of 
Justice); Maryland Rules 16-606.1 (Attorney Trust Account Record-Keeping), 16-607 
(Commingling of Funds), and 16-609 (Prohibited Transactions); and Md. Code Ann., 
Bus. Occ. & Prof. (“BOP”) § 10-306 (Trust Money Restrictions).  The hearing judge 
determined that Mahone’s violation of Maryland Rule 16-606.1 was “without malice or 
personal gain[.]”  The Majority upholds the hearing judge’s conclusions as to MLRPC 
1.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d); Maryland Rules 16-606.1, 16-607, and 16-609; and BOP § 10-
306.  See Maj. Slip Op. at 17.  The Majority, however, sustains Mahone’s exception to 
the hearing judge’s conclusion as to MLRPC 8.4(c).  See id.  
Taking into account the Majority’s sustaining of the exception as to the MLRPC 
8.4(c) violation and the hearing judge’s determination that Mahone violated Maryland 
Rule 16-606.1 without malice or personal gain does not obfuscate the conclusion that 
disbarment is warranted.  In 1997, this Court indefinitely suspended Mahone from the 
practice of law in Maryland for MLRPC violations that occurred when Mahone failed to 
- 2 - 
comply with his obligations with regard to withholding taxes, see id. at 23; in 2007, this 
Court granted a Joint Petition for Reprimand by Consent for Mahone’s violation of 
MLRPC 8.1(b) (Disciplinary Matters), see Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mahone, 400 
Md. 95, 927 A.2d 418 (2007); and, most recently, in 2012, this Court granted a joint 
petition for reprimand for Mahone’s violations of MLRPC 1.1 (Competence), 1.15(a), 
1.15(e) (Safekeeping Property), and 8.4(d) (Conduct That Is Prejudicial to the 
Administration of Justice), see Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mahone, 425 Md. 343, 40 
A.3d 1038 (2012)—i.e., this Court reprimanded Mahone for mishandling his attorney 
trust account, which is essentially the same as the misconduct in this case.  This Court’s 
action in indefinitely suspending Mahone represents the fourth occasion on which he has 
been sanctioned for misconduct.  Although Mahone’s indefinite suspension occurred in 
1997, and may arguably be considered remote, the repetitive nature of Mahone’s 
misconduct clearly raises the issue of the need to protect the public and deter Mahone and 
other lawyers from similar misconduct. 
In discussing Mahone’s prior disciplinary record, the Majority theorizes that, at 
least with regard to his two reprimands, Mahone took responsibility for his actions and 
cooperated with Bar Counsel by entering a joint petition for reprimand in each case.  See 
Maj. Slip Op. at 24.  This is one interpretation.  Another explanation for the joint 
petitions and agreed-upon reprimands is that Mahone, recognizing that he had been the 
subject of an indefinite suspension in 1997, simply sought to make the best arrangement 
possible to minimize the sanction imposed in his last two attorney grievance cases.  
Certainly, that he engaged in further misconduct after his 2007 reprimand, and was again 
- 3 - 
reprimanded in 2012, undermines any conclusion that Mahone has benefited from his 
earlier indefinite suspension.  Overall, the continuum of attorney grievance cases 
demonstrates that Mahone was not deterred by his prior encounters with Bar Counsel.  
And, the frequency of his misconduct indicates that he would pose a threat to future 
clients.  Given his track record, and the nature of the misconduct in this case—namely, 
his mismanagement of his attorney trust account and his failure to comply with Bar 
Counsel’s investigation, which is essentially the same misconduct that Mahone has 
previously engaged in—disbarment is the appropriate sanction. 
 
For the above reasons, respectfully, I concur in part and dissent in part. 
 
Judge McDonald has authorized me to state that he joins in this opinion.