Argued on: September 7, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

AG No. 2

September Term, 2023

____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF SHERWOOD 

R. WESCOTT TO THE BAR OF 

MARYLAND

____________________________________

Fader, C.J.,

Watts,

Hotten,

Booth,

Biran,

Gould,

Eaves,

JJ.

____________________________________

ORDER

____________________________________

Filed: September 8, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION * IN THE

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF

SHERWOOD R. WESCOTT * SUPREME COURT

TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND

* OF MARYLAND

* AG No. 2

* September Term, 2023

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Petition for Reinstatement of Petitioner, Sherwood R. 

Wescott, Bar Counsel’s Objection to Reinstatement, and Petitioner’s “Reply to 

Respondent,” filed in the above-captioned case, 

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, this Court suspended Petitioner from the 

practice of law in Maryland for 60 days, to begin 30 days after the date on which the 

opinion was filed, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Wescott, 483 Md. 111, 290 A.3d 

1014 (2023),

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2023, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reinstatement, in 

which he stated that he had served the period of suspension, he had “not engaged in the 

practice of law during that time period of suspension[,]” he had complied with the terms 

of the suspension, there are no other disciplinary actions or complaints pending against 

him, and he had complied with all of the requirements of Maryland Rule 19-741,

WHEREAS, on July 5, 2023, Acting Bar Counsel filed an Objection to 

Reinstatement raising two objections: (1) Petitioner has not complied with Maryland Rule 

19-741 in that he has not submitted to Bar Counsel any of the information or documentation 

required by Maryland Rule 19-741(c)(1)(B) and 19-741(c)(3)(C); and (2) Petitioner has 
failed to pay costs in the amount of $1,588.40 assessed in favor of the Attorney Grievance 

Commission against Petitioner as a result of this Court’s February 28, 2023 opinion,

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2023, Petitioner filed a reply, in which he stated that he has 

“not engaged in the practice of law before, during, and after the terms of the suspension of 

practicing law[,]” that he “has complied with any and all of the Rules for reinstatement[,]” 

and that it would be unreasonable and unfair to require him to pay costs prior to 

reinstatement, 

WHEREAS, in light of Bar Counsel’s objection to Petitioner’s reinstatement, 

pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-751(e)(2), this Court scheduled a hearing for Thursday, 

September 7, 2023, and ordered Petitioner to report for the hearing at 9:30 a.m. that day,

WHEREAS, Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing on September 7, 2023, and 

Bar Counsel appeared and submitted on its Objection to Reinstatement,

WHEREAS, in neither the petition nor reply did Petitioner demonstrate that he has 

complied with Maryland Rule 19-741(c)(1)(B) and 19-741(c)(3)(C) by providing the 

information required under those sections to Bar Counsel; rather, in his filings, Petitioner 

states that he advised Bar Counsel that he did not engage in the practice of law during the 

suspension and contends that he has complied with the Maryland Rules pertaining to 

reinstatement,

NOW, therefore, it is this 8th day of September, 2023,

ORDERED, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that Bar Counsel’s objection #1 is 

SUSTAINED, as Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has submitted to Bar Counsel the 
information or documentation required by Maryland Rule 19-741(c)(1)(B) and 19-

741(c)(3)(C); and it is further

ORDERED, that Bar Counsel’s objection #2 is OVERRULED, as the payment of 

costs was not imposed by this Court as a condition of reinstatement in the February 28, 

2023 opinion, and Maryland Rule 19-751 does not require payment of costs before 

reinstatement where an attorney has been suspended for a fixed period of time not 

exceeding six months; and it is further

ORDERED, for the reasons stated above, that the Petition for Reinstatement is 

DENIED.

/s/ Matthew J. Fader

 Chief Justice