In Re the Application of Solon Phillips for Admission to the Bar of Maryland , Misc. No. 17, September Term, 2017. Opinion by Getty, J. DENIAL OF BAR ADMISS ION — DUTY OF FULL DI SCLOSURE — CANDOR AND TRUTHFULNESS — The applicant, Mr. Solon Phillips, failed to promptly disclose to the Character Committee and the State Boar d of Law Examiners in formation pertaining to his unauthorized practice of law, lead ing to his father’s , Mr. Dalton Phillips’, disbarment. Specifically, Mr. Solon Phillips chose not to immediately file a supplement to his Maryland Bar application and instead decide d to disclose this in formation during his interview with the Character Committee and at a hearing be fore the State Board of Law Examiners. Moreover, Mr. Solon Phillips faile d to promptly file a supplement to his application to indicate his application to th e Bar of Florida. Ag ain, Mr. Solon Phillips chose to wait to disclose this informati on during the interview with the Character Committee and the hearing before the State Board of Law Ex aminers. These conscious decisions on the part of Mr. Solon Phillips reflect a pattern of failing to meet the standard of absolute candor. This patte rn of selective candor, along wi th the underlying concern of Mr. Solon Phillips’ prior unauthor ized practice of law, warrants denying his application for admission to the Bar of Maryland.Argued: November 6, 2017

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. No. 17 September Term, 2017

IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF SOLON PHILLIPS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND

Barbera, C.J. Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty,
JJ.

Opinion by Getty, J.

Filed:In this case, we are asked to consider wh ether to grant the application for admission to the Bar of Maryland of Solon Phillips (“ Mr. Phillips”). The Char acter Committee for the Fourth Appellate Circuit of Maryland (“the Committee”) re turned a favorable recommendation without addressing the findings by this Court regarding Mr. Phillips’ unauthorized practice of law in an attorney grievanc e proceeding. The findings by this Court in the attorney grievance action, in addition to other c oncerns, led the State Board of Law Examiners (“the Board”) to recommend that Mr. Phillips be denied admission to the Bar of Maryland. For the reasons below, we agree with the Board that Mr. Phillips has not demonstrated that he currently possesses goo d moral character and fitness for the practice of law as required by Md. Rule 19-203. As such, we deny Mr. Ph illips’ admission to the Bar of Maryland. BACKGROUND Mr. Phillips originally filed an applicati on with the Board for admission to the Bar of Maryland on January 10, 2008. Mr. Ph illips was ultimately successful on the bar examination held in February 2011. Duri ng the time between his application and his success on the bar examination, Mr. Phillips f iled nine updates to his application and attended a hearing with the Committee in Janua ry 2012. The Committ ee agreed to hold the record open for Mr. Phillips to supplement his applicati on until July 17 , 2015. The Committee issued a Report and Recommendatio n on November 4, 2015, recommending that Mr. Phillips’ first applica tion for admission to the Bar of Maryland be denied. Mr. Phillips obtained counsel in prep aration for the hearing before the Board, which counsel2 for Mr. Phillips was able to postpone. Ultimately, Mr. Ph illips withdrew his application to the Bar of Maryland on July 1, 2016, prior to the Board hearing. On August 24, 2016, Mr. Ph illips submitted a second appli cation with the Board for admission to the Bar of Maryland. Attached to the second application was a document titled “Supplement: Proof of Good Moral Char acter,” in which Mr. Phillips attempted to persuade the Board that he is of good moral character and fit for the practice of law. Specifically, the supplement discussed his fi nancial responsibility, moral character, his voluntary choice to take classes on professiona l responsibility, and his voluntary choice to take the Multistate Professional Responsibil ity Examination (“MPRE”), which is not a requirement of the Maryland Bar. In the s upplement, Mr. Phillips requ ested to be admitted to the Maryland Bar because of his ch aracter, responsibility, and candor. While Mr. Phillips’ second application for admission to the Maryland Bar was pending, this Court issued its opinion in Attorney Grievance Co mm’n of Maryland v. Phillips , in which we ultimately disbarred Dalton Phillips (“ Mr. Dalton Phillips”), Mr. Phillips’ father, as a result of Attorney Grievance Commiss ion’s Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action. 451 Md. 653 (2017). This Court concluded that Mr. Dalton Phillips violated several Rules of Professional Conduct when he assisted Mr. Phillips, his son, in the unauthorized practice of la w. Specifically, this Court found that Mr. Phillips graduated from law school in 2008, but did not seek admission to the Bar of Maryland un til 2011. In August 2009, Mr. Phillips discussed forming a law firm with Mr. Dalton Phillips. In pursuit of that goal, Mr. Phillips filed Arti cles of Organization with the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation on behalf of the law firm Phillips, Phillips and3 Dow, LLC. The law firm was to include Mr. Phillips, Anthony Dow, a friend of Mr. Phillips from high school, and Mr. Dalton Phillips. This Court could not discern from the record whether Anthony Dow was aware that hi s name was listed as a member in the law firm. In establishing the law firm, Mr. Ph illips “created a law firm insignia; hired an answering service for the firm; reserved a domain name; and created and ordered letterhead that included the firm name, Solon Phillips’ s home address, the phone number associated with the answering service, and the firm website. He also ordered business cards for himself using the firm insi gnia and the suffix ‘Esq.’.” Attorney Griev ance Comm’n v. Phillips , 451 Md. at 661. After establishing a law firm before be ing admitted to the Maryland Bar, Mr. Phillips later met Crystal Meehan on an internet support group. Crystal Meehan told Mr. Phillips about “unwanted communications that [she] had been receiving from her exhusband’s current wife, Abigail Me ehan,” who lived in Indiana. Id. at 661. Mr. Phillips drafted a cease and desist letter, orderi ng Abigail Meehan to discontinue all communications with Crystal Meehan as th ose communications constituted harassment. The letter also threatened Abigail Meehan with legal action. Mr. Phillips then “corresponded over e-ma il with Crystal Meehan, provided her with a draft of the letter signed ‘Solon Phillips JD/MBA,’ and received her approval of the letter. He then printed the letter on Phillips, Ph illips and Dow, LLC letterhead. The content of the final letter was altered in only one regard—S olon Phillips signed [Mr. Dalton Phillips’] name to the letter, not his own.” Id. After receiving the cease and desist letter, Abigail Meehan attempted to contact the firm and ultimately corresponded with Mr. Dalton Phillips. In an email to4 Abigail Meehan, Mr. Dalton Ph illips stated that the “lette r was issued without [his] knowledge,” and acknowledged “t hat Ms. Crystal Meehan is a client of [Phillips, Phillips, and Dow, LLC].” Id. at 662. In June 2014, Abigail Meehan filed a complaint with the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, alleging that the law fi rm and the attorneys should not be sending her letters. In response to the complaint, the Attorney Grievance Commission began investigating Mr. Dalton Phillips, the law firm, and Mr. Phillips. After the investigation, the Attorney Grievance Commission filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Mr. Dalton Phillips. This Court conc luded that “[Mr.] Phillips was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. [Mr. Dalto n Phillips] had actual knowledge of the unauthorized practice of law at the time Abiga il Meehan emailed him a copy of the cease and desist letter. In his email to Abigail Meehan on May 29, 2014, [Mr. Dalton Phillips] ratified [Mr.] Phillips’ unauthorized practice.” Id. at 673. After reviewing the second application, the Committee issued a second Report and Recommendation on June 2, 2017, recommending that Mr. Phillips be admitted to the Bar of Maryland. However, the Committee did not fully consider this Court’s opinion in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips . The second application for admission to the Maryland Bar was then subm itted to the Board. After reviewing the Committee Report and Recommendation, the Board concluded that there may be grounds for denying Mr. Phillips’ application. As such, the Board he ld a four-member panel hearing on July 21,5 2017, 1 for which Mr. Phillips appear ed represented by counsel, Paul Mark Sandler (“Mr. Sandler”). Pursuant to Md. Rule 19-203(b), the Board offered Mr. Ph illips an opportunity to withdraw his application before the Boar d submitted a Report, re commending the denial of Mr. Phillips’ application, to this Cour t. Mr. Phillips declined to withdraw his application. On October 10, 2017, the Board filed its Report and Recommendation, concluding that Mr. Phillips did not meet his burden in proving that he possesses the character and fitness for admission to the Ba r of Maryland. In the Re port and Recommendation, the Board considered the factual findings and conclusions in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips . Specifically, the Board fo und that Mr. Phillips admitte d to drafting and sending the cease and desist letter to Ab igail Meehan, thereby also ad mitting that he was practicing law without authorization. Moreover, the Board fo und that Mr. Phillips failed to disclose to the Board in any of the updates or supplements to hi s original application for admission that the Attorney Grievance Commission was inves tigating Mr. Dalton Ph illips as a result of his unauthorized practice of law. The Board reported th at Mr. Phillips never informed the Board about the Attorney Grievance Commission i nvestigation before Mr. Phillips withdrew his original app lication on July 1, 2016. As part of Mr. Phillips failure to disclose this information, the Board noted further that the document att ached to the second application, “Supplement: Proof of Good Moral

1 The transcript of the hearing before the Bo ard is dated as July 21, 2017. However, the Board states in its Report and Recommendation that the hearing before the Board occurred on August 3, 2017. Nothing in the re cord explains this discrepancy.6 Character,” included a passage reading, “I ha d no idea that my acts as it pertains to my father’s hearing constituted the unauthorized practice of law.” Yet, in the Board hearing, Mr. Phillips testified that he knew it was wrong at the time. In addition to Mr. Phillips’ omissions regarding the Attorney Grievanc e Commission matter, the Board also reported that Mr. Phillips applied for the Florida Bar in May 2017. Mr. Phillip s failed to notify the Committee during his initial charact er interview of this appli cation. Moreover, Mr. Phillips did not update his Maryland Bar application answers to reflect his application to the Bar of Florida. Ultimately, all of the Board members recommended that this Court deny Mr. Phillips’ admission to the Mary land Bar. Specifically, the Board was convinced that Mr. Phillips did not meet his bur den of proof in demons trating that he is of good moral character and fit for the practice of law for the following reasons: [Mr. Phillips] has not been candid in this process. Partial or selective recitation of the facts is not acceptab le. Full supplementation is required. [Mr. Phillips] has not taken seriously th e need for disclosu re regarding the questions in the bar application. In addition to his not disclosing the facts regarding his father’s disbarment, he continued his non-disclosure by failing to supplement the fa ct that he applied to another Bar. [Mr. Phillips] has failed to recognize the seriousness of the conduc t that got his father disbarred or to understand the disclosure requirement s of the Bar admission process. He concedes that he lacked good judgment in his attempt to assist a friend by implicating himself in the unauthorized practice of law For the reasons stated above, after consideration of all the facts and evidence, the Board unan imously finds [Mr. Phillips] has not met his burden to demonstrate that he possesses the character and fitness for admission to the Maryland Bar.7 Upon receiving the Report and Recomme ndation from the Board, this Court issued an Order on October 19, 2017, deny ing Mr. Phillips admission to the Bar of Maryland. 2 This Court subsequently entere d a second Order on October 25, 2017, granting Mr. Phillips a hearin g to show cause why this Court should reject the Board’s recommendation. See Md. Rule 19-203(c) (“If th e Court, after reviewing the report of the Character Committee and any report of the Board, believes there may be grounds to deny admission, the Cour t shall order the applicant to appear for a hearing and show cause why the applicati on should not be denied.”). Pursuant to the second Order, Mr. Phillips appeared befo re this Court on Monday, November 6, 2017, and urged this Court to accept th e Committee’s recommendation and reject the Board’s recommendation. On December 11, 2017, the Board subm itted an addendum to its Report and Recommendation to this Court. The adden dum indicated that the Board received information suggesting that Mr. Phillips again lacked ca ndor regarding his status as a licensed attorney in Mary land. Specifically, the addendum attached email correspondence from A. Valerie Mirko, Esquire (“Ms. Mirko”), a member of good standing in the bars of New York and th e District of Columbia. The addendum

2 This Court’s Order issued on October 19, 2017, was a prem ature denial of Mr. Phillips’ application for admission to th e Maryland Bar. Pursuant to Md. Rule 19-203 (c)(1), this Court should have initially de termined whether there may be grounds to deny admission. Upon deciding that grounds to deny Mr. Phillips’ admission do exist, this Court should have issued an Order requiring Mr. Phillips to appear for a he aring to show cause why the application should not be denied.8 further indicated that Ms. Mirko is curre ntly employed for the General Counsel for the North American Securities Administra tors Association (“NASAA”). Ms. Mirko sent the email correspondence to the A ttorney Grievance Commission, explaining that she received a resume from Mr. Phillips in response to a jo b opening with the NASAA, which required applic ants to be admitted to a state bar. Mr. Phillips’ resume included the statement “Maryland Bar Admission[.]” After reviewing Mr. Phillips’ resume, NASAA initially invited Mr. Phillips for an interview to be held on November 30, 2017. However, Ms. Mi rko was unable to find Mr. Phillips in the Maryland attorney directory as of November 30, 2017. At the interview, Ms. Mirko specifically asked Mr. Phillips why his name does not appear on the directory, to which Mr. Phillips responded that he was not yet barred in Maryland but would be admitted in December 2017. Ms . Mirko included this inform ation in an email to the Attorney Grievance Commission as well as in an affidavit. In the addendum, the Board determined that this new information is eviden ce that Mr. Phillips continues to display a lack of candor and does not recognize the enormity of his prior unauthorized practice of law. On December 12, 2017, Mr. Phillips submitted a “Motion to Supplement Record and Accept Explanation for Re sume Sent to NASAA and to Grant Acceptance Into Maryland Bar” to this Court. In the motion, M r. Phillips stated that he believed the position with NASAA required only a juris doctor degree (“J.D.”) as opposed to a bar membersh ip due to the description of the position on the website, Indeed.com. Moreover, Mr. Phillips asserted that he initially applied to the position9 with his proper resume, which is saved on Indeed.com. When NASAA asked Mr. Phillips to submit an additiona l copy of his resume by em ail, Mr. Phillips maintained that he accidentally sent a version of his “vision” resume, which indicated that he has a “Maryland Bar Admission[.]” Both his “vision” resume and his standard resume use solonesq@gmail.com as the em ail address to contact Mr. Phillips and represent that his work history includes approximately seven years as a “Junior Associate” at the law firm, Arnold & Porte r, LLP. Mr. Phillips also asserted that during the November 30th interview, Mr. Phillips told Ms. Mirko that he was not admitted to a state bar, but “was hoping to be barred soon, as early as December perhaps[.]” Mr. Phillips indicated that sometime “[l]ater” he called the human resources director, Ms. Irene Maldonad o (“Ms. Maldonado”) with NASAA to discuss “the miscommunication.” Moreove r, Mr. Phillips indicated that he emailed Ms. Maldonado a copy of his Indeed.com resume, apologizing for the confusion. Mr. Phillips attached a copy of the email sent to Ms. Maldonado on December 11, 2017 at 1:49 p.m. by Mr. Phillips usi ng the email, “solonesq@gmail.com[.]” Overall, Mr. Phillips argued in his motion that his mistake in sending a resume that indicated he was barred by the State of Maryland does not constitute a knowing misrepresentation; therefore, Mr. Phillips re quested this Court to “not hold this mistake against him[.]” Specifically, Mr. Phillips concluded by noting that he was “respectfully shar[ing ] this information w ith the Court[.]”10 STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue presented is whether Mr. Phillip s has met his burden of proving that he possesses “good moral character and fitness for the practice of law.” Md. Rule 19-203(d); see also In re Application of Brown , 392 Md. 44, 54 (2006). “Good moral character is denoted by ‘those qualities of trut h-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility.’” In re Application of Strzempek , 407 Md. 102, 112 (2008) (citations omitted). “Thus, the ‘ultimate te st of present moral character, applicable to original admissions to the Bar, is whether, viewin g the applicant's character in the period subseq uent to his misconduct, he ha s so convincingly rehabilitated himself that it is proper that he become a member of a profession which must stand free from all suspicion.’” In re Application of Stern , 403 Md. 615, 629 (2008) (citations omitted). “The Board’s conclu sions that an applicant does not possess the requisite moral character, and recommendation against admission to the Bar, are entitled to great weight. This Court, however, is charged with the responsibility to conduct an independent evaluation of the applicant’s moral character based upon testimony a nd evidence submitted before the Committee and the Board.” In re Application of T.Z.-A.O. , 441 Md. 65, 73 (2014) (citations omitted). DISCUSSION Mr. Phillips contends that the Boar d relied on incorrect information in recommending that he did not meet his burden in demonstrating that he possesses the moral character and fitness necessary for admission to the Bar of Maryland. Specifically, Mr. Phillips asserts that he discussed his unauthori zed practice of law leading to the Attorney11 Grievance Commission’s investigation of Mr. Dalton Phillips during the character interview with one of the Commi ttee members. Moreover, Mr. Phillips urges this Court to read the transcript of the Board hearing as an indication that he also disclosed the unauthorized practice of law and the applic ation to the Florida Bar during the Board hearing. Overall, Mr. Phillips suggests that one instance of bad conduct does not reflect bad moral character; instead, he insists that he knows the difference between right and wrong and continually acts to c onform with what is right. Md. Rule 19-203(d) mandates that the “app licant bears the burden of proving . . . the applicant’s good moral character and fitness for the practice of law. Failure or refusal to answer fully and candidly any question in the application or any relevant question asked by a member of the Character Co mmittee, the Board, or the Court is sufficient cause for a finding that the applican t has not met this burden .” (Emphasis added). “From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discreti on, of the strictest obs ervance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the cent uries, been compendiously described as ‘moral character.’” In re Application of Hyland , 339 Md. 521, 534 (1995). In our jurisprudence relating to admissi on to the Maryland Bar, this Co urt has made clear that “it is a given that good moral character includes truthfulness and candor, and absolute candor is a requisite of admiss ion to the Maryland Bar. ” Application of Strzempek , 407 Md. at 114. Moreover, we have repeatedly recogniz ed that “no moral char acter qualification for Bar membership is more important than truthfulness and candor.” Application of Hyland , 339 Md. at 535 (1995) (quoting In Re Application of Allan S. , 282 Md. 683, 689– 90).12 In the case Application of Strzempek , this Court considered whether to admit an applicant who filed an applica tion to the Bar of Maryland on December 19, 2005, but failed to submit a supplement to the Board with information regarding his arrest on February 10, 2006, and subsequent convictions on April 12, 20 06, in the State of Vi rginia. 407 Md. at 104. The applicant, Gregory John Strzempe k (“Mr. Strzempek), was convicted of driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, unsafe la ne changing, and eluding a police officer. Id. Mr. Strzempek, “eventually disclosed his convic tions and sentence to the Board, albeit nine months later, only after being advised that he had passed the Bar Exam.” Id. This Court stressed Mr. Strzempek’s failure to disclose the relevant informati on “promptly upon the occurrence of each ev ent” to the Comm ittee and Board. Id. at 114. In addition to failing to promptly disclose his arrest and conviction, Mr. Strzempek also failed to disclose this same information during hi s character interview w ith a Committee member. Id. Ultimately, we denied Mr. St rzempek’s application for admi ssion to the Bar of Maryland, “emphasiz[ing] that disclosure on the Ba r application and immediate and full supplementation after an incident warranting exposition is mandatory, not voluntary. It is not the choice of a candidate for admission whet her to disclose and under what conditions.” Id. at 113. Here, we conclude that Mr. Phillips’ choi ces mirror those of Mr. Strzempek’s in failing to immediately supplement his applica tion with information pertaining to both his application to the Bar of Florida and the At torney Grievance Commission’s investigation of his father based on Mr. Phillips’ unauthori zed practice of law. Instead, Mr. Phillips chose to disclose these pieces of information when he wa s confronted by the Committee13 member during the interview and the Bo ard during the July 17th hearing. See id. Mr. Phillips acknowledged during the hearing before this Cour t that he was not aware of this Court’s opinion in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips until the Committee member asked him about the underlying facts of th e case. Moreover, when the Board asked why he did not supplement his answer to Questio n 18 of the Maryland Bar application, asking whether there have been any unfavorable incide nts in the his life that may have a bearing on his fitness to practice law, Mr. Phillips cont ended that he did a ttach a report to his August 24, 2016, Maryland Bar application. There are two issues with Mr. Phillips’ response. Firs t, the Attorney Grievance Commission began investigating Mr. Dalton Phillips based on th e letter sent by Mr. Phillips in his father’s name in 2014. Instead of immediately suppleme nting his original application to the Maryland Bar, Mr. Phillips waited until af ter the reported opini on by this Court to attach a supplement to his second Maryland Bar application addressing his unauthorized practice of law. Secondly, this attachme nt, titled “Supplement: Proof of Good Moral Character,” includes two brief sentences re garding the Attorney Grievance Commission matter, one of which reads: “More recently, at a disciplinary hearing for my father, Dalton Phillips, I was found to have assisted him in the unauthorized practice of law [.]” (Emphasis added.) Mr. Phillips’ representations in the supple ment suggest that Mr. Phillips was unwilling to fully acknowledge the reprehen sible nature of his actions in sending a letter to an individual on the letterhead of a no n-existent law firm in an attorney’s name without the attorney’s knowledge or consent. Therefore, this supplement fails to fully14 address Question 18 and fails to show this Court that Mr. Phillips understands the gravity of his past actions. In addition to the lack of candor Mr. Phillips showed in relation to his unauthorized practice of law, Mr. Phillips also admitted during the Board heari ng that he did not supplement in writing his answer to Question 17B on his application to the Maryland Bar, which asks whether an applicant has ever applied for admission to the Bar of another jurisdiction. Specifically, in response to a question from the Board about the timing of his application to the Florida Bar, Mr. Phillips indicated that he ap plied to the Bar of Florida in May 2017. When the Boar d further inquired whether he supplemented his Maryland Bar application to reflect his application to the Florida Bar, Mr. Phil lips answered that he did not supplement his application to the Ma ryland Bar because he was unaware there was a question pertaining to additio nal bar applications. In sel ectively choosing when and how to reveal information asked on the Maryla nd Bar application, Mr. Phillips committed the same errors as Mr. Strzempek. Just as this Court opined in Application of Strzempek , we conclude that Mr. Phillips’ actions do not sa tisfy the requirements of mandatory and full disclosure. 407 Md. at 113. Although Mr. Phillips asks this Court to appreciate that one mistake is not indicative of moral character, this case presents us w ith more than one in stance of Mr. Phillips choosing to act in contravention of the requirement of absolute candor. See Application of Strzempek , 407 Md. at 114. Specifically, Mr. Phillip s urges this Court to accept that he ultimately did disclose all of the relevant information to the Co mmittee and the Board; however, we have previously in dicated that even when an applicant sees their actions “as15 a choice, we see it as a reflec tion of his lack of candor[.]” Id. at 115. Therefore, this Court finds sufficient cause that M r. Phillips has not met his burden of showing his good moral character and fitness for the practice of law due to his continuous “fa ilure [and] refusal to answer fully and candidly any qu estion in the application[.]” See Md. Rule 19-203(d) (“Failure or refusal to answer fully and can didly any question in th e application or any relevant question asked by a member of the Character Committee, the Board, or the Court is sufficient cause for a finding that the applicant has not me t this burden.”). Therefore, this Court is persuaded that Mr. Phillips’ has de monstrated a disturbing pattern of selective candor, which “impinges upon his character and fitness to practice law[.]” Application of Strzempek , 407 Md. at 114. Even more disturbing than Mr. Phillips’ failure to prom ptly and fully supplement his Maryland Bar application is the fact that Mr. Phillips continued to display a lack of candor regarding his admission to the Bar of Ma ryland as recently as November 30, 2017. This Court is extremely distur bed by the facts contained in the Board’s addendum to its Report and Recommendation. Specifically, th is Court finds inexcusable that Mr. Phillips misrepresented his status as a licensed Maryland attorney on a resume that he submitted in support of a job application. Worse still is the fact that Mr. Phillips answered a question during an interview with a potential employer that he was not licensed in Maryland, but would be admitted to the Maryla nd Bar in December 2017. Although Mr. Phillips submitted a motion, asse rting that he mistakenly sent a copy of a resume indicating that he was admitted to the Maryland Bar, this Court is persuaded that this motion is simply a nother instance of Mr. Phillips’ lack of candor. First, Mr.16 Phillips attached to his motion two versions of his resume; however, both resumes list his email address as “solon esq @gmail.com,” 3 and work history as a “Junior Associate” at Arnold & Porter, LLP, for seven years. (Empha sis added.) Both of these examples support the contention that Mr. Phillips continues to misr epresent his status as a barred attorney. Moreover, Mr. Phillips did not disclose this in formation to this Cour t until after the Board submitted an addendum to its Report an d Recommendation on December 11, 2017, summarizing these concerning events. In fact , Mr. Phillips did not email Ms. Maldonado or submit a motion until December 11th and December 12th, 2017, respectively. Therefore, Mr. Phillips again chose to waituntil after he was c onfronted with his misrepresentations to disclose information rele vant to the Maryland Bar application. In so doing, Mr. Phillips again failed to adhere to the requirement of “immediate and full supplementation after an incide nt warranting exposition[.]” Application of Strzempek , 407 Md. at 113. In sum, this Court finds that the blatant misreprese ntations to a potential employer about his status as a barred Mary land attorney demonstrate that Mr. Phillips continues to display a lack of candor. In concluding that Mr. Phillips has not me t his burden in showing his good moral character and fitness to practice law in Maryla nd, this Court is mostly concerned with Mr.

3 This Court acknowledges that one possibl e interpretation of the email address, “solonesq@gmail.com,” is a reference to Solo n, the Athenian statesman, lawmaker, and poet, who is accredited with moral and legal reform in Ancient Greece. However, this Court is persuaded that the email address, instea d, is intended to refer to Mr. Solon Phillips. Specifically, this Court finds that the email address was intended to imply that Mr. Phillips is an esquire, a courtesy title us ed for practicing attorneys.17 Phillips’ pattern of lack of candor. However, we are also cognizant of the extreme nature of Mr. Phillips’ actions characterized by this Court as the “unauthorized practice of law”
in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips . 451 Md. at 673. In deed, a person who engages in the unauthorized practice of law can be found guilty of a misdemeanor and “upon conviction is subject to incar ceration, a fine or both.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Shryock , 408 Md. 105, 121 (2009) (citing Md . Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 10-601). The act of unauthorized practice of law is also a violation of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Md. Rule 19-308.4. Moreover, Maryland courts have stressed that engaging in the un authorized practice of law reflects on “the actor’s unfitness to practice law[.]” Id. at 123; see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Velasquez , 380 Md. 651, 661 (2004).
In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips , this Court found that Mr. Phillips created a law firm consisting of himself, Mr. Dalt on Phillips, and a Georgia attorney, hired an answering service for the firm, ordered letterhead for the firm, reserved a domain name for the firm, and ordered business cards for himsel f that included the suffix “Esq.” all before he was a barred attorney. 451 Md. at 661. Moreover, this Court was unable to discern from the record if the Georgia attorney was aware that he was listed as one of the firm’s three members. Id. After meeting a non-Maryland resi dent through a support group, Mr. Phillips considered it proper to represent the out-of-state reside nt as a client and prepare a cease and desist letter on her behalf. Id. Mr. Phillips then specific ally chose to print the letter on letterhead naming a law firm, wh ich Mr. Phillips knew did not exist. Id. Moreover, Mr. Phillips subseque ntly chose to sign the lette r as Mr. Dalton Phillips, a18 Maryland attorney, who had no knowledge of the letter at the time it was drafted. Id. at 661–663. After drafting and sending the letter, Mr. Phillips advised the non-Maryland resident about the possibility of pressing charges. Id. at 662. This Court is extremely troubled by Mr. Phillips’ actions summarized in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips. These events reflect that Mr. Phillips acted deliberately and willfully in drafting legal documents, giving legal advice , and signing an attorney’s name without the attorney’s knowledge or cons ent. This Court has held that “dishonesty and unfitness to practice law [] are reflected” when such “conduct was both deliberate and willful.” Shryock , 408 Md. at 122–23. A lthough Mr. Phillips asks th is Court to view the events surrounding his father’s disbarment as one instance that does not reflect his overall moral character, the events de scribed above involv e multiple deliberate actions on the part of Mr. Phillips reflecting on his fitness to practice law. Mr. Phillips deliberately chose to engage in the practice of law without a license by drafting a cease and desist letter as well as advising a non-Maryland resident about th e possibility of bringing charges. Moreover, Mr. Phillips subsequently chose to sign a legal document for a licensed attorney despite being aware that he did not have that attorney’s consent. We are also unpersuaded by Mr. Phillips’ argument that his unauthorized practice of law was one instance of bad conduct that does not properly convey his overall moral character. The Board’s adde ndum to its Report and Recommendation and Mr. Phillips’ motion in response confirm th at Mr. Phillips’ actions while engaging in the unauthorized practice of law were not outliers. Instead, the addendum and motion persuade this Court that Mr. Phillips specifically chose to misreprese nt his status as a Ma ryland atto rney both19 in writing and in response to a verbal questio n in November 2017. Once again, Mr. Phillips urges this Court to accept th at Mr. Phillips mistakenly subm itted a resume indicating that he is barred by the State of Maryland. The nature of the resumes and Mr. Phillips’ motion convey that Mr. Phillips once again attempts to conceal misrepresentations behind mistakes. Both resumes that Mr. Phillips attached to his motion use the ph rase “Solon esq” in his email address and represent that his wo rk history includes seve n years as a “Junior Associate” at Arnold & Porter, LLP. Moreov er, the online listing for the NASAA position specifically states that the a pplicant would be responsible fo r “provid[ing] legal advice, analysis, and expertise[.]” Th is Court does not doubt that Mr. Phillips understood these responsibilities as requiring admission to a state ba r. Instead, this Court concludes that Mr. Phillips again acted deliberately and willfully in submitting a resume and answering a question misrepresenting his status as an a ttorney admitted to the Bar of Maryland. See Shryock , 408 Md. at 122–23. Based on this contin uing pattern of misrepresenting his status as a Maryland attorney, this Court finds that Mr. Phillips does not possess the present moral character and fitness to practice law required to be granted admi ssion to the Bar of Maryland. CONCLUSION Overall, this Court agrees with the Bo ard’s report that Mr. Phillips has shown a pattern of “[p]artial or sele ctive” candor and “failed to r ecognize the seriousness of the conduct that got his father disb arred[.]” In independently reviewing the record, this Court finds that Mr. Phillips has shown two distressing patterns. First, Mr. Phillips repeatedly failed to abide by this Court’s requirement of absolute candor by hi s failure to disclose20 pertinent Bar application informati on by submitting a timely supplement. See Application of Strzempek , 407 Md. at 113. Moreover, Mr. Phillips continued this trend of misrepresentations when he submitted a resume falsely indicating that he was barred by the State of Maryland and indicated to a pot ential employer that he would be barred in Maryland as of December 2017. Secondly, Mr. Ph illips made multiple co nscious decisions to engage in the unauthorized practice of la w when he drafted lega l documents and gave legal advice. We are persuaded th at these incidents summarized in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Phillips were not one instance of bad condu ct, especially because Mr. Phillips again misrepresented his status as a Maryland a ttorney as recently as November 2017. This Court finds that both of these continuing patterns reflect po orly on Mr. Phillips’ present moral character. See Application of Brown , 392 Md. at 60. Upon our independent assessment of M r. Phillips’ present mora l character based on a review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Phillips has failed to meet his burden of proving that he possesses the good moral charac ter and fitness for the practice of law. Therefore, Mr. Phillips’ August 24, 2016, applic ation for admission to the Bar of Maryland is, hereby, denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.