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
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),3as 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 subaccount 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 VENTURE6acquisition 

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 finds 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 subaccount 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 subaccount 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 it’s 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 crossexamination, 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 subaccount 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 subaccount 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.