Court Opinion

ID: 9838899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 17:06:13.599491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:30.231427
License: Public Domain

Argued on: September 7, 2023

                                                                      IN THE SUPREME COURT

                                                                           OF MARYLAND

                                                                                AG No. 2

                                                                         September Term, 2023
                                                                ____________________________________

                                                                  IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION
                                                                FOR REINSTATEMENT OF SHERWOOD
                                                                     R. WESCOTT TO THE BAR OF
                                                                            MARYLAND
                                                                ____________________________________

                                                                     Fader, C.J.,
                                                                     Watts,
                                                                     Hotten,
                                                                     Booth,
                                                                     Biran,
                                                                     Gould,
                                                                     Eaves,
                                                                                    JJ.
                                                                ____________________________________

                                                                               ORDER
                                                                ____________________________________

                                                                         Filed: September 8, 2023

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this
document is authentic.
                 2023-09-08 12:07-04:00

Gregory Hilton, Clerk
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION                     *    IN THE
FOR REINSTATEMENT OF
SHERWOOD R. WESCOTT                               *    SUPREME COURT
TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND
                                                  *    OF MARYLAND

                                                  *    AG No. 2

                                                  *    September Term, 2023

                                        ORDER

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

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

Respondent,” filed in the above-captioned case,

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

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

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

1014 (2023),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reinstatement,

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

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

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

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

Bar Counsel appeared and submitted on its Objection to Reinstatement,

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

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

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

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

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

reinstatement,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exceeding six months; and it is further

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

DENIED.

                                              /s/ Matthew J. Fader
                                                  Chief Justice