Attorney Grievance v. Wemple
479 Md. 167 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's pattern of misconduct involving intentional dishonesty toward a tribunal, assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, abusing legal procedures to intimidate third parties, and a general failure of competence and diligence warrants disbarment, particularly in the presence of multiple aggravating factors and the absence of any mitigating circumstances.
Facts:
- In October 2018, Sida Qiao retained a law firm and met with Sandy Chang, an attorney whose license was suspended in Maryland.
- Mark David Wemple entered his appearance for Qiao without speaking to him, and with Wemple's knowledge, the suspended Chang continued to provide legal advice to Qiao.
- In a separate divorce matter for client Huaimin Long, Wemple filed a motion to have Chang, a suspended Maryland attorney, specially admitted as an "out-of-state attorney," intentionally omitting her suspension from the court.
- While representing Sihan Gao in a property dispute, Wemple served an invalid subpoena on Gao's neighbor, Joanne Fradkin, to compel her appearance at a deposition.
- During the deposition, Wemple knowingly and falsely told Fradkin she was obligated to answer his questions or face contempt charges, later admitting this was done to intimidate her.
- Wemple failed to arrange a required sex offender evaluation for his client Ahmad Smallwood prior to a sentencing hearing, causing the hearing to be postponed.
- Wemple subsequently failed to appear at Smallwood's rescheduled sentencing hearing and also failed to appear at a pretrial hearing for another client, Charles Booker, without notifying the clients or the court in either instance.
Procedural Posture:
- The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland ('Petitioner') filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action against Mark David Wemple ('Respondent') in the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
- The Court of Appeals, as the court of original jurisdiction for attorney discipline, designated a judge of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County ('hearing judge') to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
- The hearing judge conducted the hearing and issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, finding by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent had violated numerous rules of professional conduct.
- The hearing judge found the existence of eight aggravating factors and no mitigating factors.
- Respondent filed exceptions to the hearing judge's findings with the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
- The Petitioner recommended a sanction of disbarment to the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's pattern of misconduct, which includes incompetence, lack of diligence, assisting a suspended attorney in the unauthorized practice of law, making knowingly false statements to a court and a third party, and abusing the legal process, warrant disbarment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hotten, J.
Yes. An attorney's pattern of misconduct demonstrating intentional dishonesty, abuse of the legal process, assistance in the unauthorized practice of law, and a consistent lack of competence and diligence warrants disbarment. The court's primary duty is to protect the public, and an attorney who engages in such a wide range of serious ethical violations has proven unfit to practice law. The court emphasized that candor and truthfulness are paramount traits for a lawyer, and lying to a tribunal is a violation that almost always justifies disbarment. Wemple's intentional misrepresentation of Sandy Chang's suspended status to the circuit court was a direct assault on the integrity of the judicial process. Furthermore, his use of an invalid subpoena and false threats of contempt against a third person, Joanne Fradkin, was an abuse of legal procedure intended solely to intimidate and burden. This dishonest conduct, combined with a pattern of incompetence exemplified by his repeated failure to appear for clients' court dates, demonstrated a profound disregard for his professional obligations. The court found eight aggravating factors, including prior discipline, a dishonest motive, a pattern of misconduct, and obstruction of the disciplinary process by submitting false evidence. In the absence of any mitigating factors, the totality of the misconduct compelled the sanction of disbarment.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the Maryland Court of Appeals' stringent position on attorney dishonesty, particularly misrepresentations made directly to a court. The decision solidifies the principle that lying to a tribunal is among the most severe ethical breaches, for which disbarment is the presumptive sanction. It serves as a stark warning to attorneys against assisting suspended or disbarred colleagues in the unauthorized practice of law, illustrating that such actions will be treated as serious misconduct. The ruling also underscores that abusing discovery and other legal procedures for the sole purpose of intimidating or harassing third parties is a grave violation that undermines public confidence in the legal profession and will be met with severe consequences.
