Background
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland brought disciplinary proceedings against Tilman Dunbar Jr., a Maryland-licensed attorney, alleging multiple violations of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and related procedural rules. The matter proceeded to the point where the parties entered into a joint petition for an indefinite suspension, signaling that Dunbar did not contest the resolution.
The violations at issue centered on Rules 19-301.15(a) and (b), which govern an attorney’s duties to safekeep client property and maintain proper trust account records, and Rules 19-308.4(a) and (d), which prohibit violating professional conduct rules and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Dunbar was also found to have violated Rules 19-407(a) and (b) and 19-410(c), which address attorney trust account requirements and prohibited transactions involving those accounts.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland, acting on the parties’ joint petition, ordered that Tilman Dunbar Jr. be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Maryland effective April 24, 2026. The Court accepted the agreed disposition, which reflects the seriousness of the combined safekeeping and professional-conduct violations without imposing disbarment at this stage.
In addition to the suspension, the Court ordered Dunbar to pay $1,061.70 to the Attorney Grievance Commission within 90 days as reimbursement for costs incurred in the proceeding. The Clerk was directed to provide notice of the order in accordance with Rule 19-761, which governs publication and notification of attorney discipline.
Key Takeaways
- Dunbar was indefinitely suspended — not disbarred — based on a joint petition, leaving open the possibility of future reinstatement upon a showing of rehabilitation and fitness.
- The violations involved both client-fund safekeeping rules (Rule 19-301.15) and trust account rules (Rules 19-407 and 19-410), indicating misconduct related to the handling of client money.
- Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 19-308.4(d) was among the findings, underscoring that the misconduct extended beyond technical bookkeeping errors.
- Cost reimbursement of $1,061.70 was imposed, a standard feature of Maryland disciplinary orders.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates Maryland’s use of indefinite suspension as a middle-ground sanction for serious trust-account and professional-conduct violations where the parties agree on disposition. Because reinstatement from an indefinite suspension requires a separate petition and a demonstration of fitness, the practical effect can approach disbarment in duration while preserving a path back to practice.
For practicing attorneys, the case reinforces that failures in client-fund management — whether in record-keeping, segregation of funds, or permissible trust-account transactions — will draw significant disciplinary consequences in Maryland. Combined with a finding of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, such violations leave little room for lenient treatment even in a negotiated resolution.