Background
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland initiated disciplinary proceedings against Scott Michael Myers, a Maryland-licensed attorney. The matter was resolved without a contested hearing: the parties filed a joint petition for disbarment in which Myers agreed that his conduct violated multiple provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
Specifically, Myers conceded violations of Rule 19-301.4 (communication with clients), Rule 19-308.1(b) (failure to respond to a disciplinary authority), and Rule 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct, including conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The opinion does not recount the underlying factual narrative beyond the agreed rule violations set out in the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland granted the joint petition and ordered Myers disbarred, effective immediately as of March 20, 2026. The Court further ordered Myers to pay costs of $1,372.50 to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
The Clerk of the Court was directed to provide notice of the disbarment order in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761, which governs notification procedures following attorney discipline.
Key Takeaways
- Myers was disbarred by consent after admitting violations of rules governing client communication, cooperation with disciplinary authorities, and general attorney misconduct.
- The disbarment was effective immediately upon entry of the March 20, 2026 order.
- Myers was assessed $1,372.50 in costs payable to the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates that the Supreme Court of Maryland will accept joint petitions for disbarment where an attorney concedes misconduct, providing an efficient mechanism for resolving serious disciplinary matters without protracted litigation. Consent disbarments carry the same permanent consequences as contested ones.
The rule violations at issue — deficient client communication, failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, and conduct involving dishonesty or prejudice to the administration of justice — represent some of the most fundamental obligations of Maryland practitioners. Attorneys facing overlapping violations across these categories face the prospect of disbarment even on a first disciplinary proceeding.