Background
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland brought disciplinary proceedings against Susan Werner Scofield, a Maryland-licensed attorney. The matter was resolved without a contested hearing: the parties filed a joint petition for disbarment in which Scofield admitted that her conduct violated multiple provisions of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
The admitted rule violations spanned a broad range of professional obligations. Scofield conceded violations of Rules 19-301.1 (competence), 19-301.3 (diligence), 19-301.4 (communication), 19-301.5 (fees), 19-301.15 (safekeeping property), 19-301.16(d) (duties upon termination of representation), 19-303.2 (expediting litigation), and 19-308.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct, including conduct involving dishonesty or fraud and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland granted the joint petition and ordered Scofield’s disbarment effective immediately as of May 27, 2026. The Court directed the Clerk to provide notice of the order in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761, which governs notification procedures in attorney disciplinary matters.
Because the disbarment was entered on a joint petition with Scofield’s consent, the Court issued the sanction by order rather than after a full evidentiary proceeding, reflecting the parties’ agreement that disbarment was the appropriate resolution given the scope and nature of the admitted violations.
Key Takeaways
- Scofield admitted violations across ten distinct rules, including the most serious category of misconduct under Rule 19-308.4 — dishonesty, fraud, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- The breadth of admitted violations — touching competence, diligence, communication, fees, client funds, and duties at termination — reflects systemic failures across multiple client matters rather than an isolated lapse.
- Maryland’s joint-petition procedure allows the parties to stipulate to disbarment, streamlining the process when the respondent attorney concedes the misconduct and the appropriate sanction.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how Maryland’s disciplinary system handles cases where the evidence of misconduct is sufficiently clear and serious that both the Commission and the attorney agree disbarment is warranted. The use of a joint petition signals that Scofield’s conduct — particularly the admissions under Rule 19-308.4 involving dishonesty and prejudice to the administration of justice — left no viable argument for a lesser sanction.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that violations of client-funds rules (Rule 19-301.15) and end-of-representation duties (Rule 19-301.16(d)), when combined with dishonesty findings, routinely result in the most severe discipline available. Attorneys facing overlapping misconduct allegations should understand that the cumulative weight of multi-rule violations can foreclose any path short of disbarment.