Background
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland brought disciplinary proceedings against Charles T. Tucker, Jr., a Maryland-licensed attorney. The parties reached an agreement and filed a Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent on June 16, 2026, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-736, which governs consensual disbarment proceedings.
In the joint petition, Tucker acknowledged that his conduct violated a broad range of Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct, including rules governing competence (19-301.1), scope of representation (19-301.2), diligence (19-301.3), communication (19-301.4), fees (19-301.5), safekeeping of property (19-301.15), termination of representation (19-301.16), candor toward tribunals (19-303.3), bar admission and disciplinary matters (19-308.1(b)), and misconduct (19-308.4(a), (c), and (d)), as well as Maryland Rule 19-741. Tucker consented to disbarment as the appropriate disposition.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland granted the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent and ordered Tucker disbarred from the practice of law in Maryland effective immediately as of June 17, 2026. The Court found the admitted rule violations sufficient to warrant the ultimate sanction of disbarment.
The Court further ordered that the Clerk provide notice of the disbarment order in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761, which governs notification procedures following attorney discipline.
Key Takeaways
- Tucker was disbarred by consent after admitting violations of eleven Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct spanning competence, diligence, communication, fee handling, safekeeping of client funds, candor, and general misconduct.
- The disbarment was effective immediately upon entry of the order on June 17, 2026.
- The consent disbarment procedure under Rule 19-736 allowed the parties to resolve the disciplinary matter jointly without a contested hearing.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the breadth of rule violations that can underlie a consent disbarment — Tucker admitted failures spanning nearly every core duty an attorney owes clients and tribunals. The case is a reminder that misconduct touching competence, client funds, candor, and dishonesty simultaneously will typically warrant the most severe sanction available.
For practitioners, the consent disbarment mechanism under Rule 19-736 provides a procedural pathway for resolving serious disciplinary matters without litigation, though the result — permanent loss of law license unless and until reinstatement is sought and granted — is the same as a contested disbarment.