It is never acceptable for an attorney to engage in deceitful and intentionally dishonest conduct. Doing so violates Md. Rule 19-308.4(c) and is of course grounds for discipline. Many times, however, attorneys have been found to have violated Rule 8.4(c) but nonetheless have argued for a sanction less than disbarment.
Recently, in Att’y Griev. Comm’n of Md. v. Hecht (Md. LEXIS 120 *; 2026 LX 168514; 2026 WL 785635), the Maryland Supreme Court reviewed the standards for sanctions and reiterated that the Vanderlinde standard, that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for intentional dishonesty case absent compelling extenuating circumstances, remains.
Md. Rule 19-706 sets forth the types of discipline that the Supreme Court may impose. Discipline can range from dismissal of the complaint with or without a letter of cautionary advice or, with the attorney’s consent, a letter of admonition to probation to suspension to disbarment. In determining an appropriate sanction for a lawyer’s misconduct, the court considers: (1) the rule that the lawyer violated; (2) the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the injury that the lawyer’s misconduct caused or could have caused; and (4) aggravating factors and/or mitigating factors.
I’ve written previously on the aggravating and mitigating factors, which the court also repeated in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Slate. Aggravating factors include: (1) prior attorney discipline; (2) a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) a pattern of misconduct; (4) multiple violations of the MARPC; (5) bad faith obstruction of the attorney discipline proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; (6) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the attorney discipline proceeding; (7) a refusal to acknowledge the misconduct’s wrongful nature; (8) the victim’s vulnerability; (9) substantial experience in the practice of law; (10) indifference to making restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s consequences; (11) illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled substances; and (12) likelihood of repetition of the misconduct.
Similarly, as reiterated in Slate, mitigating factors include: (1) the absence of prior attorney discipline; (2) the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; (3) personal or emotional problems; (4) timely good faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify the misconduct’s consequences; (5) full and free disclosure to Bar Counsel or a cooperative attitude toward the attorney discipline proceeding; (6) inexperience in the practice of law; (7) character or reputation; (8) a physical disability; (9) a mental disability or chemical dependency, including alcoholism or drug abuse, where: (a) there is medical evidence that the lawyer is affected by a chemical dependency or mental disability; (b) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct; (c) the lawyer’s recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and (d) the recovery arrested the misconduct, and the misconduct’s recurrence is unlikely; (10) delay in the attorney discipline proceeding; (11) the imposition of other penalties or sanctions; (12) remorse; (13) remoteness of prior violations of the MARPC; and (14) unlikelihood of repetition of the misconduct.
While these factors are evaluated in every case, under the Vanderlinde standard, dishonesty leads to disbarment.
Hecht is the most recent of these cases. In Hecht, the attorney attempted to avoid disbarment by arguing he did not violate Rule 8.4(c). However, Hecht, among other problems, lost his client’s prenuptial agreement and compounded the problem when he lied to his client about it “to minimize his embarrassment and maximize his financial gain.”
In a second matter, Hecht mispresented to his client that he was working on a motion to compel discovery when he was not. Then, in a third matter, he initiated an unauthorized charge of $7,500 on a credit card. The trial judge found Hecht violated MARPC 8.4(c), and the Maryland Supreme Court agreed.
The court then applied the various aggravating and mitigating factors to the facts and disbarred Hecht. In so doing, the court rejected Hecht’s argument that intentional misconduct did not require disbarment. The court did, however, acknowledge that, at times, it has not strictly applied the Vanderlinde standard, such as in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Collins, (477 Md. 482, 529-30, 270 A.3d 917, 945 (2022)). However, the Court reiterated that to escape Vanderlinde, the circumstances must be both compelling and the root cause of the misconduct to avoid disbarment. Thus, while the Court retained discretion over the sanction, in future cases involving intentional dishonesty, we can expect the ultimate sanction of disbarment.
This article originally appeared in The Daily Record on May 7, 2026.
Goodell DeVries defends various professionals in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia, including lawyers and law firms. Many of these cases are ethics matters involving Bar Counsel. If you have questions about the above or are a Maryland lawyer facing discipline, please contact us at EthicsHelp@gdldlaw.com.