The Supreme Court of Maryland has ordered the disbarment of attorney Judith Marie Hamilton after finding she violated eight separate rules of professional conduct during her representation of a divorce client and subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

In *Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Hamilton* (AG No. 32, September Term 2024), Justice Killough authored the opinion detailing Hamilton's extensive violations of the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. The case originated from Hamilton's representation of a client in divorce proceedings and her failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel's investigation into her conduct.

The court found Hamilton violated Rule 19-301.1 (Competence), which requires attorneys to provide competent representation involving the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Additionally, she violated Rule 19-301.3 (Diligence), which mandates that lawyers act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients.

Communication failures formed another significant aspect of Hamilton's misconduct. The court determined she violated Rule 19-301.4 (Communication), which requires attorneys to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

Financial and administrative violations compounded Hamilton's misconduct. She violated Rule 19-301.5(a) regarding attorney fees, Rule 19-301.15(c) concerning the safekeeping of client property, and Rule 19-301.16(d) related to declining or terminating representation. These violations suggest problems with how Hamilton handled client funds and managed the attorney-client relationship.

Perhaps most significantly, Hamilton violated rules related to her conduct during the disciplinary process itself. She violated Rule 19-308.1(b) concerning bar admission and disciplinary matters, indicating she failed to cooperate properly with the investigation. She also violated Rule 19-308.4(a) and (d), which address general professional misconduct.

The case was processed through the Circuit Court for Baltimore County under Case No. C-03-CV-25-000067. Notably, oral arguments were waived in the proceedings, suggesting the matter was resolved based on written submissions and existing evidence.

Disbarment represents the most severe disciplinary sanction available to Maryland courts for attorney misconduct. Unlike temporary suspensions, disbarment permanently revokes an attorney's license to practice law, though in some jurisdictions, disbarred attorneys may petition for reinstatement after a specified period.

The breadth of Hamilton's violations suggests a pattern of deficient practice rather than isolated incidents. Competence and diligence violations indicate she may not have adequately prepared for or attended to her client's legal needs. Communication failures suggest the client was left uninformed about important developments in the divorce case.

Fee-related violations can involve charging unreasonable amounts, failing to provide proper billing statements, or commingling client funds with personal accounts. Safekeeping violations typically involve mishandling client property or funds held in trust.

The violation of termination rules suggests Hamilton may have withdrawn from representation improperly, potentially leaving her client without adequate notice or time to secure alternative counsel. Such violations can severely prejudice clients, particularly in time-sensitive matters like divorce proceedings.

Hamilton's failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation violated fundamental obligations attorneys have to the regulatory system. Rule 19-308.1(b) requires attorneys to respond truthfully to disciplinary inquiries and provide requested information. Her violation of general misconduct rules under 19-308.4 encompasses conduct that violates professional obligations or reflects adversely on fitness to practice law.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, which brought this case, serves as the state's attorney disciplinary agency. The commission investigates complaints against attorneys and prosecutes disciplinary cases before the state's courts.

This disbarment adds to ongoing discussions about attorney accountability and client protection in legal proceedings. Divorce cases often involve emotionally vulnerable clients dealing with significant life changes, making competent and ethical representation particularly crucial.

For Hamilton's former client, the attorney's misconduct likely created additional stress and complications during an already difficult divorce process. Clients who experience attorney misconduct may face delayed proceedings, additional legal costs, and emotional distress beyond their underlying legal issues.

The case serves as a reminder to Maryland attorneys about their fundamental obligations to clients and the profession. The comprehensive nature of Hamilton's violations demonstrates how multiple ethical failures can compound, ultimately leading to the most severe professional consequence.

Attorneys practicing in Maryland and elsewhere can view this case as emphasizing the importance of maintaining competent practice standards, communicating effectively with clients, properly handling client property and fees, and cooperating fully with disciplinary authorities when issues arise.