The Supreme Court of Maryland has reinstated attorney Gregory Wayne Jones to good standing and dismissed disciplinary proceedings against him following an unusual motion by the Attorney Grievance Commission itself.
In an order dated Feb. 5, 2026, the court granted the Commission's "Motion for Reinstatement of the Respondent and to Dismiss the Petition," which was filed Feb. 4, 2026. The motion sought dismissal of the Commission's own petition for disciplinary action against Jones, which had been filed Nov. 17, 2025.
The court's order states that Jones "is restored to good standing by the Court and is again permitted to practice law in the State of Maryland," pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-733(e)(1). The petition for disciplinary or remedial action filed against Jones in November has been dismissed.
The case, designated AG No. 23 for the September 2025 term, represents an uncommon procedural development in attorney discipline proceedings. Typically, grievance commissions pursue disciplinary actions against attorneys through completion, rather than seeking dismissal of their own petitions and reinstatement of the respondent.
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland serves as the regulatory body responsible for investigating complaints against attorneys and pursuing disciplinary action when warranted. The Commission operates under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Maryland and is tasked with protecting the public and maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.
Maryland Rule 19-733(e)(1), cited in the court's order, governs the reinstatement of attorneys to good standing. This rule provides the procedural framework for restoring an attorney's license to practice law in the state following disciplinary proceedings or other regulatory actions.
The timeline of events shows a relatively quick resolution to the disciplinary proceedings. The original petition for disciplinary action was filed in November 2025, and the Commission's motion for dismissal and reinstatement followed approximately two and a half months later in February 2026. The Supreme Court of Maryland acted on the motion within one day of its filing.
While the court's order does not specify the underlying reasons for the Commission's decision to seek dismissal of its own petition, such motions typically arise when new evidence emerges, when the Commission determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, or when the respondent has taken corrective action that satisfies the Commission's concerns.
The order requires the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Maryland to provide notice of the reinstatement in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761, which governs notification procedures for attorney disciplinary actions. This ensures that relevant parties, including other courts and bar organizations, are informed of Jones' restored status.
Jones can now resume practicing law in Maryland without restrictions related to this disciplinary proceeding. The reinstatement restores his professional standing and removes any limitations on his ability to represent clients in Maryland courts.
The case highlights the Attorney Grievance Commission's role in both pursuing and, when appropriate, withdrawing disciplinary actions. The Commission's willingness to seek dismissal of its own petition demonstrates the regulatory system's flexibility in addressing changing circumstances during disciplinary proceedings.
For attorneys facing similar disciplinary proceedings, the case illustrates that grievance commissions retain discretion to reassess their positions throughout the process. However, such reversals remain uncommon and typically require compelling reasons for the Commission to change course.
The Maryland attorney disciplinary system operates under rules designed to balance public protection with fair treatment of attorneys. The Supreme Court of Maryland maintains ultimate authority over attorney admissions, discipline, and reinstatement, while the Attorney Grievance Commission handles the investigation and prosecution of complaints.
Maryland Rule 19-761, which governs notice requirements, ensures transparency in attorney disciplinary matters by requiring public notification of disciplinary actions and reinstatements. This serves both to inform the legal community and to maintain public confidence in the regulatory system.
The order was signed by Senior Justice Shirley M. Watts and authenticated under the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act, which provides for the authenticity of electronic court documents. The case demonstrates the efficient operation of Maryland's electronic filing and authentication systems for court proceedings.
Jones' reinstatement concludes the disciplinary proceeding that began with the Commission's petition in November 2025, allowing him to return to the full practice of law in Maryland without the cloud of pending disciplinary action.