The Supreme Court of Maryland has approved a disciplinary agreement that suspends attorney Mary Ella Gephardt for 90 days, with the suspension stayed in favor of one year of probation, after she admitted to violating multiple professional conduct rules.
The court issued its order on Dec. 10, 2025, in Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gephardt, accepting a joint petition filed by both the Attorney Grievance Commission and Gephardt. The case, designated AG No. 25 for the September Term 2025, represents a negotiated resolution to disciplinary charges against the attorney.
Gephardt admitted that her conduct violated four specific rules of the Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct. These include Rule 1.1, which requires attorneys to provide competent representation to clients; Rule 1.3, which mandates that lawyers act with reasonable diligence and promptness; Rule 1.4, governing communication with clients; and Rule 1.5(b), which addresses the reasonableness of attorney fees.
The specific nature of Gephardt's conduct was not detailed in the court's order, which referenced only that the violations were "described in the petition." However, the pattern of rule violations suggests potential issues with client service, case management, and fee practices that are common subjects of attorney disciplinary proceedings.
Under the terms of the agreement, Gephardt's 90-day suspension will not take effect as long as she complies with the conditions of her probation for one full year. The probation terms and conditions are contained in what the court referred to as a "Revised Probation Agreement," though the specific requirements were not detailed in the public order.
The court also ordered Gephardt to pay $814.60 to the Office of Bar Counsel as reimbursement for costs associated with the disciplinary proceeding. This payment must be made within 90 days of the court's order, setting a deadline of approximately March 10, 2026.
Attorney disciplinary cases in Maryland are handled by the Attorney Grievance Commission, which investigates complaints against lawyers and can recommend various sanctions. The commission works in conjunction with the Office of Bar Counsel, which prosecutes disciplinary cases before the state's highest court.
The joint petition approach used in this case indicates that both parties reached an agreement on appropriate sanctions rather than proceeding to a contested hearing. Such negotiated resolutions are common in attorney disciplinary matters and often result in more efficient case resolution while ensuring appropriate accountability measures.
The combination of rules Gephardt violated suggests deficiencies in fundamental aspects of legal practice. Rule 1.1's competence requirement obligates attorneys to possess the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for representation. Rule 1.3's diligence standard requires lawyers to act with zeal in advocacy and promptness in carrying out client matters.
Communication violations under Rule 1.4 can involve failing to keep clients reasonably informed about case status, not promptly responding to client requests for information, or inadequately explaining matters to enable informed decisions. Rule 1.5(b) violations typically involve charging unreasonable fees or failing to communicate fee arrangements clearly.
The court retained authority to approve any modifications to the probation conditions, emphasizing judicial oversight of the disciplinary process. This provision ensures that any changes to Gephardt's probation terms must receive court approval rather than being handled administratively.
Probationary periods in attorney disciplinary cases often include requirements such as continuing legal education, practice monitoring, client trust account audits, or other measures designed to address the specific deficiencies that led to the violations. The success of probation depends on the attorney's compliance with all specified conditions.
If Gephardt successfully completes her probationary period without violations, the 90-day suspension will remain stayed and not take effect. However, any breach of probation terms could result in activation of the suspension or additional sanctions.
The case demonstrates Maryland's approach to attorney discipline, which emphasizes both accountability and rehabilitation. By accepting negotiated agreements that include probationary terms, the court system can address professional conduct violations while allowing attorneys to continue practicing under supervised conditions when appropriate.
The order was signed by Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader and processed through the court's electronic filing system in compliance with the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act. The case file indicates it was handled as part of the court's September 2025 term, with the final order issued in December 2025.
This disciplinary action joins numerous other attorney sanctions issued by Maryland courts as part of the state's ongoing efforts to maintain professional standards and protect the public interest in the legal profession.