## Facts

- Shauntese Curry Trye was admitted to the Maryland bar and later filed for divorce from her husband, Stephen Trye.
- For a period of the divorce litigation, Trye represented herself; Stephen was represented by attorney Michael Hamburg.
- In the divorce case, Hamburg served discovery requests on Trye. Trye repeatedly failed to provide discovery responses, even after the circuit court ordered her to comply.
- Trye made knowing false statements to the divorce court and to Hamburg about discovery and other case-related matters, including claims implying compliance or justification that the hearing court found untrue.
- Although Trye knew Stephen was represented, she sent him multiple text messages about substantive matters in the divorce. Hamburg specifically instructed her to stop, but she continued.
- Trye later told the divorce court that Hamburg had authorized her direct communications with Stephen; the hearing court found that statement was false.
- The parties reached a settlement that included splitting physical custody of their child. Trye presented Stephen with a draft document she represented as containing the agreed terms.
- The draft Trye provided changed the custody provision from shared physical custody to sole physical custody in her favor. Hamburg discovered the change, restored the agreed custody language, and the corrected version became the final consent order.
- In the ensuing disciplinary proceeding, Trye claimed the custody change reflected a later agreement. Stephen denied any such agreement, and the hearing court credited Stephen’s testimony and rejected Trye’s account.
- The disciplinary petition also charged misconduct beyond the divorce case. The hearing court found that Trye made false statements and avoided legal obligations in other contexts, including statements connected to mortgage/real property matters and her failure over multiple years to file required income tax returns.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed a petition for disciplinary or remedial action. After an evidentiary hearing, the hearing judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and both sides filed exceptions for the Court of Appeals to resolve.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence showed that Trye violated the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct through (a) discovery noncompliance and disobedience of court orders, (b) false statements to the court and others, (c) direct communications with a represented person, and (d) deceptive alteration of settlement documents and other dishonest conduct.
2. What sanction was appropriate in light of the nature of the misconduct—especially intentional dishonesty—along with any mitigation such as personal stress from divorce and financial difficulties.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals accepted the hearing judge’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous and gave substantial weight to credibility determinations.
- The Court sustained findings that Trye intentionally failed to comply with discovery obligations and court orders in her divorce case, violating duties of fairness and diligence in the litigation process (including MLRPC 3.2 and 3.4).
- The Court sustained findings that Trye made knowing misrepresentations to the divorce court and to opposing counsel, violating duties of candor and honesty (including MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4(c)).
- The Court sustained findings that Trye communicated about the divorce with Stephen despite knowing he was represented and without consent of his counsel, violating MLRPC 4.2.
- The Court sustained findings tied to dishonest conduct outside the divorce case, including false statements in other matters and prolonged failure to meet tax-filing obligations, supporting violations including MLRPC 4.1(a) and 8.4(c)–(d).
- Considering the pattern of intentional dishonesty, the attempted manipulation of custody terms in a proposed consent order, and the broader disregard of legal obligations, the Court ordered Trye’s disbarment.

## Legal Principles

- In Maryland attorney discipline, the Court generally accepts a hearing judge’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, while independently deciding conclusions of law and sanction.
- The Rules of Professional Conduct apply to lawyers even when they act as parties or represent themselves; pro se status does not excuse misconduct.
- Intentional misrepresentations to a tribunal violate the duty of candor (MLRPC 3.3) and are among the most serious forms of professional misconduct.
- Purposeful discovery noncompliance and violation of court orders violate duties of fairness and proper conduct in litigation (MLRPC 3.4) and can also violate the obligation to move litigation forward (MLRPC 3.2).
- A lawyer may not communicate about the subject of representation with a person known to be represented by counsel without that counsel’s consent (MLRPC 4.2); knowingly doing so, particularly after being told to stop, is an aggravating feature.
- Providing false statements to others in the course of legal or financial matters violates MLRPC 4.1(a) and may also constitute dishonest conduct under MLRPC 8.4(c).
- A pattern of dishonest acts, document manipulation aimed at gaining advantage in a court order, and repeated noncompliance with legal duties (such as tax filing) can constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (MLRPC 8.4(d)).
- When intentional dishonesty is established, disbarment is the typical sanction absent compelling mitigation sufficient to show the lawyer remains fit to practice and that public confidence in the profession will be protected.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that Shauntese Curry Trye engaged in sustained misconduct marked by intentional dishonesty—misrepresenting facts to the divorce court and opposing counsel, refusing discovery and ignoring court orders, contacting a represented spouse without permission, and attempting to alter custody terms in a settlement document while presenting it as agreed—along with other false statements and years of tax nonfiling; given the seriousness and pattern of the violations, the Court ordered disbarment.


Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Trye, 444 Md. 201 (2015)