Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Mintz

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David B. Mintz, AG No. 21, September

Term, 2025, Opinion by Booth, J.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE – SANCTIONS – DISBARMENT

Respondent David B. Mintz violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct

1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (communication), 1.5(a) (fees), 1.6

(diligence), 1.16(a) (declining or terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation),

3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and attorney), 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary

matters), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct). The violations occurred in connection with

Mr. Mintz’s representation of 14 clients in matters arising in the United States Bankruptcy

Court for the District of Maryland, as well as his personal bankruptcy filings and his failure

to pay state and federal taxes. Considering the nature of Mr. Mintz’s misconduct and the

various aggravating factors present, the Supreme Court of Maryland concluded that

disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

Case No.: C-15-CV-24-006482

Argued: September 4, 2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

AG No. 21

September Term, 2024

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

OF MARYLAND

v.

DAVID B. MINTZ

Fader, C.J.,

Watts,

Booth,

Biran,

Gould,

Eaves,

Killough,

JJ.

Opinion by Booth, J.

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal

Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Filed: October 24, 2025

Government Article) this document is authentic.

2025.10.24

'00'04- 08:38:55

Gregory Hilton, Clerk

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“the Commission”), acting

through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (“Petition”)

against Respondent, David B. Mintz, a member of the Maryland Bar, arising out of his

representation of 14 clients in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of

Maryland (“Bankruptcy Court”), as well as conduct in connection with his own bankruptcy

filings and tax matters. The Commission asserted that Mr. Mintz’s conduct violated

Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”)1 Rule 1.1 (competence),

Rule 1.3 (diligence), Rule 1.4 (a) and (b) (communication), Rule 1.5(a) (fees), Rule 1.16(a)

(declining or terminating representation), Rule 3.2 (expediting litigation), Rule 3.4(c)

(fairness to opposing party and attorney), Rule 8.1(a) and (b) (bar admission and

disciplinary matters), and Rule 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct).

The hearing judge assigned to this matter found by clear and convincing evidence

that Mr. Mintz committed all but one of the violations alleged by the Commission.2 The

hearing judge also determined the presence of eight aggravating factors and one mitigating

factor. Neither party filed exceptions. Bar Counsel recommended the sanction of

For ease of reference and comparison with our prior opinions and those of other

1

courts, we will refer to the MARPC rules using the numbering of the ABA model rules, as

permitted by Rule 19-300.1(22).

In the Petition, Bar Counsel charged Mr. Mintz with violating Rule 8.1(a), which

2

states, in pertinent part, that in connection with a disciplinary matter, an attorney shall not

“knowingly make a false statement of material fact[.]” The hearing judge concluded that

“insufficient evidence was discovered during the investigation to support” a finding of a

Rule 8.1(a) violation. Bar Counsel did not file an exception to the hearing judge’s

conclusion, and we do not consider it further.

disbarment, which we imposed by per curiam order on September 4, 2025, following oral

argument, which Mr. Mintz did not attend. We now explain the reasons for our order.

I

Procedural Background

The Commission filed the Petition against Mr. Mintz on November 19, 2024. In

January 2025, Mr. Mintz was personally served with the Petition, as well as interrogatories,

request for production of documents, and request for admission of facts and genuineness

of documents. After Mr. Mintz failed to answer the Petition, or respond to the discovery

propounded by the Commission, the Commission moved for an order of default in

February. The hearing judge granted the motion, and Mr. Mintz did not move to vacate the

order of default.

Mr. Mintz failed to appear at a scheduling hearing in February. The hearing judge

entered a scheduling order, which set a pre-trial conference for April 11 and a trial date for

April 22. Mr. Mintz failed to appear at the pre-trial conference. Thereafter, the

Commission filed a motion for judgment of default, as well as a motion for sanctions based

upon Mr. Mintz’s failure to respond to written discovery. Mr. Mintz failed to respond to

the Commission’s motions and failed to appear for trial. At the hearing on April 22, 2025,

the hearing judge entered an order of default. The hearing judge also granted the motion

for sanctions and ordered, among other things, that the averments in the Petition, as well

as the admissions set forth in the Commission’s request for admission, be deemed admitted.

The hearing judge admitted the Commission’s exhibits, which consisted of its First Request

2

for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents, and the documents that were

attached thereto.

The hearing judge issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 13, 2025.

As noted above, neither party filed exceptions. Where, as here, no exceptions are filed,

this Court may accept the factual findings of a hearing judge as established. Md. Rule 19-

740(b)(2)(A). We choose to do so here. Accordingly, we treat as established the following

facts, which the hearing judge found to have been proved by clear and convincing evidence.

II

Findings of Fact

Mr. Mintz was admitted to the Maryland bar on December 13, 1995. At all times

relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Mintz exclusively specialized in bankruptcy matters and

maintained an office for the practice of law in Columbia, Maryland, or out of his home in

Rockville, Maryland. This case centers around Mr. Mintz’s representation of numerous

clients in bankruptcy matters, his personal bankruptcy filings, and his failure to pay state

and federal taxes. We discuss each matter in turn.

A. Client Complaints to Office of Bar Counsel

1. Nilda Pacantara

Nilda Pacantara hired Mr. Mintz in June 2020 to file a petition for bankruptcy on

her behalf. She signed a retainer agreement in which she agreed to pay Mr. Mintz a total

fee of $4,000. She paid $1,000 at the time she signed the agreement. Mr. Mintz remained

in communication with Ms. Pacantara for some time and returned some phone calls from

creditors on her behalf. Between November 2020 and May 2021, however, Mr. Mintz did

3

not respond to Ms. Pacantara’s attempts to reach him, and he never filed a bankruptcy

petition on her behalf.

Ms. Pacantara filed a complaint with the Office of Bar Counsel on May 24, 2021.

According to Ms. Pacantara, Mr. Mintz refunded the $1,000 retainer fee to her in November

2021 and informed her that he would continue her representation pro bono. Ms. Pacantara,

however, was still unable to reach Mr. Mintz. She began to receive subpoenas “concerning

her financial situation.” At no time did Mr. Mintz communicate to Ms. Pacantara that he

was unable to represent her.

2. Chika S. Olugbala

Chika S. Olugbala hired Mr. Mintz in July 2018 to represent him in his bankruptcy

matter. He signed a retainer agreement in which he agreed to pay Mr. Mintz $4,325 in

exchange for Mr. Mintz’s representation in a bankruptcy proceeding that Mr. Olugbala had

previously filed pro se. The retainer agreement specifically listed Mr. Mintz’s services to

Mr. Olugbala, including appearances at meetings of creditors and confirmation hearings,

and defending any motions filed for relief from the automatic stay. Mr. Mintz filed a

motion to convert Mr. Olugbala’s case to a Chapter 13 proceeding.

In April 2023, Nationstar Mortgage LLC moved for relief from the automatic stay

as to Mr. Olugbala’s personal residence. Objections were due in May, and notice was sent

to Mr. Mintz. Mr. Mintz did not file a response, appear at the scheduled hearing, or inform

Mr. Olugbala of the hearing. A second hearing was scheduled in June. Mr. Mintz once

again failed to attend or inform his client of the hearing.

4

Mr. Olugbala filed a complaint with the Office of Bar Counsel on June 4, 2023. In

an interview with a Bar Counsel investigator, Mr. Olugbala stated that he had made many

phone calls and sent several emails and letters asking Mr. Mintz to contact him. Despite

these attempts, Mr. Olugbala had not heard from Mr. Mintz since 2020. Mr. Mintz never

communicated to Mr. Olugbala that he was unable to represent him in the bankruptcy

matter, nor did he ever move to withdraw as counsel of record.

B. Complaints from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court

In September 2022, the United States Trustee of the United States Bankruptcy Court

(“U.S. Trustee”), through the Chief Deputy Clerk of the United States District Court for

the District of Maryland (“Chief Deputy Clerk”), made a complaint to the Office of Bar

Counsel about Mr. Mintz. The Office of the U.S. Trustee supplemented the complaint on

several subsequent occasions as it obtained additional information pertaining to Mr.

Mintz’s conduct. In each of the cases that the U.S. Trustee referred to Bar Counsel, Mr.

Mintz’s failure to act in his clients’ matters resulted in the cases being dismissed or in

rulings by the Bankruptcy Court that adversely affected his clients’ interests.

Within the context of the complaint, the Chief Deputy Clerk explained that many of

Mr. Mintz’s cases at the time were Chapter 13 matters “in which a debtor frequently needs

representation and the assistance of counsel not only at the inception of the case, but during

the plan commitment period, which may be three to five years after the filing of a

bankruptcy case.”

On October 28, 2022, the U.S. Trustee filed an Amended Omnibus Motion to

Review Conduct of David B. Mintz and the Law Office of David B. Mintz, P.C.,

5

Disallowance and Refund for Fees and Other Relief as may be Appropriate (“Omnibus

Motion”).3 The Omnibus Motion sought review of Mr. Mintz’s conduct in several

bankruptcy cases. After an evidentiary hearing, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Omnibus

Motion, and Mr. Mintz was ordered to disgorge fees to several clients.

The Chief Deputy Clerk advised Bar Counsel in February 2023 that the Bankruptcy

Court had found Mr. Mintz to be in contempt of the order granting the Omnibus Motion

for failing to disgorge fees. The Chief Deputy Clerk advised that the Bankruptcy Court

ordered Mr. Mintz to appear at the Office of the United States Marshal on February 27,

2023. So long as he fully complied with the Disgorgement Order, Mr. Mintz could purge

the contempt finding. Mr. Mintz neither complied with the Disgorgement Order nor

appeared at the U.S. Marshal’s office. The Chief Deputy Clerk’s communications to Bar

Counsel detailed Mr. Mintz’s conduct in 12 client-related bankruptcy matters as follows.

1. Brian Gruner

In March 2022, Mr. Mintz entered his appearance and filed for Chapter 13

bankruptcy relief on behalf of Brian Gruner. According to the compensation disclosure

that Mr. Mintz filed, Mr. Gruner paid Mr. Mintz $1,100 prior to the filing of the petition,

and the total fee for legal services was $4,625. Mr. Mintz’s petition was “bare bones” and

required additional documents to be filed with the court. Mr. Mintz filed four motions for

extension of time, all of which the court granted. In each instance, Mr. Mintz stated in his

pleading that the need for an extension was due to “no fault of the debtor.” Mr. Mintz

3

The U.S. Trustee filed an Omnibus Motion on May 12, 2022. This motion was

later amended in October, which is the operative motion we reference here.

6

failed to complete the required filing without requesting a fifth extension. Accordingly,

the court entered an order dismissing the case for failure to complete the required filing.

Mr. Gruner was forced to obtain another attorney and file another bankruptcy petition.

The U.S. Trustee filed a motion requesting that the Bankruptcy Court review Mr.

Mintz’s and his law firm’s conduct in connection with Mr. Gruner’s case in May 2022. The

motion requested that the court order Mr. Mintz to disgorge the $1,100 paid by Mr. Gruner,

which the court granted in June. After Mr. Mintz failed to disgorge the money, the court

scheduled a show cause hearing. The court issued an order holding David B. Mintz, P.C.,

in contempt of court in August 2022. Mr. Mintz was ordered to appear at the Office of the

U.S. Marshal in Greenbelt where he was to be held in custody unless he provided Mr.

Gruner’s tax documents in his possession and the quit claim deed to Mr. Gruner’s house.

Mr. Mintz did not turn himself in and was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals on

September 12, 2022. He was released the same day when he disgorged the funds and

provided the ordered documents.

2. Vanessa A. Hall

Vanessa A. Hall retained Mr. Mintz to file a bankruptcy petition to stop a foreclosure

sale of her property, which was scheduled for February 19, 2022. After Mr. Mintz filed a

“bare bones” petition on February 18, 2022, he failed to provide the requisite supplemental

documentation. The court issued an order to show cause why it should not dismiss the

case. Mr. Mintz filed a response, explaining that his failure to timely supplement the

petition was due to improper calendaring of deadlines and failure to follow up with his

client in a timely manner. He stated that “Debtor should not be penalized for the failings

7

of undersigned counsel.” The court granted an extension for the filing of the required

documents and sent notice to Mr. Mintz. After Mr. Mintz failed to file the supplemental

documents during the extension, the court issued an order dismissing Ms. Hall’s case.

Thereafter, in response to a motion filed by the U.S. Trustee, the court entered an

order in May 2022 directing Mr. Mintz to show cause why attorney fees should not be

disgorged. Mr. Mintz did not respond, and he did not recall disgorging the funds as the

court later ordered.

3. Paulette Emilien

Paulette Emilien retained Mr. Mintz for his representation in a Chapter 13 case. She

paid Mr. Mintz $500 to file the petition and agreed to pay him an additional $3,325 for his

representation throughout the remainder of the matter. Mr. Mintz filed a Chapter 13

petition with the Bankruptcy Court in February 2021. He failed to appear at the scheduled

hearing in March. Thereafter, the court issued an order denying the confirmation plan

without leave to amend, a copy of which was sent to Mr. Mintz. Mr. Mintz filed a motion

to reconsider and stated that he was “highly embarrassed to state that he missed the hearing

because he incorrectly listed the wrong hearing date on his calendar.” Mr. Mintz also stated

in his motion that Ms. Emilien had attempted to attend the hearing and was apparently

stuck in a waiting room due to possibly using a link for a previous hearing.

The court set a hearing date, but Mr. Mintz failed to appear. A second hearing was

scheduled, and again, Mr. Mintz failed to appear. The court then issued an order directing

Mr. Mintz to show cause as to why the $500 Ms. Emilien paid should not be refunded and

the remaining $3,325 owed to him for his representation in the matter should not be

8

disallowed. Despite the court’s order that Mr. Mintz refund $500 to Ms. Emilien, he never

refunded the fees. Mr. Mintz never communicated to Ms. Emilien that he was unable to

represent her in her bankruptcy matter, nor did he withdraw his appearance in her case.

4. Mirta De La Rosa

Mirta De La Rosa retained Mr. Mintz to represent her in a bankruptcy proceeding,

agreeing to pay him $4,925 for his representation. Mr. Mintz filed a “bare bones” petition

on her behalf. All documents were due on July 14, 2021. Mr. Mintz filed a motion for an

extension of time on July 16, 2021, which was granted with a new deadline of July 30,

2021. Mr. Mintz filed a second motion to extend the time, which was again granted. After

Mr. Mintz failed to file the required documents during the second extension, the court

dismissed Ms. De La Rosa’s case, and the automatic stay in connection with her personal

residence was lifted. Although Mr. Mintz received notice of the order dismissing her case,

he never informed Ms. De La Rosa. Ms. De La Rosa learned of the dismissal through calls

from her mortgage company beginning in October 2021. Despite her repeated attempts to

contact Mr. Mintz, he never informed her that he could no longer represent her, nor did he

withdraw his appearance in her case. Ms. De La Rosa retained a different attorney who

then filed a motion to reopen her Chapter 13 case.

5. Tyeacha Counts

Tyeacha Counts retained Mr. Mintz to represent her in a Chapter 13 case. Ms.

Counts paid Mr. Mintz $565 and agreed to pay an additional $4,060 for his representation

in her Chapter 13 reorganization. Mr. Mintz filed a Chapter 13 statement of current

monthly and disposable income in April 2019. In April 2021, Ms. Counts requested a

9

modified Chapter 13 plan, which was granted. Between April 2021 and April 2022, there

was no activity in the case. In March 2022, the U.S. Trustee filed a motion to dismiss

because Ms. Counts had not been making payments. Ms. Counts informed the court that

she had unsuccessfully attempted to contact Mr. Mintz electronically and in person and,

therefore, was unsure how to proceed with her case. A videoconference hearing was

scheduled, but neither Mr. Mintz nor Ms. Counts appeared. The court issued a show cause

order directing Mr. Mintz to appear at a hearing and explain why he had failed to appear.

After Mr. Mintz failed to appear at the show cause hearing, the court ordered Mr. Mintz to

disgorge any fees to Ms. Counts. Mr. Mintz never disgorged the fees as ordered by the

court. At a later hearing, Ms. Counts appeared without counsel and consented to dismissal

of her case. Mr. Mintz never informed Ms. Counts that he could no longer represent her,

nor did he withdraw his appearance from her case.

6. Donovan Grant

Donovan Grant retained Mr. Mintz to represent him in a Chapter 13 proceeding. He

paid Mr. Mintz $1,100 and agreed to pay an additional $3,525 for his representation

throughout the remainder of the Chapter 13 case. In December 2018, Mr. Mintz filed a

Chapter 13 petition on Mr. Grant’s behalf. In November 2021, Mr. Grant’s homeowners

association moved for relief from the automatic stay in connection with Mr. Grant’s home.

In December 2021, the U.S. Trustee filed a motion requesting that the Bankruptcy Court

issue a show cause order requiring an explanation why the debtor should not modify the

plan or why the case should not be dismissed. Mr. Mintz failed to respond to the U.S.

Trustee’s motion. The court entered an order dismissing the case and terminating the

10

automatic stay. At no time did Mr. Mintz inform Mr. Grant that he was unable to continue

to represent him, nor did he withdraw his appearance. After the dismissal of his case, Mr.

Grant was required to hire new counsel and to file a new Chapter 13 case.

As part of the court’s proceedings on the Omnibus Motion, the Bankruptcy Court

ordered that Mr. Mintz disgorge fees to Mr. Grant in the amount of $4,625. Mr. Mintz

never disgorged the fees as ordered.

7. Judson Anglin

Mr. Mintz represented Judson Anglin in his bankruptcy case. Mr. Anglin paid Mr.

Mintz $1,300 in connection with the representation. Mr. Mintz filed a Chapter 7 petition

on Mr. Anglin’s behalf in October 2019, which proceeded to trial in February 2022. Mr.

Mintz appeared for the first day of trial. Prior to the second day, Mr. Mintz filed an

emergency motion to continue the second day of trial, stating that he had a “flu-like

illness.” After the second day of trial was rescheduled and prior to its commencement,

creditor’s counsel filed a motion with the court requesting approval of a consent settlement

in which he noted that he was unable to reach Mr. Mintz.

8. Novimbi Consolation Meriwether

Novimbi Consolation Meriwether retained Mr. Mintz in 2015 to represent her in a

bankruptcy matter and paid him $4,500 for his representation. Mr. Mintz filed a Chapter

13 petition on her behalf in March 2015. Mr. Mintz charged her an additional $1,100 in

2020, which was paid to him through the bankruptcy plan. In November 2021, JP Morgan

Chase filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay with respect to Ms. Meriwether’s

residential property. Mr. Mintz failed to file any objections on Ms. Meriwether’s behalf,

11

and consequently, the stay was terminated in January 2022. Because Mr. Mintz did not

communicate this information to Ms. Meriwether, she only learned of the termination of

the stay when she received a foreclosure notice on her home. Ms. Meriwether retained

new counsel, who filed a motion to vacate the order, but the motion was denied. The court

ordered Mr. Mintz to refund Ms. Meriwether $1,100, which remains unpaid. Mr. Mintz

never told Ms. Meriwether that he was unable to continue to represent her, nor did he

withdraw his appearance in her case.

9. William T. Patton, Jr.

William T. Patton, Jr. hired Mr. Mintz to represent him in his Chapter 13 proceeding.

Mr. Patton paid Mr. Mintz $1,100 and agreed to pay an additional $3,525 over the course

of the representation. Mr. Mintz filed a “bare bones” petition on Mr. Patton’s behalf in July

2019. In February 2020, M&T Bank moved for relief from the automatic stay with respect

to Mr. Patton’s residence. Mr. Mintz filed a response in March, and the bank’s motion was

withdrawn. In July 2020, GNMA c/o M&T Bank moved for relief from the automatic stay

as to the same residence. Mr. Mintz filed an objection in July, as well as an opposition in

August.

In April 2022, GNMA c/o M&T Bank filed a notice of intent to foreclose regarding

Mr. Patton’s home. Mr. Mintz did not take any action in response, did not inform Mr.

Patton that he was unable to continue to represent him, and did not withdraw his appearance

at any time.

In connection with the Bankruptcy Court’s proceedings on the Omnibus Motion,

Mr. Mintz was ordered to disgorge $3,525 in fees to Mr. Patton. Mr. Patton informed the

12

U.S. Trustee that he had not heard from Mr. Mintz since October 2021. Mr. Patton told the

U.S. Trustee that he emailed Mr. Mintz in March 2022, asking him to contact one of his

creditors, and that Mr. Mintz never replied. Mr. Patton repeatedly called Mr. Mintz’s office

and cell phone. After hearing no response, he went to Mr. Mintz’s office in Columbia,

Maryland, in July 2022 and was told that Mr. Mintz had moved out of the space “a couple

months ago.”

10. Elliott Bennett

Elliott Bennett paid Mr. Mintz $1,100 for his representation in a Chapter 13 matter

and agreed to pay him an additional $2,500 over the course of the Chapter 13 process. Mr.

Mintz filed a “bare bones” petition on Mr. Bennett’s behalf in June 2019. In November

2021, BMW Bank of NA filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay as to Mr.

Bennett’s car. Because Mr. Mintz failed to respond, the motion was granted. In January

2022, another motion for relief from the stay was filed in connection with Mr. Bennett’s

personal residence. Mr. Mintz failed to file a response. The court granted the motion lifting

the stay in March 2022. In October 2022, the U.S. Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the

case for failure to make plan payments. Mr. Mintz failed to respond. The court granted

the U.S. Trustee’s motion in November 2022. At no time did Mr. Mintz inform Mr. Bennett

that he was no longer able to represent him, nor did he withdraw his appearance.

Pursuant to the U.S. Trustee’s Omnibus Motion, the court ordered Mr. Mintz to

refund Mr. Bennett $2,500. Mr. Mintz never paid the fees as ordered.

13

11. Dolka Vazquez

Dolka Vazquez retained Mr. Mintz for $1,085 for representation in her Chapter 13

matter and agreed to pay the remainder for a total of $4,925 throughout the Chapter 13

plan. Mr. Mintz filed a Chapter 13 petition on her behalf in May 2019. In October 2021,

Churchill East Village Community Center filed a motion for relief from the stay regarding

Ms. Vazquez’s home. Because Mr. Mintz failed to respond, the motion was granted. Like

his other clients, Mr. Mintz never communicated to Ms. Vazquez that he was unable to

continue to represent her, nor did he withdraw his appearance from her case. In October

2022, Ms. Vazquez filed a request to proceed pro se, which was ultimately granted.

Pursuant to the U.S. Trustee’s Omnibus Motion, the court ordered Mr. Mintz to disgorge

$3,840 to Ms. Vazquez, which remains unpaid.

12. Sharonda A. Colbert

Sharonda A. Colbert paid Mr. Mintz $1,100 for his representation in her Chapter 13

matter. Mr. Mintz filed a Chapter 13 petition on her behalf in July 2018, charging Ms.

Colbert a total of $4,625. Ms. Colbert paid Mr. Mintz through the plan payments after the

plan was confirmed on February 13, 2019. Due to Ms. Colbert’s inability to reach Mr.

Mintz, she was forced to file her affidavit to request discharge pro se. Mr. Mintz never told

Ms. Colbert that he was unable to continue to represent her, nor did he withdraw his

appearance in her case.

14

C. Failure to File Tax Returns and Tax Liens

Since 2009, Mr. Mintz has not filed his tax returns and has failed to pay taxes owed

to both the State of Maryland and the federal government. Mr. Mintz has tax liens filed

against him in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, which total over $56,000.4

D. Mr. Mintz’s Bankruptcy Cases

Mr. Mintz filed a personal bankruptcy case in September 2016, which was later

dismissed for failure to file the supporting documentation. Thereafter, Mr. Mintz filed

successive bankruptcy petitions in February 2017, October 2021, and March 2022. All of

these cases were dismissed for failure to file the required documents. The court issued a

show cause order in April 2022 after Mr. Mintz failed to appear at a scheduled video

conference, ordering Mr. Mintz to explain why his case should not be dismissed as a bad

faith filing with a bar to refiling. Mr. Mintz filed a response and requested a hearing, stating

that he was dealing with “personal issues.” After Mr. Mintz failed to appear at the hearing

he requested, the court dismissed the case and banned Mr. Mintz from filing any other

bankruptcy matters for 180 days. Fewer than 180 days later, Mr. Mintz filed a Chapter 13

bankruptcy case on behalf of his wife, Elyca S. Mintz. After the case was dismissed for

failure to file the required documents, the court imposed an additional 180-day bar against

4

The state tax liens filed against Mr. Mintz are associated with judgments entered

against him in the following cases in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County: (1) Case

no. 479389-V, with a judgment in the amount of $4,008.68 entered on February 13, 2020;

(2) Case no. 470786-V, with a judgment in the amount of $9,886.77 entered on August 12,

2019; (3) Case no. 487578-V, with a judgment entered against both Mr. Mintz and his wife,

Elyca Mintz, on October 8, 2021, in the amount of $5,993; and (4) Case no. 487624-V,

with a judgment against both Mr. Mintz and his wife in the amount of $36,430.57.

15

filing on behalf of Elyca Mintz. According to Mr. Mintz, he filed for bankruptcy to stop

foreclosure on his home, with each filing intended to give him time to secure a loan

modification or refinance.

E. Bar Counsel’s Investigation

1. Pacantara Complaint

In May 2021, Ms. Pacantara filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. Between June and

August, Bar Counsel sent three letters to Mr. Mintz that included a copy of Ms. Pacantara’s

complaint. On all three occasions, Mr. Mintz failed to respond. After this matter was

docketed for investigation, Bar Counsel sent a fourth letter in October, requesting a

response. After receiving no response, Bar Counsel sent an investigator to Mr. Mintz’s

residence and personally delivered the four letters. During this visit, Mr. Mintz agreed to

speak with the investigator over the phone. When they spoke, Mr. Mintz confirmed that

Ms. Pacantara paid him $1,000 to represent her and that she signed a retainer agreement.

Mr. Mintz stated that he had not contacted Ms. Pacantara since November 2020 because

he suffered from depression after he was involved in an accident. He told the investigator

that he would pay Ms. Pacantara the $1,000 in fees she had paid him and contact the

assigned Assistant Bar Counsel by November 15, 2021. After Mr. Mintz failed to pay or

contact Assistant Bar Counsel as promised, Bar Counsel’s Office sent a fifth letter in

January requesting that Mr. Mintz produce Ms. Pacantara’s client file and a copy of the

refund check. Later that month, the investigator contacted Ms. Pacantara, who reported

that Mr. Mintz had sent her a check for $1,000 and told her that he would represent her pro

bono in her bankruptcy proceedings. Ms. Pacantara told creditors to contact Mr. Mintz,

16

but they reported that Mr. Mintz was not answering the phone and that his voicemail was

full.

The investigator again traveled to Mr. Mintz’s residence to hand deliver Bar

Counsel’s fifth letter. Mr. Mintz agreed to call the assigned Assistant Bar Counsel. On

April 5, 2022, Mr. Mintz appeared for a statement under oath regarding Ms. Pacantara’s

complaint. Mr. Mintz testified that he had been in an accident in November 2020 that

impacted his ability to practice law and that he suffered from depression. In May 2022,

Bar Counsel sent a letter requesting documents. Mr. Mintz never responded.

2. Olugbala Complaint

After receiving Mr. Olugbala’s complaint, Bar Counsel emailed Mr. Mintz a letter

with a copy of the complaint and requested a response, but delivery to the email address

failed. Bar Counsel subsequently mailed two letters to Mr. Mintz’s residence with response

deadlines, but Mr. Mintz failed to respond to both. In September 2023, the matter was

docketed for investigation, and Bar Counsel renewed its request for a response to Mr.

Olugbala’s complaint and included a notice of intent to take a statement under oath. Mr.

Mintz did not respond. When the investigator interviewed Mr. Olugbala, Mr. Olugbala

stated that he had not heard from Mr. Mintz since 2020, and that Mr. Mintz failed to attend

two hearings in 2023.

On March 21, 2024, Bar Counsel learned that Mr. Mintz had been administratively

suspended for failure to comply with IOLTA reporting and for non-payment of his client

protection fund assessment.

17

3. U.S. Trustee Complaint

After Bar Counsel received the complaint from the Chief Deputy Clerk and after its

subsequent correspondence with the U.S. Trustee, Bar Counsel sent Mr. Mintz a notice of

docketing and the complaint by mail and email on September 12, 2023. The email was

returned as undeliverable. The Commission issued a subpoena for Mr. Mintz to appear for

a statement under oath regarding the U.S. Trustee’s and Mr. Olugbala’s complaints. The

subpoena also required a written response to letters from Bar Counsel. The subpoena was

personally served on Mr. Mintz. He failed to respond to the letters and failed to appear for

the statement.

In January 2024, Bar Counsel’s investigator hand delivered to Mr. Mintz a letter

from Bar Counsel that proposed that he consent to filing a Joint Petition for Disbarment;

otherwise, Bar Counsel informed Mr. Mintz in this letter that it would file public charges

pursuant to Maryland Rules 19-718 through 19-728. Mr. Mintz agreed to speak with the

investigator later that month. During that conversation, Mr. Mintz agreed to provide Bar

Counsel with a letter from his mental health provider describing his mental health disorder

and treatment plan. He also agreed to sign a waiver of confidentiality so that Bar Counsel

could discuss his condition with his provider. Mr. Mintz was asked to send Bar Counsel a

letter from his mental health provider of his diagnosis within one week. Mr. Mintz later

requested two separate extensions to obtain this letter. Despite Bar Counsel’s extensions,

he never furnished the document to Bar Counsel. He did not respond to several calls, text

messages, and emails.

18

The Commission issued another subpoena, which was personally served on Mr.

Mintz. Mr. Mintz appeared for a statement under oath, during which he admitted that he:

(1) failed to notify his clients after he stopped using his office location in 2022; (2) failed

to take any steps to terminate his representation of these clients, despite his realization that

he was not adequately representing them; and (3) refunded fees only to Mr. Gruner despite

his obligations to disgorge fees in 11 other matters. Although Mr. Mintz agreed to provide

his client files for all of the clients discussed, he never did.

III

Conclusions of Law

The hearing judge concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr.

Mintz had committed all but one of the violations charged by the Commission. Neither

Mr. Mintz nor the Commission filed any exceptions. We review the hearing judge’s

conclusions of law de novo and independently determine whether Bar Counsel established

by clear and convincing evidence the alleged rules violations. Maryland Rule 19-

740(b)(1)–(2); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Trezevant, 484 Md. 34, 47 (2023). Based

on our independent review of the record and the hearing judge’s conclusions, we agree with

the hearing judge and conclude that clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Mr.

Mintz violated Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (a) and (b) (communication),

1.5(a) (fees), 1.16(a) (declining or terminating representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation),

3.4(c) (fairness to opposing party and attorney), 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary

matters), and 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (misconduct).

19

A. Failure to Meet Basic Standards—Competence (Rule 1.1), Diligence (Rule

1.3), and Communication (Rule 1.4)

Starting with the basic standards of conduct governing the legal profession, an

attorney is obligated to “provide competent representation to a client,” which “requires the

legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the

representation.” Rule 1.1. An attorney falls short where he or she: (1) fails to act or acts

in an untimely manner, resulting in harm to his or her client, see Attorney Grievance

Comm’n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642, 694 (2019); (2) fails to appear on behalf of a client

without explanation, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith-Scott, 469 Md. 281, 337

(2020); (3) fails to notify a client of court dates, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Aita, 458

Md. 101, 132 (2018); or (4) fails to adequately pursue appropriate relief, see id.

Second, “[a]n attorney shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in

representing a client.” Rule 1.3. See also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 457 Md.

159, 216 (2018) (noting that a violation of Rule 1.3 may occur when an attorney does

“nothing whatsoever to advance the client’s cause or endeavor”) (citation modified);

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Garrett, 427 Md. 209, 223 (2012) (noting that “an

attorney’s failure to take fundamental steps in furthering a client’s matter qualifies as

neglect and inattentiveness to a client’s interest”).

Third, it is essential that an attorney communicate with his or her client. Rule 1.4(a)

states, in pertinent part, that an attorney shall “keep the client reasonably informed about

the status of the matter” and shall “promptly comply with reasonable requests for

information[.]” Rule 1.4(b) provides that “[a]n attorney shall explain a matter to the extent

20

reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the

representation.” “A violation of this Rule occurs when a client repeatedly attempts to

contact the attorney, but the attorney fails to respond.” Smith-Scott, 469 Md. at 341; see

also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Planta, 467 Md. 319, 349 (2020) (noting that Rule 1.4

violations have occurred where the attorney “fails to comply promptly with a client’s

reasonable requests for information” and where an attorney does not communicate crucial

case information).

Conduct that violates one of these three rules—1.1, 1.3, and 1.4—often violates all

of them. Smith-Scott, 469 Md. at 340; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. King, 491 Md. 485,

503 (2025) (finding a Rule 1.3 violation “for the same reasons as those supporting” the

“violation of Rule 1.1”). In this case, the hearing judge determined that Mr. Mintz’s

misconduct that violated Rule 1.3 also violated Rules 1.1 and 1.4(a) and (b). Given the

overlapping nature of the conduct that violates each of these rules in this case, we discuss

them together.

As reflected in the findings of fact, Mr. Mintz failed to satisfy the basic standards of

competence and diligence in so many instances that we shall not attempt to summarize

each of them individually. The hearing judge determined that Mr. Mintz violated Rules 1.1

and 1.3 with respect to all 14 clients whom he represented before the Bankruptcy Court by,

among other things, repeatedly failing to: (1) file pleadings or responses to pleadings; (2)

attend hearings; (3) file required supplemental documents; and (4) comply with court

orders. Mr. Mintz’s abdication of responsibility for these clients had serious

consequences—his lack of competence and diligence resulted in dismissals of many of his

21

client’s cases, and many clients lost the protection of the automatic stay for assets such as

their residences. We agree with the hearing judge that Mr. Mintz violated these basic

standards of professional conduct through an abandonment of “numerous clients in a

wholesale fashion.”

The hearing judge concluded that Mr. Mintz violated Rule 1.4, as well as Rules 1.1

and 1.3, in connection with each of the 14 clients whom he represented in the Bankruptcy

Court by failing to: (1) notify clients of scheduled hearings and motions that required

responses; (2) respond to clients’ phone calls and emails; (3) otherwise keep clients

informed about important matters related to their cases, including dismissals and court-

ordered relief from automatic stays. We could not agree more and find that Mr. Mintz’s

lack of communication with his clients violated Rule 1.4, as well as Rules 1.1 and 1.3.

B. Fees (Rule 1.5(a))

Rule 1.5(a) states, in relevant part, that “[a]n attorney shall not make an agreement

for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses.” The

hearing judge concluded that Mr. Mintz violated Rule 1.5(a) when he: (1) took payment

from Ms. Pacantara in exchange for filing a bankruptcy petition on her behalf but then

failed to file the petition as agreed; (2) received $4,325 from Mr. Olugbala and, thereafter,

failed to appear for two hearings and failed to notify Mr. Olugbala of the hearings; (3) was

ordered by the Bankruptcy Court to disgorge fees to Ms. Meriwether, Ms. Vazquez, Mr.

Bennett, Mr. Patton, Mr. Gruner and Ms. Counts; (4) failed to refund fees to Ms. Emilien

after failing to attend scheduled hearings; (5) failed to disgorge fees to Mr. Grant after

failing to provide any services of value other than the initial Chapter 13 filing; (6) failed to

22

disgorge fees to Ms. Hall after failing to provide services of value; (7) failed to complete

the representation of Mr. Anglin; and (8) failed to provide competent representation of Ms.

Colbert, Ms. Counts, and Ms. De La Rosa after taking fees.

We agree with the hearing judge that Mr. Mintz violated Rule 1.5 when he “fail[ed]

to provide the services he was hired to provide his clients.” See Attorney Grievance

Comm’n v. Wescott, 483 Md. 111, 124 (2023) (finding Rule 1.5 violation where attorney

accepted fee but only performed “scant services” that rendered the original fee

unreasonable). We further agree that any reasonable fee that Mr. Mintz may have charged

at the outset became unreasonable when he failed to provide services of value. Garrett,

427 Md. at 224 (stating that “an otherwise-reasonable fee can become unreasonable if the

lawyer fails to earn it”).

C. Declining or Terminating Representation (Rule 1.16)

Rule 1.16(a)(2) provides, in part, that “an attorney shall not represent a client or,

where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client”

if “the attorney’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the attorney’s ability to

represent the client[.]” The hearing judge found that Mr. Mintz violated Rule 1.16(a) by

not withdrawing from his representation of the 14 clients discussed previously “when it

became clear to him that his physical or mental condition materially impaired his ability to

represent these clients.” Based upon Mr. Mintz’s statement under oath, in which he

testified that he was unable to represent his clients because of an accident in November

2020 that impacted his ability to practice law and that he suffered from depression, we

agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Mr. Mintz violated Rule 1.16(a)(2).

23

D. Expediting Litigation (Rule 3.2)

Rule 3.2 states that “[a]n attorney shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation

consistent with the interests of the client.” This Court has found Rule 3.2 violations where

an attorney delays in taking “fundamental litigation steps in pursuit of the client’s interests”

and where he or she fails to serve necessary documents or fails to appear at scheduled

hearings. Garrett, 427 Md. at 226; see also Planta, 467 Md. at 354–55 (finding Rule 3.2

violations where attorney failed to respond to discovery requests, failed to communicate to

client settlement offer, and failed to prepare client for trial).

The hearing judge found that Mr. Mintz violated Rule 3.2 when he failed to: (1) file

Ms. Pacantara’s bankruptcy petition; (2) contact Ms. Colbert after filing her initial petition;

(3) file objections to motions for relief from the automatic stay in connection with several of

his clients’ residential properties; (4) respond to motions; (5) supplement the “bare bones”

petitions that required further documentation; and (6) appear at hearings. We agree with all

the hearing judge’s conclusions. Mr. Mintz’s failure to act in each of these instances

unnecessarily prolonged his clients’ cases, and in many instances, resulted in their dismissal.

There is therefore clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Mintz violated Rule 3.2.

E. Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney (Rule 3.4)

An attorney shall not “knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal

except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists[.]” Rule

3.4(c). Rule 3.4 violations occur where attorneys fail to comply with court orders. Attorney

Grievance Comm’n v. Conwell, 462 Md. 437, 469–70 (2019); see also Edwards, 462 Md.

24

at 704–05 (finding Rule 3.4(c) violations where attorney failed to appear at hearings, failed

to enter appearance, and failed to respond to discovery requests).

The hearing judge found that Mr. Mintz violated Rule 3.4 because of his numerous

failures to: (1) appear in court; (2) file supplemental documents after court orders required

supplementation; (3) respond to show cause orders; and (4) comply with court-issued

disgorgement orders. The hearing judge also found a separate violation of Rule 3.4 when

Mr. Mintz failed to appear at the Office of the U.S. Marshal and did not comply with the

disgorgement order to purge his contempt. We agree. Mr. Mintz repeatedly failed to

represent his clients in court for scheduled hearings and disregarded numerous orders from

the Bankruptcy Court, including contempt orders. This conduct clearly constitutes

violations of Rule 3.4.

F. Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters (Rule 8.1)

Rule 8.1(b) states that an attorney, in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not

“knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or

disciplinary authority[.]” The hearing judge found that Mr. Mintz violated Rule 8.1(b)

when he did not respond to the Commission’s request for information concerning the

complaints filed by Mr. Olugbala, Ms. Pacantara, and the U.S. Trustee. We agree with the

hearing judge’s conclusions and conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence that

Mr. Mintz violated Rule 8.1(b).

G. Misconduct (Rule 8.4)

Rule 8.4(a) provides that an attorney commits professional misconduct if the

attorney “violate[s] or attempt[s] to violate the [MARPC], knowingly assist[s] or induce[s]

25

another to do so, or do[es] so through the acts of another[.]” Because of Mr. Mintz’s

violations of the aforementioned disciplinary rules, the hearing judge found, and we agree,

that he violated Rule 8.4(a).

Under Rule 8.4(c), it is professional misconduct to “engage in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation[.]” The hearing judge found that Mr. Mintz

violated Rule 8.4(c) by: (1) failing to return his clients’ funds after he was ordered by the

Bankruptcy Court to do so; (2) failing to file tax returns and pay taxes; and (3) filing serial

bankruptcy filings on his own behalf, and later, on behalf of his wife, because the filings

were “intended to circumvent the court’s order in a deceitful manner.” We agree with the

hearing judge that all the above-described misconduct constituted dishonest behavior under

Rule 8.4(c).

Under Rule 8.4(d), it is professional misconduct to “engage in conduct that is

prejudicial to the administration of justice[.]” The hearing judge found that Mr. Mintz

violated Rule 8.4(d) when he failed to pay his taxes and because of his “contemptuous

actions and inactions towards the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.” We agree with the hearing

judge’s conclusion that Mr. Mintz’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice

in violation of Rule 8.4(d). See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ibebuchi, 471 Md. 286,

308 (2020) (finding Rule 8.4(d) violation when attorney “failed to provide the bare

minimum of services required by our professional rules” and stating that it “cast[] a shadow

on the profession as a whole”).

26

IV

Imposition of Sanction

As this Court has frequently stated, the sanction in an attorney disciplinary

proceeding is intended to protect the public and the judicial system from an attorney who

fails to satisfy standards of professional conduct, to deter similar misconduct by other

attorneys, and to maintain public confidence in the legal system. See, e.g., Attorney

Grievance Comm’n v. Kane, 465 Md. 667, 732–33 (2019); Wescott, 483 Md. at 127. In

devising the appropriate sanction, we consider not only the facts of the particular case, but

also the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors. In so doing, we refer to a list of

factors identified by the American Bar Association. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.

Blatt, 463 Md. 679, 707 n.19 (2019) (listing aggravating and mitigating factors).

In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-727(e)(3), the hearing judge made findings

as to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The hearing judge found one mitigating

factor present, which was that Mr. Mintz had no prior disciplinary history. We conclude

that the record supports the hearing judge’s finding of the single mitigating factor by a

preponderance of the evidence. See Maryland Rule 19-727(c).

With respect to aggravating factors, the hearing judge found by clear and convincing

evidence the following: a pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; bad faith obstruction

of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the

disciplinary agency; substantial experience in the practice of law; refusal to acknowledge

the wrongful nature of the misconduct; victim’s vulnerability; indifference to making

27

restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s consequences; and likelihood of repetition. We

agree with the hearing judge that these aggravating factors are present.

The Commission recommended disbarment as the appropriate sanction given Mr.

Mintz’s numerous violations of the MARPC, asserting that Mr. Mintz “completely and

utterly abandoned fourteen separate clients, causing them considerable financial and

emotional distress.” The Commission pointed to Mr. Mintz’s repeated failure to obey

orders from the Bankruptcy Court, his failure to appear for hearings and complete required

filings, and his litigation tactics, which the Commission described as “‘gaming’ the

bankruptcy system for his personal gain.”

“When selecting a sanction in an attorney discipline case, we do so keeping in mind

that our goal is to protect the public and deter future misconduct rather than to punish the

attorney.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Davenport, 472 Md. 20, 35 (2021). The Court’s

sanction should be “commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the

intent with which they were committed.” Smith-Scott, 469 Md. at 363 (quoting Attorney

Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565, 596 (2005)).

Without a doubt, Mr. Mintz’s misconduct warrants disbarment. We agree with the

Commission that the totality of Mr. Mintz’s misconduct “demonstrates a complete

indifference” to the duty owed to his clients, to the court, and to the legal profession. Mr.

Mintz’s neglect of clients’ cases, and his failure to communicate with his clients—all of

whom were in the vulnerable and stressful process of filing for bankruptcy—and his

continued failure to fully respond and participate in Bar Counsel’s investigation seriously

undermine the integrity of the legal profession. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.

28

Kremer, 432 Md. 325, 337 (2013) (noting that sanctions are imposed “to insist upon the

maintenance of the integrity of the bar and to prevent the transgressions of an individual

lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute”) (citation modified). Mr. Mintz’s wholesale

abandonment of his clients and his flagrant disregard for court orders is troubling, to say

the least. Mr. Mintz’s misconduct not only harmed his clients, but also erodes basic public

confidence in the legal system and the rule of law. For the above reasons, we disbarred

Mr. Mintz and awarded costs against him by per curiam order dated September 4, 2025.

29