Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Trye

Shauntese Trye (defendant) was licensed to practice law in Maryland. Shauntese filed for divorce from her husband, Stephen Trye. Initially, Shauntese represented herself in the divorce, while Stephen was represented by an attorney, Michael Hamburg. In the divorce proceeding, Shauntese repeatedly failed to provide requested discovery to Hamburg, even after the court ordered her to do so. Shauntese also made knowing misrepresentations to the court and to Hamburg about discovery matters. Shauntese sent Stephen several text messages specifically about the case, even though she knew he was represented by counsel and even after Hamburg specifically asked her to cease the contact. Shauntese then made false claims to the court that Hamburg had authorized her direct contact with Stephen. The couple eventually reached a settlement about the divorce matters, including agreeing to split physical custody of their child. Shauntese tried to get Stephen to sign a document that she claimed contained the agreed settlement terms. However, the document Shauntese gave to Stephen to sign had changed the agreed custody terms to give Shauntese sole physical custody of their child. Hamburg noticed the change and reinserted the correct terms, and that correct document became the final order in the divorce proceeding. The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (plaintiff) filed a disciplinary action against Shauntese, alleging that she had violated numerous professional-conduct rules. At a hearing on the allegations, Shauntese claimed that she had changed the settlement agreement because Stephen had agreed to change the custody terms. However, Stephen denied any agreement, and the hearing court determined Stephen’s version was more credible. The hearing court also determined that, in the divorce proceedings, Shauntese had purposefully failed to comply with discovery obligations and court orders, had directly contacted Stephen about case matters without authorization, and had made multiple knowing misrepresentations to the divorce court and to Hamburg. In addition, the hearing court found that Shauntese had made false statements and evaded legal obligations in other contexts. Shauntese claimed that she was under stress from the divorce and a possible foreclosure on the couple’s home, where she was living. The hearing court ruled that, overall, Shauntese had violated several rules of professional conduct and recommended that she be disciplined. The Maryland Court of Appeals considered the recommendation.