The Importance of Mitigation in Attorney Discipline Cases - Part 2


By George S. Mahaffey, Goodell DeVries

George S. Mahaffey

I’ve written previously about the importance of providing mitigation evidence in attorney discipline cases. (See "The Impact of Mitigators and Aggravators in the Attorney Disciplinary Process"). A recent attorney discipline case, AGC v. Yates, 467 Md. 287, 225 A.3d 1 (2020), reinforces why evidence of mitigation can be particularly powerful in cases alleging Rule 19-308.4(c) violations.

In Yates, the Court of Appeals found that the respondent-attorney's "willful failure to file income tax returns and timely pay the tax due violates the rules of professional conduct," 467 Md. 291, 225 A.3d at 3, including Rules 19-308.4(a)-(d). Ordinarily, a breach of Rule 19-308.4(c) is among the most serious of rule violations, but in Yates, the Court of Appeals rejected Bar Counsel's indefinite suspension recommendation and instead imposed a 60-day suspension almost entirely because the respondent-attorney established eight mitigating factors. Id. at 306, 225 A.3d at 12-13. The eight mitigating factors included: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; personal or emotional problems; cooperation with Bar Counsel’s investigation; good character and reputation; physical or mental disability or impairment; good faith efforts to rectify the consequences of the misconduct; imposition of other penalties or sanctions; and remorse. Id.

The takeaway from Yates is that strong mitigation evidence can militate the harshest of sanctions in cases with bad facts, including those with Rule 19-308.4(c) violations. This is clear from Judge Watts’s dissent, in which she took the time to highlight (and criticize) the fact that Yates's significant evidence of mitigation was enough to result in a 60-day suspension when in every other similar case, the respondent-attorney received an indefinite suspension. Id. at 317, 225 A.3d at 18-19. The bottom line is, if you are preparing to try an attorney-discipline case, make sure your mitigation evidence is well established.

Goodell DeVries defends various professionals and organizations, including lawyers and law firms, in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. Many of these cases are ethics matters involving Bar Counsel. If you have questions about the above or are a Maryland lawyer facing discipline, please contact the author, George Mahaffey.

See Part 1 of this post, "The Impact of Mitigators and Aggravators in the Attorney Disciplinary Process."

About Goodell DeVries

Goodell DeVries is a regional law firm with a national presence. From product liability and mass torts to medical malpractice law, complex commercial litigation, insurance, toxic torts, and more, Goodell DeVries’s team of 50 attorneys handles the most complex legal challenges for clients across the country. Our lawyers are ranked among the best in the nation by leading directories, including Chambers, Best Lawyers and Super Lawyers. To learn more, visit

Recent Deals

Interested in advertising your deals? Contact Edwin Warfield.

Connect with these Baltimore Professionals on LinkedIn

  • Edwin Warfield

    Editor in Chief, Warfield Digital

  • Jean Halle

    Independent Consultant

  • Larry Lichtenauer

    President of Lawrence Howard & Associates

  • Newt Fowler

    Partner at Womble Carlyle, LLP

  • David Crowley

    Owner at Develop DC

  • Carolyn Stinson

    Stinson Marketing Group