The Supreme Court of Maryland has ordered the disbarment of attorney David B. Mintz following a series of professional misconduct violations. The decision, handed down on October 24, 2025, stems from Mintz’s representation of 14 clients in bankruptcy court, as well as his own financial and personal issues. The court found that Mintz violated numerous rules of professional conduct, including those related to competence, diligence, communication, fees, and honesty.
The Core Issues: Neglect and Abandonment
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland initiated the disciplinary proceedings, citing a pattern of neglect and abandonment by Mintz. The court’s findings revealed a disturbing trend: Mintz repeatedly failed to fulfill his obligations to his clients. This included not filing necessary documents, missing court hearings, failing to communicate with clients, and disregarding court orders.
The court’s opinion details numerous instances of this behavior. For example, in the case of Nilda Pacantara, Mintz took a $1,000 retainer fee but never filed a bankruptcy petition on her behalf, and then failed to respond to her attempts to contact him. In another case, Chika S. Olugbala hired Mintz, paid him, and then received no communication about his case. Mintz failed to appear at hearings and did not inform his client about the proceedings. The court also cited complaints from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, which detailed how Mintz’s actions often led to cases being dismissed or negatively impacting his clients’ interests.
Multiple Violations of Professional Conduct Rules
The court found that Mintz violated several key rules of professional conduct. These included:
* Rule 1.1 (Competence): Failing to provide the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation necessary for the representation.
* Rule 1.3 (Diligence): Not acting with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
* Rule 1.4 (Communication): Failing to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
* Rule 1.5(a) (Fees): Charging or collecting unreasonable fees, especially when failing to provide the promised services.
* Rule 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation): Not withdrawing from representation when his physical or mental condition impaired his ability to represent the client.
* Rule 3.2 (Expediting Litigation): Failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.
* Rule 3.4(c) (Fairness to Opposing Party and Attorney): Knowingly disobeying obligations under the rules of a tribunal.
* Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters): Failing to respond to lawful demands for information from disciplinary authorities.
* Rule 8.4(a), (c), and (d) (Misconduct): Engaging in conduct that violates the rules of professional conduct, involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Financial and Personal Issues Addressed
The court also considered Mintz’s personal financial and legal troubles. The court noted that Mintz had not filed his tax returns since 2009 and had tax liens filed against him. In addition, Mintz filed for personal bankruptcy multiple times, with each case being dismissed due to the failure to file necessary documentation.
Aggravating Factors and the Decision to Disbar
The Supreme Court of Maryland determined that disbarment was the appropriate sanction, considering the nature of Mintz’s misconduct and the aggravating factors present. The court found that Mintz’s actions were particularly egregious, citing the following aggravating factors:
* A pattern of misconduct.
* Multiple offenses.
* Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding.
* Substantial experience in the practice of law.
* Refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the misconduct.
* Victim’s vulnerability.
* Indifference to making restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s consequences.
* Likelihood of repetition.
The court concluded that Mintz’s actions demonstrated a complete disregard for his clients, the court, and the legal profession, warranting the most severe penalty.