Full Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sara Mohamed Samy El-Shall, AG No. 5, September Term, 2025. Opinion by Biran, J. ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT – DISCIPLINE – INDEFINITE SUSPENSION – Respondent Sara Mohamed Samy El-Shall violated Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.3 (Diligence), 19-301.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 19- 301.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 19-308.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 19-308.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). These violations arose from Ms. El-Shall’s conduct in three client matters, in which she failed to communicate with, and effectively abandoned, her clients. In addition, in connection with Bar Counsel’s investigations of complaints filed by the clients, Ms. El-Shall failed to respond to requests for information and failed to comply with a subpoena to appear for a statement under oath. Given these violations and the existence of several aggravating factors, the Supreme Court of Maryland indefinitely suspended Ms. El-Shall. Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No.: C-24-CV-25-007173 Argued: May 4, 2026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND AG No. 5 September Term, 2025 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. SARA MOHAMED SAMY EL-SHALL Fader, C.J. Watts Booth Biran Gould Eaves Killough, JJ. Opinion by Biran, J. Filed: July 27, 2026 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2026.07.27 '00'04- 14:57:59 Gregory Hilton, Clerk The practice of law can be rewarding in many ways, but often the rewards come with significant costs. A 2016 study based on a sample of 12,825 practicing attorneys showed that attorneys experience substance abuse and mental health issues at a rate much higher than other populations. Depression, anxiety, and stress are also significant problems for attorneys.1 This attorney grievance case highlights the need for attorneys struggling with substance abuse and other mental health issues to seek assistance promptly.2 Unfortunately, it also demonstrates the potential consequences of not doing so. I Procedural History On August 4, 2025, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”), acting through Bar Counsel, filed a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action (the “PDRA”) alleging that Respondent Sara Mohamed Samy El-Shall violated the following Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”)3: 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.16(c) and (d) (Declining or Terminating 1 See Studies on Well-Being in the Profession, THE PRACTICE, March/April 2020, available at https://perma.cc/B7T9-L7M5 (summarizing results of 2016 study conducted by Patrick R. Krill et al. under the auspices of the American Bar Association and the Hazelden-Betty Ford Foundation). 2 One resource for attorneys who suffer from these types of problems is the Lawyer Assistance Program of the Maryland State Bar Association. See www.msba.org/health- and-wellness, available at https://perma.cc/757V-EXDR. 3 For ease of reference and comparison with our prior opinions, we will refer to the MARPC rules using the numbering of the ABA model rules, as permitted by Maryland Rule 19-300.1(22). Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). This Court designated the Honorable Alan C. Lazerow of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to serve as the hearing judge. On September 26, 2025, Petitioner served Ms. El-Shall with the PDRA, Petitioner’s initial discovery requests, and related documents. Ms. El-Shall did not respond to the PDRA within the 15-day deadline set forth in Maryland Rule 19-724(a), prompting Petitioner to file a Motion for Order of Default on October 15. On October 16, 2025, the hearing judge signed an Order of Default. The court emailed that order to Bar Counsel and Ms. El-Shall, along with a request that they indicate their availability to attend a virtual meeting with the hearing judge on one of three proposed dates. See Md. Rule 19-722(a).4 The court received an out-of-office response from Ms. El- Shall’s email address; Ms. El-Shall never responded substantively to the court’s email. On the following day, October 17, the court sent both parties an email containing the login information for a virtual meeting on October 22. On October 20, 2025, before the Order of Default was docketed, Ms. El-Shall filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for an Order of Default. In her filing, Ms. El-Shall asserted that she “did not intentionally disregard the proceedings” but rather had failed to respond in a timely manner “due to acute mental health challenges.” Ms. El-Shall stated that her “forthcoming pleadings will set forth a meritorious defense.” On October 22, the 4 Under Maryland Rule 19-722(a), an order designating a judge to conduct a hearing in an attorney grievance case “shall require the judge, not later than 15 days after the date on which an answer is due, and after consultation with Bar Counsel and the attorney, to enter a scheduling order.” 2 Order of Default was docketed. Also on October 22, the court issued a Notice of Default Order. As required under Maryland Rule 2-613(c), the Notice explained that Ms. El-Shall could move to vacate the Order of Default within 30 days of the entry of that Order. The Notice further recited that any motion to vacate “shall state the reasons for the failure to plead, as well as the legal and factual basis for the defense to the claim.”5 Ms. El-Shall did not attend the October 22 virtual scheduling meeting. Following the meeting, the hearing judge issued a Scheduling Order requiring all discovery to be completed by December 31, 2025, and scheduled an evidentiary hearing for January 14- 16, 2026. On October 23, 2025, the hearing judge filed a letter on the docket that stated, among other things: Although the Court may not have granted the Default Motion had it had the benefit of the Opposition when ruling on the Default Motion, the fact remains that the Court granted the Default Motion and the Respondent finds herself in default status. Under Maryland Rule 2-613(d), the Respondent must move to vacate the Order of Default. If she does so, the Court will rule on it in the ordinary course. See Holly Hall Pubs., Inc. v. County Banking & Tr. Co., 147 Md. App. 251, 262-63 (2002) (recognizing that defaults are generally disfavored). If this case were a train, it would be leaving the station shortly. See Rule 2-613(d) (providing thirty days to move to vacate an order of default); Rule 19-727(d) (providing that a merits hearing in an attorney grievance matter “shall be completed within 120 days after service on the attorney”). The Respondent would be wise to hop on before it’s too late. Ms. El-Shall did not file a motion to vacate the Order of Default. On November 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion for Judgment of Default under Maryland Rule 2-613(f). 5 See Md. Rule 2-613(d). 3 Additionally, Petitioner filed a Motion for Sanctions under Maryland Rule 2-433 after Ms. El-Shall did not respond to Petitioner’s discovery requests. The hearing judge granted both motions. As a result, the hearing judge entered a default judgment against Ms. El-Shall; ordered that the averments in the PDRA be deemed admitted; and precluded Ms. El-Shall at the evidentiary hearing from introducing any documents, calling any witnesses, presenting any evidence or testimony that contradicted the facts established by the PDRA, or testifying to any matter other than any alleged mitigation. The evidentiary hearing went forward on January 14, 2026. Ms. El-Shall did not appear for the hearing. Petitioner called no witnesses but introduced five exhibits. The hearing judge issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on January 22, 2026. II The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact The hearing judge found that Petitioner established the following facts by clear and convincing evidence based on the PDRA’s factual averments and on information contained in the exhibits that Petitioner introduced at the evidentiary hearing. Ms. El-Shall’s Practice Ms. El-Shall was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 19, 2013. At all times relevant to this case, Ms. El-Shall maintained an office for the practice of law in Baltimore City. Ms. El-Shall’s area of practice was workers’ compensation. Representation of Stacey Wisniewski In November 2022, Stacey Wisniewski retained Ms. El-Shall to represent her in a workers’ compensation matter after terminating her prior attorney due to communication 4 concerns. Initially, Ms. Wisniewski believed Ms. El-Shall’s communication with her was good. However, communication issues soon arose. On January 2, 2023, Ms. Wisniewski emailed Ms. El-Shall with questions about her case; Ms. El-Shall never responded. On January 6, 2023, Ms. Wisniewski followed up by email, and on January 9 and 11, Ms. Wisniewski followed up by phone. Ms. El-Shall did not respond to these communications. Ms. Wisniewski followed up again on January 16, leading Ms. El-Shall’s assistant to schedule a telephone meeting between Ms. El-Shall and Ms. Wisniewski for January 20. Without notice, Ms. El-Shall failed to attend that meeting and did not follow up. On January 23 and 31, 2023, Ms. Wisniewski sent Ms. El-Shall additional emails. On January 31, Ms. El-Shall’s assistant emailed Ms. Wisniewski, apologizing for the lack of communication and asking to schedule a call for later that day. Due to an apparent issue with Ms. Wisniewski’s email, Ms. Wisniewski’s response to this email was not sent, and no meeting occurred. On February 15, 2023, Ms. Wisniewski received a letter from Ms. El-Shall, to which Ms. Wisniewski responded with several questions. Ms. El-Shall did not respond to that email. Ms. Wisniewski attempted to follow up by email again on February 27 and March 6; Ms. El-Shall did not reply until March 16. Between March 16 and May 3, 2023, Ms. El-Shall and Ms. Wisniewski exchanged several emails about scheduling Ms. Wisniewski’s independent medical examination. Ms. El-Shall also informed Ms. Wisniewski that her hearing before the Maryland Workers’ 5 Compensation Commission (the “WCC”) had been rescheduled from May 15 to July 18, 2023. Between May 27 and July 14, 2023, Ms. Wisniewski sent Ms. El-Shall several emails without receiving a response. On July 17, the day before her WCC hearing, Ms. Wisniewski contacted Ms. El-Shall about preparation needed for the hearing. Ms. El- Shall’s assistant scheduled a preparation call for that evening at 5:45 p.m. Ms. El-Shall did not call Ms. Wisniewski at the appointed time. Ms. Wisniewski emailed Ms. El-Shall about the meeting at 6:12 p.m., and Ms. El-Shall rescheduled the call for 7:00 p.m. However, Ms. El-Shall did not call at 7:00 p.m., instead texting Ms. Wisniewski to ask about having a call the following morning. Ms. El-Shall failed to call Ms. Wisniewski in the morning. Ms. El-Shall and Ms. Wisniewski met in person for the first and only time on the morning of the WCC hearing (July 18, 2023). Ms. El-Shall prepared Ms. Wisniewski for the hearing in the building lobby. At the hearing, Ms. Wisniewski received a settlement and was ordered to obtain a functional capacity evaluation. Ms. El-Shall received 20 percent of Ms. Wisniewski’s $40,000 settlement. Between September 23 and December 20, 2023, Ms. Wisniewski sought updates on her case three times without response. On December 20, Ms. Wisniewski received an out- of-office email stating that Ms. El-Shall was on medical leave. On December 25, Ms. El- Shall’s assistant informed Ms. Wisniewski that another attorney, Aaron Schwartz, would handle her case. On March 1, 2024, Ms. Wisniewski emailed Mr. Schwartz and Ms. El- Shall. Ms. El-Shall replied that she would call Ms. Wisniewski, but never did. Ms. Wisniewski emailed Ms. El-Shall with questions on March 6 and 8. Ms. El-Shall answered 6 the second email only by providing a requested fee report; she did not answer any of Ms. Wisniewski’s questions. The final contact between Ms. El-Shall and Ms. Wisniewski was on May 31, 2024, when Ms. Wisniewski contacted Ms. El-Shall and expressed concerns about the lack of communication. On June 28, 2024, Ms. Wisniewski filed a complaint with Petitioner. Bar Counsel sent letters to Ms. El-Shall on July 2 and August 13, requesting a response to the complaint by July 24 and August 27, respectively. Bar Counsel’s investigator, Jason Bogue, emailed Ms. El-Shall on September 13 and 18 at four email addresses, requesting that Ms. El-Shall contact him. On September 19, Ms. El-Shall replied to Mr. Bogue by email: Dear Mr. Bogue, My apologies for the delay in responding. This is my first day back in the office this week. I have received the letter from [Assistant Bar Counsel] dated August 13, 2024, enclosing the complaint and attachments and am in the process of responding and compiling any relevant documentation to attach in my response. I recognize that I am well beyond the August 27, 2024, deadline and sincerely apologize for the delay. Initially, I overlooked the extensive attachments, and it is taking me longer to go through everything than I anticipated. Again, I know that I should have contacted Bar Counsel to request additional time/provide an explanation. I believe I would be in a better position to discuss this matter after thoroughly going through the file and responding and believe I will be able to do so by Monday, September 23, 2024 (I will try to have it completed by tomorrow) and will give you a call after sending if that is acceptable. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Best regards, Sara El-Shall On September 25 and 27, 2024, having not received the promised response, Mr. Bogue emailed Ms. El-Shall. On September 30, Mr. Bogue left Ms. El-Shall a voicemail on two phone numbers listed for her in the Attorney Information System (“AIS”). Ms. El- 7 Shall emailed Mr. Bogue on October 2, explaining that she had been sick with the flu and a migraine, and would send the response later that evening. Ms. El-Shall did not do so. On October 7, Ms. El-Shall again emailed Mr. Bogue: Dear Mr. Bogue, Hope all is well. I have been struggling with depression and anxiety especially with this investigation and under the care of a therapist and physician I again apologize for the delay, but will have my response to you by Tuesday, October 8th. Ms. El-Shall did not send the promised response. On October 16, 2024, Bar Counsel docketed the matter for further investigation and emailed Ms. El-Shall notice that she had until October 30, 2024 to respond. In the email, Bar Counsel stated: “That is the final deadline. Should you not respond, Bar Counsel will consider that you knowingly fail[ed] to cooperate with the investigation and take the appropriate action.” On November 4, 2024, Mr. Bogue again emailed Ms. El-Shall, requesting a Zoom interview regarding Ms. Wisniewski’s complaint and an additional complaint. 6 Ms. El- Shall did not respond. On November 8, Mr. Bogue attempted to call Ms. El-Shall at both phone numbers listed in AIS, leaving voicemails requesting that Ms. El-Shall contact him, but received no response. On November 18, Mr. Bogue emailed Ms. El-Shall again requesting to schedule an interview. Mr. Bogue received an out-of-office email stating that Ms. El-Shall would return on November 20. Ms. El-Shall did not respond to this email. 6 The additional complaint was the complaint filed by De’Errick’A Hawks, discussed below. 8 On December 3, 2024, Mr. Bogue went to Ms. El-Shall’s office address. The receptionist indicated that Ms. El-Shall was not in the office. Later that day, Mr. Bogue went to Ms. El-Shall’s home address. In his Investigative Activity Report, Mr. Bogue recounted what happened next: Once at this location, the Respondent answered the front door. I inquired with the Respondent if she was Ms. El-Shall. The Respondent stated that she was not. I then informed the Respondent that I knew she was Ms. El-Shall. The Respondent then shut the front door. I then stated through the closed door that I was an Investigator with the Attorney Grievance Commission, and I knew it was her because I have a copy of her MVA record with a photograph. The Respondent then opened the front door. I advised the Respondent I was the Investigator she had previously emailed with about the listed complaint, and she had never provided a response. The Respondent stated, “I’m Sorry”. During this interaction, Ms. El-Shall acknowledged that she had a copy of Ms. Wisniewski’s complaint. Mr. Bogue provided Ms. El-Shall with the additional complaint and a copy of the letter accompanying that complaint. Mr. Bogue informed Ms. El-Shall that if she did not respond to Bar Counsel within seven days with respect to both complaints, Bar Counsel would subpoena her to provide a statement under oath. Ms. El- Shall did not respond further to Bar Counsel. On December 12, 2024, Bar Counsel issued a subpoena for Ms. El-Shall to appear for a statement under oath on January 22, 2025, and sent it to Ms. El-Shall by email and certified mail. On January 13, 2025, Mr. Bogue emailed Ms. El-Shall and left voicemail messages to confirm her appearance. Ms. El-Shall neither responded to the communications nor appeared for the statement under oath. Bar Counsel attempted to call and email Ms. El-Shall regarding her failure to appear, but Ms. El-Shall did not respond. 9 The hearing judge found that Ms. El-Shall “has never engaged meaningfully with or provided any documentation to Bar Counsel regarding [Ms. Wisniewski’s] complaint.” Representation of De’Errick’A Hawks On March 21, 2024, De’Errick’A Hawks retained Ms. El-Shall to represent her with respect to a workers’ compensation claim. After Ms. Hawks signed a retainer agreement, Ms. El-Shall had no further communication with Ms. Hawks; however, Ms. El-Shall did file a claim with the WCC on behalf of Ms. Hawks. In May 2024, Ms. Hawks learned that her employer’s attorney required her to be seen by the employer’s doctor. Ms. Hawks attempted to call, email, and text Ms. El-Shall, but received no response. Ms. Hawks then called the doctor’s office to schedule the appointment but was told that only her attorney could do so. Because she could not reach Ms. El-Shall, Ms. Hawks was unable to schedule the appointment. As a result, the WCC rescheduled Ms. Hawks’s original July 2024 hearing to October 2024. Ms. Hawks learned that the WCC had postponed her hearing after the WCC contacted her; Ms. El-Shall never contacted her about the postponement. Ms. Hawks continued to try to contact Ms. El-Shall through the summer of 2024, but received no response. Eventually, Ms. Hawks was referred to another attorney, Robert Gordon, whom she retained in October 2024 to take over her case. Mr. Gordon contacted Ms. El-Shall, who immediately sent him Ms. Hawks’s case file. With Mr. Gordon’s assistance, Ms. Hawks settled her claim in December 2024. Mr. Gordon attempted to contact Ms. El-Shall to determine the division of fees, but Ms. El-Shall never responded. 10 On October 10, 2024, Ms. Hawks filed a complaint with Petitioner. On October 18, Bar Counsel emailed the complaint to Ms. El-Shall, requesting a response by November 8. In addition, on November 4, Mr. Bogue attempted to schedule a Zoom interview by emailing Ms. El-Shall at three different addresses, but received no response. On December 12, 2024, Bar Counsel docketed Ms. Hawks’s complaint for further investigation and sent Ms. El-Shall a Docket Notice by email and certified mail to her home address. Bar Counsel received an out-of-office reply, stating, “Greetings, I am currently out of the office and will return Friday, December 13, 2024. I will respond to your message upon my return. Thanks! Sara El-Shall.” Ms. El-Shall did not respond to Bar Counsel. On December 12, 2024, Bar Counsel issued a subpoena for Ms. El-Shall to appear for a statement under oath on January 22, 2025, and sent it to Ms. El-Shall by email and certified mail. On January 13, 2025, Bar Counsel staff emailed Ms. El-Shall and left voicemail messages to confirm her appearance. Ms. El-Shall did not respond to the communications and did not appear for the statement under oath. Bar Counsel staff attempted to contact Ms. El-Shall by phone and email regarding her failure to appear, but Ms. El-Shall did not respond. The hearing judge found that Ms. El-Shall “has never engaged with or provided documentation to Bar Counsel regarding [Ms. Hawks’s] complaint.” Representation of Marquisha Lajuan Jackson On May 15, 2023, Marquisha Jackson retained Ms. El-Shall to represent her in a workers’ compensation matter. Ms. El-Shall held an initial phone consultation with Ms. Jackson. Afterwards, they communicated by email, phone, and text. 11 On October 9, 2024, Ms. El-Shall texted Ms. Jackson, advising that her WCC hearing had been postponed and that she would email Ms. Jackson with a settlement offer. On October 31, Ms. Jackson emailed Ms. El-Shall that the WCC was waiting for Ms. El- Shall to send Ms. Jackson the settlement paperwork. Ms. El-Shall replied that she would provide the paperwork to Ms. Jackson that same day but failed to do so. Ms. Jackson followed up with Ms. El-Shall by email on November 1 and 4, but Ms. El-Shall did not respond. On November 20, 2024, Ms. Jackson emailed and texted Ms. El-Shall a notarized letter terminating her services. Ms. El-Shall did not respond to Ms. Jackson. On December 3 and 5, 2024,7 Ms. Jackson emailed Ms. El-Shall, asking her to withdraw from the case, but Ms. El-Shall did not respond. The hearing judge found that Ms. El-Shall did not withdraw from the case and that “Ms. Jackson was unable to hire a new lawyer, apparently because [Ms. El-Shall] had not withdrawn.” In early December 2024, Ms. Jackson filed a complaint with Bar Counsel. On December 4, Bar Counsel emailed the complaint to Ms. El-Shall and the following day sent it by certified mail to her home address. The letter requested that Ms. El-Shall provide a response and any relevant documents by December 10. After receiving no response, on December 12, Bar Counsel docketed the complaint and sent it to Ms. El-Shall by email and certified mail to her home. Bar Counsel received an out-of-office reply from Ms. El-Shall’s 7 The hearing judge’s findings of fact contain a typographical error concerning the timing of these emails, mistakenly referring to them as having been sent on December 3 and 5, 2025, instead of the actual dates of December 3 and 5, 2024. 12 email, indicating she was away and would return the next day. Also on December 12, Bar Counsel issued a subpoena for Ms. El-Shall to appear on January 22, 2025, to provide a statement under oath. The subpoena was sent by email and certified mail to Ms. El-Shall’s home address. On January 13, 2025, Bar Counsel staff emailed Ms. El-Shall and left voicemails to confirm her appearance for the statement under oath. Ms. El-Shall did not respond and did not appear for the statement under oath. On January 22, 2025, Bar Counsel staff called and emailed Ms. El-Shall regarding her failure to appear, but Ms. El-Shall did not respond. The hearing judge found that Ms. El-Shall “has never engaged with or provided documentation to Bar Counsel regarding [Ms. Jackson’s] complaint.” III The Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law We now summarize the hearing judge’s conclusions of law. Rule 1.3 - Diligence The hearing judge concluded that Ms. El-Shall displayed a lack of diligence, in violation of Rule 1.3, in the Wisniewski, Hawks, and Jackson matters by “repeatedly failing to respond to client communications” and by “failing to advance each of the … matters[.]” In the Wisniewski matter, Ms. El-Shall would “fall off the radar for months on end,” only responding to Ms. Wisniewski after she attempted to contact Ms. El-Shall several times. Additionally, Ms. El-Shall failed to attend multiple scheduled preparation meetings the day 13 before Ms. Wisniewski’s WCC hearing, only meeting with her in the building lobby on the morning of the hearing. The hearing judge found that, in the Hawks matter, Ms. El-Shall failed to communicate with Ms. Hawks – despite Ms. Hawks’s repeated attempts to contact her by email, text, and phone – after Ms. Hawks signed the retainer agreement. While Ms. Hawks ultimately settled her case, she did so only after engaging a different attorney. The hearing judge found that, in the Jackson matter, Ms. El-Shall ignored several communications from Ms. Jackson regarding settlement paperwork. Additionally, the hearing judge found that Ms. El-Shall failed to respond to Ms. Jackson’s notarized letter and subsequent emails terminating her representation and requesting that Ms. El-Shall withdraw from the case. Rule 1.4 - Communication The hearing judge concluded that Ms. El-Shall violated Rules 1.4(a) and (b) in the Wisniewski, Hawks, and Jackson matters for the same reasons that he concluded she violated Rule 1.3. Rule 1.16 - Declining or Terminating Representation The hearing judge concluded that Ms. El-Shall violated Rule 1.16(d) in the Wisniewski, Hawks, and Jackson matters.8 Regarding the Wisniewski matter, the hearing judge found that Ms. El-Shall “effectively abandoned Ms. Wisniewski after her July 2023 8 Originally, Petitioner charged Ms. El-Shall with violating both Rule 1.16(c) and (d). Petitioner withdrew the Rule 1.16(c) charge at the evidentiary hearing. 14 WCC hearing.” With respect to the Hawks matter, the hearing judge found that Ms. El- Shall never communicated with Ms. Hawks after Ms. Hawks signed the retainer agreement. The hearing judge found “perhaps most troubling related to Rule 1.16(d)” that Ms. El-Shall failed to respond to Ms. Jackson’s requests to terminate the attorney-client relationship and to withdraw as her counsel before the WCC. Rule 8.1 - Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters The hearing judge concluded that Ms. El-Shall violated Rule 8.1(b) in the Wisniewski, Hawks, and Jackson matters, due to her failure to engage with Bar Counsel in the investigations in each case. With respect to each matter, the hearing judge found that Ms. El-Shall failed to: (1) respond to her clients’ complaints as Bar Counsel requested; (2) respond to emails and voicemails seeking to schedule an interview with Bar Counsel; and (3) appear for the January 22, 2025 statement under oath despite a subpoena. In addition, the hearing judge concluded that, “[p]erhaps most troubling, in the Wisniewski matter, after [Mr. Bogue] went to [Ms. El-Shall’s] home address, [Ms. El-Shall] denied her identity.” Finally, the hearing judge found that Ms. El-Shall failed to “engage[] meaningfully in this litigation, again ignoring the process after representing that a response and defense would be forthcoming.” The hearing judge observed that Ms. El-Shall’s “pattern of communication with Bar Counsel and the Court matches [her] pattern of communication with her clients – failing to respond for long stretches, apologizing, promising a further response or cooperation, and then nothing.” 15 Rule 8.4 - Misconduct The hearing judge concluded that Ms. El-Shall violated Rule 8.4(a) because she violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 8.1. Additionally, the hearing judge concluded that Ms. El-Shall violated Rule 8.4(d) in the Wisniewski, Hawks, and Johnson matters by: (1) failing to respond to Bar Counsel in each investigation; and (2) “failing to respond to client outreach and otherwise keep clients apprised of the status of their matters.” Remedial Action Taken by the Attorney The hearing judge determined that, given Ms. El-Shall’s lack of participation in the disciplinary process, including the proceedings in court after the filing of the PDRA, there was no evidence that Ms. El-Shall took any steps “to remedy her action and inaction.” Aggravating Factors The hearing judge concluded that five aggravating factors are present in this case: (1) a pattern of misconduct; (2) multiple violations of the Rules; (3) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding; (4) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct; and (5) indifference to making restitution or rectifying the misconduct’s consequences. In finding a pattern of misconduct, the hearing judge observed that Ms. El-Shall committed “similar flavors of misconduct” in the three matters over several years. Based on his determination that Ms. El-Shall violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a) and (d), the hearing judge concluded that the aggravating factor of multiple violations of the MARPC was present. The hearing judge found that Ms. El-Shall obstructed the disciplinary proceeding in bad faith by “essentially stonewall[ing] Bar 16 Counsel’s investigation, failing to respond for long stretches, reappearing, and then disappearing again.” Finally, the hearing judge concluded that Ms. El-Shall’s “fail[ure] to participate meaningfully in these proceedings” provided clear and convincing evidence of her refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct and her indifference to rectifying the misconduct’s consequences. On the other hand, the hearing judge concluded that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the aggravating factors of: (1) a dishonest or selfish motive; and (2) likelihood of repetition of the misconduct. On the record before the court, the hearing judge was unable to make any findings as to why Ms. El-Shall abandoned her clients, failed to cooperate with Bar Counsel during the investigation of the clients’ complaints, and failed to participate in the proceedings before the court. As a result, the hearing judge could not conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. El-Shall had a dishonest or selfish motive. The hearing judge stated that he was “confounded” concerning the aggravating factor of likelihood of repetition of the misconduct. Although Ms. El-Shall’s “failure to participate meaningfully in these proceedings” did not give him a “great measure of confidence that she appreciates the seriousness of her conduct or these proceedings,” the hearing judge noted this was the first time Ms. El-Shall had faced disciplinary charges. Observing that “the bulk of the caselaw applying this factor has involved attorneys with serial attorney grievance matters,” the hearing judge found that “this factor is in equipoise,” and determined that Petitioner did not meet its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. El-Shall is likely to repeat the misconduct. 17 Mitigating Factors The hearing judge observed that Ms. El-Shall bore the burden to establish any mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence. Because Petitioner did not allege any prior professional discipline, the hearing judge concluded that the mitigating factor of absence of prior attorney discipline was present. However, because Ms. El-Shall failed to participate in the proceedings, the hearing judge concluded that she could not “benefit from any other mitigating factors.” IV Standard of Review “This Court has original and complete jurisdiction in attorney discipline proceedings and conducts an independent review of the record.” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Bonner, 477 Md. 576, 584 (2022). Where neither party files any exceptions to the hearing judge’s factual findings, this Court “may treat the findings of fact as established.” Md. Rule 19-740(b)(2)(A). If a party files exceptions to factual findings, this Court “shall determine whether the findings of fact have been proved by the requisite standard of proof …. The Court may confine its review to the findings of fact challenged by the exceptions.” Md. Rule 19- 740(b)(2)(B). “The hearing judge’s findings of fact are left undisturbed unless those findings are clearly erroneous[.]” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Hoerauf, 469 Md. 179, 207-08 (2020) (citation modified). A factual finding is not clearly erroneous “where there is any competent evidence to support” it. See Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. O’Neill, 477 Md. 632, 18 658 (2022) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “We review the hearing judge’s conclusions of law without deference.” Hoerauf, 469 Md. at 208 (quoting Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Edwards, 462 Md. 642, 683 (2019)). V Discussion A. Ms. El-Shall’s Clarifications to the Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact Although Ms. El-Shall did not participate meaningfully when this case was before the hearing judge, she has since obtained counsel and engaged in the proceedings before this Court. In a written submission filed by counsel, Ms. El-Shall states that she does not except to the hearing judge’s findings of fact. However, Ms. El-Shall offers two clarifications to the hearing judge’s factual findings. First, Ms. El-Shall points out the typographical error concerning the year of Ms. Jackson’s emails to Ms. El-Shall asking Ms. El-Shall to withdraw from Ms. Jackson’s case. See note 7 above. Second, Ms. El-Shall asks this Court to take judicial notice that, on February 3, 2025, following Ms. Jackson’s request, Ms. El-Shall filed a motion to withdraw her appearance in Ms. Jackson’s case, as evidenced by the WCC docket. Based on this information, Ms. El-Shall asserts that “Ms. Jackson was not prevented from retaining another attorney.” Ms. El-Shall also points us to WCC docket entries reflecting that, on February 20, 2025, a settlement agreement was filed with the WCC regarding Ms. Jackson’s claim,9 and that the WCC approved the settlement agreement on April 3, 2025. 9 The WCC docket reflects that, as of the date the Settlement Agreement was filed with the WCC, Ms. Jackson was unrepresented. 19 Ms. El-Shall avers that “[t]his information was available for months before Bar Counsel filed [the PDRA] and almost a year before the hearing…. Although by default [Petitioner’s] charge in this regard was taken as established, this information was readily available and not subject to any reasonable question of accuracy.” Although we generally confine our review to matters in the record before the hearing judge, we may take judicial notice of facts outside the record before a hearing judge in an attorney grievance case, where appropriate under Maryland Rule 5-201.10 See, e.g., Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 472 Md. 561, 611-12 (2021); Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Davy, 435 Md. 674, 683 n.2 (2013). We shall take judicial notice of the filings in Ms. Jackson’s worker’s compensation case between February and April 2025 to which Ms. El- Shall has directed our attention. B. Ms. El-Shall’s Violations of the MARPC Neither party excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusions of law concerning Ms. El- Shall’s violations of the MARPC. Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. El-Shall violated Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) and (b) (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) and (d) (Misconduct). 10 Maryland Rule 5-201(b)(2) allows this Court to take judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is … capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” 20 Rule 1.3 (Diligence) Rule 1.3 compels an attorney to “act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” An attorney can violate this rule “by failing to advance the client’s cause or endeavor; failing to investigate a client’s matter; and repeatedly failing to return phone calls, respond to letters, or provide an accounting for earned fees[.]” Att’y Grievance Comm’n v. Dailey, 474 Md. 679, 703 (2021) (alteration by the Court) (citations omitted). Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that