Maryland's Supreme Court heard arguments this week in two attorney discipline cases that could reshape how far the state's Bar Counsel can push its investigative powers — and how much weight a lawyer's mental health diagnosis should carry when disbarment is on the table. One case involves Baltimore attorney J. Wyndal Gordon, who is fighting a subpoena for his bank records after being accused of stonewalling a misconduct probe. The other involves Frederick family law attorney Timothy Conlon, who faces disbarment over allegations he lied to clients about their cases.
Gordon was identified as the respondent in the subpoena case in April, after court filings were inadvertently left unsealed, according to the Maryland Daily Record. Before that, he had been captioned only as “Unnamed Attorney.” The underlying complaint traces back to a former client who alleged Gordon failed or refused to provide an emailed copy of a personal injury contingency fee retainer agreement.
The Attorney Grievance Commission responded by issuing a subpoena directed at Gordon's banking institution, seeking his financial records as part of the investigation. A Baltimore Circuit Court judge refused to quash that subpoena, and Gordon appealed, setting up the jurisdictional fight now before the state's highest court.
A Fight Over Deadlines and Retroactive Extensions
At the center of Gordon's appeal is a 120-day deadline for Bar Counsel to complete an investigation, with extensions available for good cause. Jamar R. Brown, who represents Gordon, argued the subpoena is invalid because it was issued after that investigation deadline had already passed. Bar Counsel's case file reportedly excluded documentation of some extension requests because of its protected nature, complicating the timeline dispute.
Cortenous Herbert said some extension requests were made before the deadlines, pushing back on claims that the commission simply let the clock run out. But Herbert also said the respondent became completely uncooperative and stonewalled the investigation, an account that stands opposed to Gordon's version through his attorney, who contends the commission allowed deadlines to pass on four separate occasions without requesting good-cause extensions. Justice Shirley M. Watts questioned the retroactive approval of multiple extensions in Gordon's case, probing whether after-the-fact sign-off can cure missed deadlines. The Attorney Grievance Commission ultimately granted a retroactive good-cause extension for the investigation, a move Gordon's side says came too late to justify enforcing the subpoena.
Before the justices can even reach that question, they must resolve a threshold jurisdictional issue: whether a circuit court order denying a motion to quash a Bar Counsel subpoena is appealable in the first place. Cortenous Herbert said the state Supreme Court has complete jurisdiction over all attorney discipline proceedings, a position that speaks directly to that appealability question. The Maryland Courts granted certiorari in the case, captioned Unnamed Attorney v. Attorney Grievance Commission, back in April.
Gordon is a familiar name in Maryland legal circles. He previously represented former state Delegate Tiffany Alston during her 2012 ethics and criminal court proceedings, a case in which Alston faced simultaneous ethics charges from Bar Counsel and state misdemeanor charges, according to reporting at the time from the Maryland Daily Record. Gordon has also appeared in more recent Baltimore-area litigation; Hoodline previously reported on a Towson case in which he represented the plaintiff in a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Frederick Attorney's Disbarment Case Turns on Mental Health Timeline
In the companion case, heard the same day, Bar Counsel is seeking disbarment against Timothy Conlon, a Frederick family-law attorney whose practice focuses on custody and divorce. Bar Counsel alleges Conlon lied to clients about the status of their cases and delayed proceedings to extract more fees, characterizing his conduct as a pervasive pattern of intentionally dishonest conduct.
Conlon's attorney, Mary Beth Kaslick, asked the high court for a suspension rather than disbarment, pointing to mental health issues that were diagnosed and treated only in December 2025. The timing of that diagnosis — arriving late in the disciplinary process — sits at the heart of the argument over whether it should reduce the severity of any sanction.
What Comes Next for Both Attorneys
If Bar Counsel eventually files a formal Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action in either matter, Maryland procedure calls for the Supreme Court to designate a circuit court judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing within 120 days and issue a decision 45 days afterward. The Attorney Grievance Commission itself, established by court rule in 1975, consists of nine attorneys and three non-attorneys appointed by the state Supreme Court, and it oversees Bar Counsel's supervision of discipline for Maryland's more than 40,000 licensed attorneys.
The cases pending before the justices involve a dispute over a financial-records subpoena and allegations of dishonesty with clients — one testing how far a lawyer can push back against a financial-records subpoena, the other testing how much a late-diagnosed mental health condition can soften the consequences of alleged dishonesty with clients.
