Legal Services - Lisa Lyons Wards - Laura Pitts Wiliams ripoff scam artists liars theives all talk no action nor show do nothings Ellicott City Maryland

I've always known that Laura Pitts Williams and Lisa Lyons Ward were a crook and liar from the past. I've just recently found out that her best friend Lisa Lyons Ward is not licensed to practice law in any state but Mississippi only. If you feel that you are a victim please go to your local crime unit and take out a warrant for their arrest now!! PLEASE DO NOT WASTE ANYMORE TIME OR MONEY ON THEM !!!! I'm sorry Laura and Lisa but I refuse to watch you steal money from these people like this. Also, for the Blacks in Government memebers the money that was stolen three years ago... Guess what Laura did it and that's why there were no big stink about it. For those who are seeking help, now you know that it's not here. I hope that I have saved you some money, and grief. If you would like to read more about her dishonest behavior, please go to: http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/RamirezvEngland03cv1174Opinion.pdf.

Also, if you would like to file a complaint against her, you can do so at the following address:

The Mississippi Bar

Office of the General Counsel

ATTN: Adam B. Kilgore, Esq.

Post Office Box 2168

Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2168

Telephone: (601) 948-0568

Fax: (601) 355-8635

E-mail Address: msbar@msbar.org

Website: www.msbar.org

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LUIS RAMIREZ *
*
Plaintiff *
*
vs. * Case No. RWT 03-CV-1174
*
GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary, *
Department of the Navy *
*
Defendant *
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court for consideration is a motion filed by Karl J. Protil, Jr., a member of the bar
of this Court, for the admission of Lisa Lyons Ward to appear pro hac vice as counsel for the
Plaintiff. (Paper No. 16) For the reasons set forth below, the motion, by separate Order, will be
denied.
Factual and Procedural History
(i) The Proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
On April 19, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against the
Defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Complaint was
signed personally by the Plaintiff as well as by Ms. Ward, who gave as her only address Office of
Lisa Lyons Ward, 4638 Chatsworth Way, Ellicott City, Maryland 21043. The Complaint contained
office and fax telephone numbers, both of which contained a Maryland area code.
On October 15, 2002, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to
Transfer to the District of Maryland. Following the filing of an Opposition by the Plaintiff on
November 12, 2002, United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton entered a Memorandum Opinion
and Order on December 6, 2002, transferring the case to this district.
2
The case was docketed in this district on April 21, 2003. On the following day, notification
was forwarded by the Clerk of this Court advising both counsel of the docketing of the case, and
enclosing a copy of the Local Rule 101 governing representation of parties by members of the bar
of this Court.
(ii) Initial Proceedings in This Court
The case was transferred to the undersigned on November 26, 2003. Upon an examination
of the file, it was noted that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had only
partially disposed of the Motion filed by the Defendant, and that there remained for decision by the
Court the issue of sufficiency of the Complaint which had been tested by the Defendant's alternative
Motion to Dismiss. Unsuccessful efforts were then made by the undersigned's law clerk to reach
counsel for the Plaintiff for the purpose of scheduling a hearing on the Motion by placing telephone
calls to the Maryland telephone number contained on the Complaint filed in the District of
Columbia. After these attempts to reach Ms. Ward by telephone were unsuccessful, a letter was sent
to her by the undersigned dated February 23, 2004 requesting that she advise whether she or some
other attorney intended to represent the Plaintiff in the proceedings pending before this Court,
pointing out that she was not a member of the bar of this Court, and advising her that she would need
to have counsel admitted to practice before this Court enter his or her appearance and move for her
admission pro hac vice if she intended to proceed with the case.
(iii) The Motion for Admission of Ms. Ward Pro Hac Vice
On March 2, 2004, Mr. Protil moved for the admission of Ms. Ward pro hac vice. In the
Motion, he stated that Ms. Ward is a member of the bar of the Mississippi Supreme Court, having
been admitted to practice on April 26, 1990. The Motion also pointed out that she was admitted to
3
practice before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 7, 2002, as well
as by the Northern and Southern Districts of the United States District Court for the District of
Mississippi on November 5, 2001.
Upon review of the Motion for the admission of Ms. Ward pro hac vice, the undersigned
requested that his law clerk attempt to reach counsel for the parties for the purpose of scheduling a
hearing on the Motion. The Maryland number supplied by Ms. Ward was answered by an answering
machine which did not identify the number reached other than by telephone number. A separate call
placed to the Mississippi number supplied by Mr. Protil in his motion for the admission of Ms. Ward
was answered by an answering machine which identified it only as law offices, with a recorded
message supplying a menu of names from which to select which did not include Ms. Ward. When
these efforts to reach Ms. Ward were unsuccessful, the law clerk to the undersigned reached Mr.
Protil who stated that he was unavailable on the date on which the Court intended to schedule a
hearing, and advised the law clerk that Ms. Ward practices out of her home in Ellicott City.
By letter dated March 22, 2004, the undersigned requested that additional information be
submitted to the Court concerning Ms. Ward's law practice, noting that her actions in Maryland
might constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The Court requested that detailed information be
submitted concerning the circumstances surrounding the maintenance by Ms. Ward of an office in
her Maryland home, and how her representation of the Plaintiff in this case comports with applicable
1Elezovic v. England, Civil No. PJM 03-3649, is another case pending before this Court that was
transferred here by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and which was originally filed by
Ms. Ward in that jurisdiction. By Memorandum dated April 14, 2004, Judge Peter J. Messitte of this Court also
observed that Ms. Ward may be engaged in the practice of law in this State, and requested that his concerns be
addressed within ten days. No response was received by Judge Messitte or filed with the Clerk of this Court, but
Ms. Ward filed in this case a copy of the letter purportedly filed by her in the case pending before Judge Messitte.
(See discussion, below)
2In unverified correspondence received after the evidentiary hearing, Ms. Ward claimed that she spent a
week in Biloxi, Mississippi, during an unspecified period in 2004 in order to meet with a prospective client
concerning a worker's compensation claim as well as work on several other legal matters.
3According to public records of the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation, Ms. Ward and her
husband, Joseph, acquired their home in a not arms-length transaction on August 13, 2002. See,
http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/rp_rewrite/results.asp?streetNumber=4638&streetName=CHATSWORTH&county=14
&intMenu =2&SearchType=Street&submit4=SEARCH.
4
law.1
(iv) The Hearing on the Motion
On April 26, 2004, a hearing was held before the Court on the Motion for Admission Pro
Hac Vice of Ms. Ward. During the hearing, Ms. Ward testified under oath that she has a principal
office in Jackson, Mississippi, and that she intends to have one in June, July and August in
Biloxi. When pressed for information concerning the actual extent of her physical presence in her
principal office, Ms. Ward conceded that she has not been present in her allegedly principal
Mississippi office on any occasion during calendar year 2004.2
In further testimony, Ms. Ward conceded that she lives with her husband in Ellicott City, and
that she considers that to be her permanent home.3 She does not have any residence in Mississippi,
and stated that when she goes to Mississippi, she stays with her parents who live in Alabama, about
sixty miles away from Biloxi. She said that she has regular office space with a law school
classmate of hers in Jackson, Mississippi. When asked about the answering machine at her alleged
Jackson, Mississippi address that did not contain an option for Ms. Ward, she gave a confusing
4As a review of dockets of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, infra, reveals, this
statement by Ms. Ward was incorrect in all but five of twenty-three cases filed by her in that court. She further
represented to this Court that in pleadings before those filed in the instant case, a complaint would have listed both
addresses, something that is contradicted by public records of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The first complaint filed by her in that Court that contained, as a second address underneath the Ellicott City,
Maryland, address was filed over eight months after the Complaint in this case.
5
answer in which she said that her secretary, Fannie, or a receptionist usually takes the phone.
However, a call by the law clerk to the undersigned to the Mississippi number was answered by a
machine that did not give the option of speaking to a human being. She claimed that she pays for
office space in Mississippi and has her own office. In further testimony, Ms. Ward stated that she
had been in Mississippi two or three times a month prior to August of 2003, but only a few days after
August consisting of two visits, one of which was a weekend visit.
Ms. Ward conceded that she had done most of her work on this case from her home in
Ellicott City, which she described as a home office. She also stated that that is where she does
most of her work generally. She denied that she meets with clients in Ellicott City. She claimed that
she met with her client in this case in Virginia, but conceded that she met with him once in Maryland
at a Kinko's or something like that. She also stated that she had conferred by telephone with her
client in this case from her Ellicott City office, and that she had given him advice during those
conversations.
When Ms. Ward was asked why she listed her office address on the pleadings in this case as
being in Ellicott City, when her principal office allegedly was in Jackson, Mississippi, she claimed
that she had also listed and notified the District of Columbia, the U. S. District Court there, that I
have both addresses, and in fact, that is what appears. I have a standard address or signature block
that has both addresses on there.4 When asked by the Court where she would instruct her client in
this matter to contact her if he needs to talk to her about this case, she stated that he would call her
5Ms. Ward did submit a copy of her letterhead. On the left side, there appears a Jackson, Mississippi
address, under which the following statement is included: Admitted, U.S. District Court, Northern and Southern
Districts of Mississippi. On the right side, there appears Ms. Ward's Ellicott City, Maryland address, under which
the following statement is included: Admitted, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia. No indication is given
that Ms. Ward is not a member of the Maryland bar.
6
in Ellicott City, Maryland.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court requested that Ms. Ward provide to the Court a
copy of all versions of her letterhead in use for the last two years. Mr. Protil advised the Court that
the documents requested during the hearing would be furnished within a week, and that anything by
way of rental agreements or other things that substantiate the maintaining of an office down in
Mississippi would be provided.
On May 6, 2004, Ms. Lyons submitted a letter to the Court. In her letter, she stated that her
home office is a fully-functional office ..., which includes research materials and standard office
equipment. However, she claimed that she does not meet with clients in her home office. No
documentation was submitted, as promised, concerning rental or any other arrangements for the use
of office space in Mississippi.5
(v) Other Proceedings in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
A review of the case management/electronic case filing records of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia reveals that Ms. Ward has appeared as counsel of record in a total
6See, Fields v. O'Neill, et al., Case No. 99-cv-1108-RWR; McKay v. England, Case No. 01-cv-2535-JR;
Montes v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Case No. 02-cv-66-CKK; O'Neal v.
England, Case No. 02-cv-172-RWR-DAR; Brewer v. England, Case No. 02-cv-310-RBW; DeLeon v. England,
Case No. 02-cv-473-EGS; Nails v. England, Case No. 02-cv-573-RWR; Ramirez v. England, Case No. 02-cv-742-
RBW; Dixon v. England, Case No. 02-cv-823-JR; Brooks-Miller v. England, Case No. 02-cv-888-RJL; Aceto v.
England, Case No. 02-cv-949-RMU; Boykin v. England, Case No. 02-cv-950-JDB; Carroll v. England, Case No.
02-cv-1072-HHK; Johnson v. England, Case No. 02-cv-1453-PLF; Harris v. Potter, Case No. 02-cv-1491-EGS;
Lyles v. White, Case No. 02-cv-1780-RMC; Pollock v. White, Case No. 02-cv-1869-JR; Cabera v. England, Case
No. 02-cv-2037-HHK; Lee v. England, Case No. 02-cv-2521-JR; Gaines v. Potter, Case No. 03-cv-53-RMU;
Elezovic v. England, Case No. 03-cv-131-JDB; Medley v. Donaldson, Case No. 03-cv-1482-GK; Wright v.
England, Case No. 03-cv-132-HHK.
7
of twenty-three cases filed between 1999 and July of 2003.6 Examination of the dockets of these
cases shows that in eighteen of the twenty-three cases, the only address listed by Ms. Lyons was the
Ellicott City address used by her in this case. In the remaining five cases, beginning with a case filed
in late December 2002, a second Mississippi address was listed after the Maryland address.
The dockets of these cases also reveal a pattern of neglect to procedural and practice
requirements that is alarming. For example, in Fields v. O'Neill, No. 99-1108-RWR, filed May 6,
1999, Ms. Ward was admitted pro hac vice on April 27, 2001, but was thereafter discharged after
a pro se motion was filed by her client discharging Ms. Ward, and stating that several attempts have
been made to contact Mrs. Ward. To date, she has not responded.
In McKay v. England, No. 01-2535-JR, a professionally prepared complaint and demand for
jury trial was filed on December 7, 2001, by the Plaintiff, purportedly pro se, but with a footnote at
the end of the complaint stating that the Plaintiff's attorney, Lisa Lyons Ward, expects to file, by
the close of the week ending December 7, 2001, a motion for admission, pro hac vice, following her
December 5, 2001 admission into the U.S. Federal District Courts for the Northern and Southern
Districts of Mississippi and subsequently for admission to the U.S. Federal District Court for the
District of Columbia. (emphasis added) As noted above, Ms. Ward was not admitted to the bar
8
of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia until April 7, 2002. Summary
judgment was ultimately entered against Ms. Ward's client and an appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia was dismissed.
In O'Neal v. England, No. 02-172-RWR-DAR, a professionally prepared complaint was filed
on January 31, 2002, which was signed both by the Plaintiff, purportedly pro se, and by Ms. Ward,
with a similar footnote at the end of the complaint reading as follows: The undersigned counsel is
an attorney admitted to practice with U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Southern District
Courts of Mississippi, who have reciprocity with this Honorable Court. The undersigned counsel
has an application pending for admission to this Honorable Court. Ms. Ward entered her
appearance formally in that case on June 21, 2002, and summary judgment was later entered against
her client.
On March 13, 2002, a professionally prepared complaint was filed in the case of DeLeon v.
England, No. 02-473-EGS, again purportedly pro se, but which was also signed by Ms. Ward, and
contained a footnote reading as follows: The undersigned counsel is an attorney admitted to practice
with U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Southern District Courts of Mississippi, who have
reciprocity with this Honorable Court. The undersigned counsel has an application pending for
admission to this Honorable Court.
In Nails v. England, No. 02-573-RWR, another professionally prepared complaint,
purportedly filed pro se, was filed on March 25, 2002, and Ms. Ward entered her appearance in that
case on May 3, 2002, shortly after her admission to the bar of that court. Ultimately, a Motion to
Dismiss was granted with respect to two counts of the complaint, and summary judgment granted
as to the remainder.
9
In Dixon v. England, No. 02-823-JR, Ms. Ward filed a complaint on April 30, 2002 using
only her Ellicott City address, but the complaint was dismissed by the Court sua sponte for failure
to effect service on the Defendant. After reconsideration of the Order of dismissal was denied, an
appeal was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which affirmed.
In Johnson v. England, No. 02-1453-PLF, the Court directed the Plaintiff to show cause why
the case should not be dismissed for failure to effect service upon the Defendant, and, when no
response was filed, the Court dismissed the matter without prejudice. An appeal was taken to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but by Order filed January 9, 2004, the
appeal was dismissed because the Appellant failed to file a brief by December 4, 2003, as directed
by Court Order entered October 21, 2003.
In Lyles v. White, No. 02-1780-RMC, a complaint filed by Ms. Ward was dismissed by the
Court when she failed to respond to a Motion to Dismiss, and no appeal was taken.
In Cabera v. England, No. 02-2037-HHK, the Court dismissed the Complaint on May 2,
2003 for failure of the Plaintiff to effect service on the Defendant. No appeal was filed.
In Wright v. England, No. 03-132-HHK, a complaint filed by Ms. Ward on behalf of her
client on January 29, 2003, was dismissed by the Court on December 14, 2003, for failure to effect
service on the Defendant. Again, no appeal was filed.
In Medley v. Donaldson, No. 03-1482-GK, Ms. Ward filed a complaint on behalf of her client
on July 3, 2003, but by Memorandum Opinion filed March 23, 2004, the Court dismissed the action
for failure to effect service upon the Defendant in a timely manner, the Court noting that the Plaintiff
failed to show any good cause for her failure to timely serve the Defendant. No appeal was filed.
10
Applicable Law
Admission to the bar of this Court pro hac vice is governed by Local Rule 101.1.b. This rule
provides that the Court may permit any attorney, except a member of the Maryland bar, who is a
member in good standing of the bar of any other United States Court or the highest court of any state
to appear and participate as counsel in a particular civil case. Such permission shall not constitute
formal admission to the Bar of this Court. However, an attorney admitted pro hac vice is subject to
the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court. Any party represented by an attorney who has been
admitted pro hac vice must also be represented by an attorney who has been formally admitted to
the bar of this Court.
In contrast to general admission to the bar of a state or of a federal court, the Supreme Court
of the United States has held that where, as here, authority to approve a pro hac vice appearance is
consigned to the discretion of the court, there is a not a cognizable property interest within the terms
of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the United States Constitution does not obligate a court to afford
a pro hac vice applicant with procedural due process in passing on an application for permission to
appear pro hac vice. Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 99 S. Ct. 698, 58 L.Ed.2d 717 (1979). In a similar
vein, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated that [i]t is well settled that
permission to a non-resident attorney, who has not been admitted to practice in a court, to appear pro
hac vice in a case there pending is not a right but a privilege, the granting of which is a matter of
grace resting in the sound discretion of the presiding judge. Thomas v. Cassidy, 249 F.2d 91
(1957). In Thomas, denial of admission pro hac vice was upheld where the lower court concluded
that the attorney had been guilty of unlawyer-like conduct in connection with a case in which she
wished to appear. Id.
7See http://www.courts.state.md.us/lawyersropc_finalrept03.pdf
11
Rule 5.5 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a lawyer shall not
practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction. Thus, the unauthorized practice of law may not only constitute a violation of law, but
also of applicable ethical standards for lawyers.
The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that [i]n view of the high mobility
of the bar, and also the trend toward specialization, allowing an out-of-state lawyer the privilege
of appearing upon motion, especially when associated with a member of the local bar, is perhaps a
practice to be encouraged. Leis, 439 U.S. at 441-42, 99 S.Ct. at 700, 58 L.Ed.2d at 721.
Recognizing, among others, this increasing mobility of the bar, the American Bar Association
created in 1997 The Commission on Evaluation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, better
known as the Ethics 2000 Commission. The Ethics 2000 Commission issued recommendations,
which were then debated and adopted in various forms by the American Bar Association House of
Delegates. In April 2002, the Court of Appeals of Maryland appointed a Select Committee to
examine the Ethics 2000 changes to the ABA model rules and recommend which changes, if any,
would be appropriate for the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct. The report of the Select
Committee is now before the Court of Appeals of Maryland for consideration and possible adoption.7
The Select Committee has recommended extensive revisions to Rule 5.5, including changing
its title to Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multi-Jurisdictional Practice of Law. An examination
of the proposal now pending before the Court of Appeals of Maryland shows that it would not
change the basic command prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction. However, the draft rule goes on to provide
12
that a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not: (1) except as authorized
by these rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this
jurisdiction for the practice of law. (emphasis added) In recognition of the mobility of lawyers and
the occasional need for pro hac vice admissions, the proposed revisions to the rule authorize a lawyer
admitted in another United States jurisdiction to provide legal services on a temporary basis in this
jurisdiction that: (1) are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this
jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter. (emphasis added) In Comment 4 to the
proposed new rule, it is noted that a lawyer who is not admitted to practice generally in this
jurisdiction violates paragraph (b) if the lawyer establishes an office or other systematic and
continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law. (emphasis added)
Local Rule LCvR 83.8(a) of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
the jurisdiction in which this matter was originally filed by Ms. Ward, provides that (a)dmission
to and continuing membership in the Bar of this court are limited to attorneys who are (1) active
members in good standing in the District of Columbia bar; or (2) active members in good standing
of the highest court of any state in which the attorney maintains his/her principal law office and is
a member in good standing of a United States District Court that provides for reciprocal admission
to members of the bar of this court. (Emphasis added) Thus, membership in the bar of that Court
requires, both at the time of admission and thereafter as a continuing condition, that one either be
a member of the District of Columbia bar or be a member in good standing of the bar of the State
in which one's principal office for the practice of law is located, provided that the attorney is also
a member of the bar of the federal court of that state that provides for reciprocal admission for
members of the District of Columbia federal bar.
13
The logic of the District of Columbia rule is readily apparent. If an attorney is a member of
the District of Columbia Bar, effective local disciplinary processes are readily available. If not, then
effective disciplinary processes are available in the jurisdiction in which the attorney's principal
office is located. This logic would be defeated if an attorney were able to secure admission based
on membership in the bar of one state, yet maintain his or her principal office in another state
without the benefit of that state's licensure, and with no jurisdiction having effective, local
disciplinary processes at its disposal.
Findings of Fact
Based upon the testimony of Ms. Ward, the exhibits, correspondence and review of the public
dockets of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Court makes the
following findings of fact with respect to the application for the admission pro hac vice of Ms. Ward:
1. Ms. Ward is a permanent resident of the State of Maryland.
2. Ms. Ward maintains a fully functional office for the practice of law in Ellicott City in the
State of Maryland.
3. Ms. Ward has used her Ellicott City address on all of the twenty-three cases filed by her
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and in only five of such cases did
she add, as an additional address, a Mississippi office.
4. Ms. Ward prepared and filed pleadings on behalf of clients in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia prior to her admission to the bar of that Court.
5. Ms. Ward neglected to effect service of process on public agency Defendants in at least
five cases in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, resulting in the dismissal
of claims filed by her on behalf of her clients.
14
Conclusions of Law
As noted above in the discussion of the law applicable to admissions pro hac vice, neither
the rules of this Court nor the United States Constitution requires the temporary admission to
practice of one who is not a member of the bar of this Court. The decision of such a motion is
committed to the sound discretion of the Court, and in acting upon such a motion, the Court not only
may, but should, take into account whether the attorney in question has demonstrated sufficient
competence and character to be permitted, in association with a member of the bar of this Court, to
represent a litigant. In making this assessment, a Court may take into account whether the attorney
proposed for admission pro hac vice has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and rules
governing the practice of law in this and other jurisdictions, and whether the applicant has acted
competently and responsibly in other proceedings. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the
Court concludes that the motion should be denied for the following reasons:
1. The principal office of Lisa Lyons Ward for the practice of law is located in Ellicott City,
Maryland, and not in Mississippi, as she claims.
2. The activities of Ms. Ward in the State of Maryland are in violation of Rule 5.5 of the
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, and constitute the unauthorized practice of law in
Maryland and in this District.
3. Ms. Ward also engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in both Maryland and the
District of Columbia in connection with her filing of complaints in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia prior to the time of her admission to the bar of that Court.
4. Ms. Ward is in violation of the continuing principal office requirement of Local Rule
LCvR 83.8(a) of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in that her principal
8Ms. Ward would also be ineligible for regular admission to the bar of this Court because Local Rule
701.1.a requires, as does the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, that an attorney seeking
admission to the bar of this Court on the basis of membership in good standing of the highest court of any state must
maintain his or her principal law office in that state. Moreover, Ms. Ward, even if she were to become a member of
the Maryland bar, would not be eligible for admission pro hac vice, but rather would be required to become a
regular member of the bar of this Court as provided in Local Rule 101.1.b.
15
office is not in Mississippi, but rather in Maryland, where she is not licensed to practice law.8
In a letter to the Court submitted after the hearing on the Motion for her admission pro hac
vice, Ms. Ward attempted to find solace for her practice activities in this case in the State under the
decisions of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.
Johnson, 363 Md. 598, 770 A.2d 130 (2001), Kennedy v. Bar Association of Montgomery County,
316 Md. 646, 561 A.2d 200 (1989) and Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Bridges,
360 Md. 489, 759 A.2d 233 (2000). However, her reliance upon these cases is misplaced.
First, these cases do little to ameliorate the obvious fact that Ms. Ward engaged in the
practice of law both in Maryland and the District of Columbia prior to her admission to the bar of
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Second, these cases provide little
comfort for Ms. Ward's obvious disregard of the initial and continuing requirements of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia that her principal office be in the state of admission
of the highest court upon which she relies for her reciprocity admission. Third, in light of the
Court's finding that Ms. Ward's principal office for the practice of law is located in Ellicott City,
Maryland, and not in Mississippi, her activities come squarely within the prohibitions announced by
the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Kennedy, supra. As the Court in Kennedy noted, when
Kennedy set up his principal office for the practice of law in Maryland and began advising clients
and preparing legal documents for them from that office, he engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law. This is so whether the legal principles he was applying were established by the law of
9The proposed revisions to Rule 5.5 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct now under
consideration by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which are designed to recognize the increasing mobility of
lawyers, would not, even if adopted, protect the activities of Ms. Ward. She has clearly established an office or
other systematic and continuous presence in Maryland for the practice of law, and the provision of legal services by
her has been anything but temporary. (See Draft Rule 5.5(a) and (b).) Moreover, the proposed rule would not
provide any safe harbor for her activities by the inclusion in proposed Rule 5.5(d) of language authorizing a lawyer
admitted in another United States jurisdiction to provide legal services in this jurisdiction that are services that the
lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction. This provision, which is obviously
intended to follow the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Sperry v. State Bar of Florida, 373
U.S. 379, 83 S. Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963), provides no legal justification for the activities of Ms. Ward in
Maryland, unlike the federal law in Sperry that permitted a non-lawyer registered under federal law to practice
before the United States Patent Office, to prepare and prosecute patent applications in Florida, notwithstanding his
non-membership in the Florida bar.
16
Montgomery County, the State of Maryland, some other state of the United States, the United States
of America, or a foreign nation. Kennedy, 316 Md. at 663, 561 A.2d at 208-9. As the Maryland
Court of Appeals further explained, Kennedy may not utilize his admission to the bar of the federal
court in Maryland, or his admission in Washington, D.C., as a shield against the injunctive relief by
asserting that he will operate a triage. He is not permitted to sort through clients who may present
themselves at his Maryland office and represent only those whose legal matters would require suit
or defense in a Washington, D.C. court or in a federal court in Maryland because the very acts of
interview, analysis and explanation of legal rights constitute practicing law in Maryland. For an
unadmitted person to do so on a regular basis from a Maryland principal office is the unauthorized
practice of law in Maryland. Kennedy, 316 Md. at 666, 561 A.2d at 210. (Emphasis added)
Finally, Ms. Ward can find little comfort from the limited exception recognized in Kennedy
and applied in Bridges that would permit a lawyer, not admitted to the Maryland bar, to practice
before federal courts in Maryland where he is admitted, and where he does not maintain a regular
Maryland office for the practice of law. Here, Ms. Ward is neither admitted to practice before this
Court, nor in Maryland, but maintains her principal office in Maryland. Thus, Kennedy and Bridges
provide no safe harbor for her activities in this State.9
17
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court concludes that
the Motion for the Admission Pro Hac Vice of Lisa Lyons Ward must be denied. Ms. Ward has acted with indifference to the licensure requirements of the State of Maryland, this Court, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and, in numerous instances, has neglected
to prosecute cases, resulting in dismissal of the actions to the detriment of her clients. For these
reasons, the Court will exercise its discretion to deny her application.
June 4, 2004 /s/
DATE ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I truly believe the report!! The reason beingis that who would have put themselves out there if it wasn't true!! Viewers if, you read that statement is almost like a prevention warning just to spare someone else from getting ripped off. The rebuttal comment sounds like a clear loud yell of guilt from the paralegal why? Her statement is so hard to follow, so unclear, and it does not make any sense. If she's really a paralegal she needs to be fired!! I she's truly unprofessional and can't prove what she have stated. (Hear say is not facts and can't be proven). Besides the statement did not state her. Show us viewers some facts now, because all four the compliants than are shown sounds real.

There are not four complaints only two, the chief complaintant, who is a friend with the other complaintant. She referred complaintant number two to Mrs. Ward. She asked her to file a report. Since that report was filed Mrs. Ward has talked with the complaintant from Florida. The chief complaintant is still soliciting other people to join her. This is the last response I will give this because it is beginning to take on the taste of "he said, she said." I will allow the moving of the actions speak for itself. Thank you for your interest.

Maybe she did rip her off in some way. The way I see it is that, if she was the only person telling the story I would think there was no truth. But the other three people are saying the same thing. How are you and the lawyer going to fix this problem?

I, Laura Pitts-Williams, Paralegal, has consistently had to deal with lies from the client making this compliant. One of the lies being, she was being harassed by an ex-co worker by coming by her home and waiting in her parking lot to harass her, when we made attempts to correct the problem the co-worker stated that the client had invited her to her home and brought her a glass of water to the car, when I asked her about it she stated that yes she had done these things, so we really never knew when she was lying or telling the truth. The particular client went to visit another client's home and gave detailed accounts of what the home looked like, how she went into the bedroom of the home and talked about the clothes the client had in her closet. Through conversation I told the client that I heard how nice her home was and the things in her closet and she stated not only was that not true, but the complaintant had never been in her home. The person also making this complaint told me that Michael Vick (Atlanta Falcons) wanted to date her, and we all know the latest on Mr. Vick. There was a mediation here with AFLAC Insurance Company with another client, the complaintant told others that we were now defending corporate America. There was a negotiated settlement agreement made in another case, the complaintant knew some co-workers at the agency where the agreement was made, she went back and told the respondent in that case that we (Ward and Williams) received thousands and she got nothing out of the case, when the respondent in that case know exactly what happened, no one got thousands. Our chief concern was to make sure that the complaintant was able to keep her job and that was accomplished. The four complaints are made by 2 people. The chief person making the complaint is soliciting people she deem to be weak and encouraging them to join her in this effort. Most of the cases, as I understand are in a hold pattern awaiting adjudication. I will talk with Attorney Ward and ensure that we are on target with the status and make this report available to all. The chief complaintant is, I know under a lot of pressure right now and we are all praying that all turns out well for her and her family. She never gave me a dime for retainer fee an everytime she calls I am here for her and relay all messages from the attorney and receives all calls from her when she is out of town with her sick child. I don't understand what I have ever lied to her about. If she search herself she will know that I have never done anything except tried to help and comfort her. I am not disassociating myself from Mrs. Ward, because I know how hard she work for her clients.