E-FILED
Court of Appeals
Suzanne C. Johnson,
Clerk of Court
7/13/2020 11:39 AM

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
200 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Suite 300
Annapolis, MD 21401
Petitioner,

*
*

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND

*
*

v.

*

Misc. Docket AG No. 21
___

STEPHEN LAWRENCE SNYDER
1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 100
Baltimore, MD 21208

*

September Term, 2020

*

Respondent.

*

PETITION FOR DISCIPLINARY OR REMEDIAL ACTION
The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Petitioner, by Lydia E. Lawless
Bar Counsel, its attorney, files this Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action pursuant
to Maryland Rule 19-721, against Stephen Lawrence Snyder, Respondent, and states as
follows:
1.

On April 20, 2020, the Attorney Grievance Commission directed Bar

Counsel to file this Petition pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-721.
2.

The Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 11, 1970.

At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in
Baltimore County focused on plaintiff’s medical malpractice. The Respondent’s law firm,
Snyder and Snyder, P.A., includes the Respondent, two of his sons, Michael B. Snyder and
Scott A. Snyder, as well as an associate, Kevin D. Stern.
3.

Susan Durbin Kinter is an attorney and Senior Vice President of Claims

Litigation & Risk Management with Maryland Medicine Comprehensive Insurance
1

 Program (MMCIP).

MMCIP insures the University of Maryland Medical System

(UMMS) and its faculty physician groups. Ms. Kinter has been with the medical system
since 1998. She has known the Respondent since the early 2000s and, as of 2018, had
handled numerous cases in which the Respondent was opposing counsel.
4.

DePriest Whye, Jr. is an attorney and medical doctor. Dr. Whye is the Chief

Executive Officer of MMCIP. He met the Respondent for the first time in 2018.
5.

At all times relevant hereto, Dr. Stephen T. Bartlett, M.D., was the University

of Maryland Medical Center’s Chief of Surgery and UMMS’ Chief Medical Officer. Dr.
Bartlett met the Respondent for the first time on January 21, 2018.
6.

This matter involves the Respondent’s representation of two clients who

suffered catastrophic injuries after undergoing transplantation surgery at UMMC. L.B.
was left permanently paralyzed from her trunk down following a pancreas transplant and
J.S. died from complications following a kidney transplant.
7.

The L.B. and J.S. matters at issue in this disciplinary case were settled with

UMMS prior to any lawsuit having been filed. Both settlement agreements contain
confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions.1
The Respondent is Retained to Represent L.B.:
An Unsuccessful Mediation
8.

On January 20, 2017, L.B. underwent a pancreas transplant at UMMC.

Following surgery, L.B. suffered a spinal cord infarction that left her permanently

1

Names and some dollar amounts, including the settlement amounts, have been redacted herein to comply
with the confidentiality provisions.

2

 paralyzed from her trunk down. Dr. Bartlett did not perform the surgery at issue, but he
had previously performed two successful transplants for L.B. and the two maintained a
good relationship.
9.

In April 2017, L.B. retained the Respondent to represent her in any claim she

had against UMMS and any other medical professional associated with the transplant.
10.

According to the Respondent, by October 2017, he had discovered what he

considered to be evidence that UMMS had been pressuring its transplant surgeons to
perform highly lucrative surgeries as well as evidence that he believed demonstrated that
the transplant division was in turmoil because of its decline in success rates and
diminishing status as an organ transplant center.
11.

On October 20, 2017, the Respondent and Ms. Kinter had a lunch meeting to

discuss the L.B. matter. During the meeting they reviewed the facts of L.B.’s case and the
Respondent discussed, what he considered to be, “the monumental problems that existed
within the UMMS transplant division.”
12.

On November 3, 2017, the parties participated in mediation of L.B.’s case

with Brian J. Nash, Esquire. UMMS was represented at mediation by Ms. Kinter and her
colleague Mary Alane Downs, Esquire. UMMS offered to settle the case for $X. L.B.,
through the Respondent, demanded $Y. The case did not settle at mediation.
The January 21, 2018 Meeting:
Continued Negotiations in the L. B. Matter
13.

The parties met on January 21, 2018 for a settlement conference. Present at

the meeting were the Respondent, other attorneys from the Respondent’s firm, L.B. and
3

 her father, Ms. Kinter, and Dr. Bartlett.2 Dr. Bartlett, as noted above, was very familiar
with L.B.’s care and both parties agreed that his presence would facilitate a settlement.
14.

At some point during the January 21 meeting, the Respondent asked Dr.

Bartlett to step into the hallway for a private conversation. Ms. Kinter advised Dr. Bartlett
that she did not think it was a good idea to meet privately with the Respondent.
Notwithstanding Ms. Kinter’s advice, Dr. Bartlett spoke privately with the Respondent.
15.

During the conversation, the Respondent told Dr. Bartlett that he had another

client (or clients) who wanted to file suit against UMMS over allegations relating to kidney
transplants. The Respondent said something to Dr. Bartlett to make Dr. Bartlett believe
that the Respondent had insider information regarding the transplant program.
16.

Neither Dr. Bartlett nor the Respondent advised Ms. Kinter of the substance

of the conversation that took place in the hallway.
17.

The parties were unable to settle the case on January 21, 2018. As at

mediation, UMMS continued to offer $X and L.B. continued to demand $Y. At the
conclusion of the meeting, Dr. Bartlett gave his cell phone number to the Respondent and
L.B.
The Respondent is Retained to Represent J.S. and M.S.
18.

On January 9, 2017, J.S. underwent a kidney transplant performed at

UMMC. Dr. Bartlett did not perform the transplant surgery. In the year following the
transplant, J.S.’s blood vessels calcified, he suffered a heart attack, and one of his legs had

2

Alicia Reynolds, Esquire, Ms. Kinter’s colleague, was also present.

4

 to be amputated.
19.

On January 27, 2018, J.S.’s wife, M.S., retained the Respondent and his firm

to represent her and her husband in any claim they may have against UMMS and the
medical professionals involved in J.S.’s care. The retainer agreement provided that the
Respondent would receive 45% of any recovery.
The February 15, 2018 Meeting at the Capital Grille:
The Respondent’s First Meeting with Dr. Bartlett
20.

Following the January 21, 2018 settlement conference in L.B.’s matter, the

Respondent and Dr. Bartlett began communicating by telephone3 and text message. The
Respondent began communicating with Dr. Bartlett for the purpose of persuading him to
facilitate a settlement of L.B.’s case for $Y. Upon information and belief, the Respondent
attempted to leverage the threat of the J.S. case to induce Dr. Bartlett to advocate for
settlement in L.B.’s case on the Respondent’s terms. Dr. Bartlett, on the other hand, had a
personal and professional interest in communicating with the Respondent. Dr. Bartlett was
interested in finding out what the Respondent knew about the transplant program and from
whom he was receiving the information.
21.

Between January 25 and February 10, 2018, the Respondent and Dr. Bartlett

exchanged several text messages and, on February 6, the two spoke by phone.
22.

On February 10, 2018, the Respondent and Dr. Bartlett made plans to meet

The available phone records consist of the Respondent’s cellular phone records. Bar Counsel does not
have Dr. Bartlett’s phone records which may reveal additional calls between the two, specifically calls to
or from the Respondent’s home or office phone numbers. Upon information and belief, the Respondent, in
addition to speaking to Dr. Bartlett from his cell phone, spoke with Dr. Bartlett from his home phone on
numerous occasions between January and April 2018.
3

5

 for dinner at the Capital Grille on February 15, 2018. On February 15, 2018 at 12:59 p.m.,
Dr. Bartlett emailed Ms. Kinter and stated:
I am sending this email to memorialize our conversation about
Steve Snyder. As we discussed, he informed me he has been
retained on behalf of transplant patient, [J.S.]. He further
indicated to me that [M.S.], his wife has a vendetta against
transplant and Dr. L. He said she has five pages of information
and ‘video’. He later said the video is our own web based
videos which he characterized as damaging to us because they
say we take the difficult cases.
He asked to urgently have dinner to confidentially review the
material. He said his motive is that he ‘considers me a friend’
and wants us to quietly settle with her to prevent the damage
she might do. Though I think it is possible, even probable he
is playing me, I deemed it a good idea to hear him out. I have
discuss this with you as the counsel for MMCIP. You agreed
with and support the plan. The dinner is at 6:15 today at
Capital Grill.
(all sic in original).
23.

Contrary to Dr. Bartlett’s statement, Ms. Kinter did not have a conversation

with him about the February 15 dinner and she did not agree to the “plan” as described by
Dr. Bartlett.
24.

On the evening of February 15, 2018, the Respondent and Dr. Bartlett met

for dinner at the Capital Grille. The Respondent and Dr. Bartlett discussed the facts of the
J.S. case as well as the Respondent’s belief that there were fundamental systemic
deficiencies in the UMMC organ transplantation program. The Respondent described to
Dr. Bartlett that “the [L.B.] and [J.S.] cases had demonstrated to him that, if he were to file
those cases and achieve recoveries that the cases merited, the facts would provide the basis
for a campaign to attract other, similar cases.”
6

 25.

Upon information and belief, Dr. Bartlett did not advise Ms. Kinter of the

substance of his conversation with the Respondent following the dinner meeting.
The Respondent Disregards Instruction to Cease
Communications with Dr. Bartlett
26.

Between February 19 and February 21 at 7:05 p.m., the Respondent and Dr.

Bartlett continued to communicate by phone and text message. The available records
demonstrate the following communications between the Respondent and Dr. Bartlett:
Date

Time

Text/
From
Call
2/19/18 11:06 a.m. Text Respondent

Length
(mins)

2/19/18
2/19/18
2/19/18
2/19/18
2/19/18

1
2
1
1

2:59 p.m.
4:58 p.m.
7:01 p.m.
9:35 p.m.
11:13 p.m.

Call
Call
Call
Call
Text

Respondent
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett

2/20/18 9:00 a.m.

Text

Respondent

2/20/18
2/20/18
2/20/18
2/20/18
2/20/18

Call
Call
Call
Call
Text

Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent

10:45 a.m.
11:04 a.m.
11:18 a.m.
6:17 p.m.
7:55 p.m.

1
13
1
7

Content
I need a moment of your time!
Can you call me. Steve
[voicemail]
[voicemail]
[voicemail]
[voicemail]
Steve I’ll call you in the
morning. Look forward to
catching up.
Fine. I’m available. What time
will you call? Steve, I spoke to
Susan. Please call me before
your committee meeting today
[voicemail]

[“]Steve sorry I didn’t call you
the day got away from me. I’m
currently at a school function
for my daughter. I will send
you via a letter tomorrow our
final settlement offer. I am
sending it via a letter because I
need your clients to understand
that this will be our final offer
and if they do not want to
7

 accept it then we will proceed
to litigation. I will email it to
you.[”]

2/20/18
2/21/18
2/21/18
2/21/18

7:56 p.m.
10:54 a.m.
11:33 a.m.
3:11 p.m.

Call
Call
Call
Text

Respondent
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent

2/21/18 4:34 p.m.

Text

Dr. Bartlett

2/21/18
2/21/18
2/21/18
2/21/18

4:24 p.m.
6:25 p.m.
7:04 p.m.
7:05 p.m.

Text
Call
Call
Text

Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Respondent

2/21/18 7:05 p.m.
2/21/18 7:05 p.m.

Text
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

1
1
2

4
1

Just received from Sue (doesn’t
sound like [$Y]!
[voicemail]
[voicemail]
[voicemail]
Can you please call me (really
pissed – no answer)
Steve. In meeting. I’ll call at
end of the day.
Fine
[voicemail]
Got offer. (would like to talk to
you) TONIGHT, please
Ok. Eating
Eat first. Can you call me soon
(I’m going out) take 2 min.
Want to make dinner plans

(all sic in original)
27.

Meanwhile, on February 16, 2018, Ms. Kinter followed up with Dr. Bartlett

regarding his communications with the Respondent. Dr. Bartlett advised Ms. Kinter that
the Respondent wanted to meet with the two of them to review the J.S. case and described
the Respondent as a “bad man.”
28.

Following her conversations with Dr. Bartlett, Ms. Kinter, at 7:08 p.m. on

February 21, 2018, emailed the Respondent and blind copied Dr. Bartlett. The subject line
read “Dr. Bartlett” and the email stated, in part:
I wanted to let you know that Dr. Bartlett and I have discussed
your request that we meet with you regarding a new transplant
case that you have. I am asking that you permit me to review
8

 your client’s medical records and discuss his care with his
treating health care providers. Once I have a better
understanding of his circumstance I am open to meeting with
your client’s wife; I am not agreeing that Dr. Bartlett will be
present with us, however.
I am making a second request of you. I am uncomfortable with
the ongoing contact you are having with Dr. Bartlett. I am open
to having a discussion with you tomorrow about this but I am
requesting as an attorney for UMMS and for Dr. Bartlett that
you refrain from calling him without my expressed permission.
I cannot adequately represent UMMS’ interests and Dr.
Bartlett’s when I am not a part of conversations you are having
with him. I understand you and he will be getting together
socially for a dinner. That is fine so long as the conversations
remains causal [sic] and does not involve any party you
represent.
29.

The Respondent received and read Ms. Kinter’s email.

30.

Notwithstanding Ms. Kinter’s instruction, the Respondent continued to

communicate with Dr. Bartlett regarding both the L.B. matter and the J.S. matter. The
available records reveal the following communications between February 21, 2018 at 8:00
p.m. and February 22, 2018:
Date

Time

2/21/18 8:00 p.m.
2/21/18 8:18 p.m.
2/21/18 9:15 p.m.

Text/
From
Call
Call
Respondent
Call
Respondent
Text Respondent

2/21/18 9:38 p.m. Call
2/22/18 10:34 a.m. Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

2/22/18 10:34 a.m. Text
2/22/18 2:07 p.m. Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

2/22/18 6:27 p.m.

Respondent

Text

Length
Content
(mins)
1
[voicemail]
1
[voicemail]
Didn’t hear from you.
(disappointing)
13
[J.S.] wants to transfer to JHH
immediately! Call me
Ok
Steve, I’m to speak to Sue at
5:30 (can we talk before that
conversation) about transfer
Please call me for plans
9

 2/22/18 8:35 p.m.
31.

Text

tonight!
Are you calling me?

Respondent

Also on February 21, 2018, Ms. Kinter wrote to the Respondent and relayed

UMMS’ final offer in the L.B. matter -- $X. On February 22, 2018, Ms. Kinter and the
Respondent spoke by phone.

During the phone call, the Respondent expressed his

dissatisfaction with the offer and brought up the J.S. case and Dr. Bartlett. Ms. Kinter
reinforced that the Respondent was not to have any conversations with Dr. Bartlett about
any client matter. The Respondent agreed.
32.

Notwithstanding Ms. Kinter’s second instruction to cease communications

with Dr. Bartlett, the Respondent continued to communicate with Dr. Bartlett regarding
both the L.B. matter and the J.S. matter. The available records reveal the following
communications between February 23, 2018 and February 27, 2018:
Date

Time

2/23/18 8:49 a.m.

Text/
From
Call
Text Respondent

Length
(mins)

Content

2/23/18 8:49 a.m.

Text

Dr. Bartlett

2/23/18 8:49 a.m.

Text

Respondent

2/23/18 8:49 a.m.

Text

Dr. Bartlett

I am communicating with you!
I had a very long day.

2/23/18 8:49 a.m.

Text

Respondent

2/23/18 8:49 a.m.

Text

Dr. Bartlett

You should call me.
(important)
I will after current meeting

Will you please arrange for
[J.S.] to be transferred to JHH
today. The family including
[J.S.] want Hopkins to take
over his care and treatment.
Ok. Is there a receiving
physician?
I will get you the info. Have
you been instructed not to talk
to me?

10

 2/23/18 8:49 a.m.

Text

Respondent

2/23/18 12:14 p.m.

Text

Respondent

2/23/18 2:07 p.m.
2/23/18 2:18 p.m.

Call
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

2/23/18 3:33 p.m.

Text

Respondent

2/23/18 6:02 p.m.

Text

Respondent

2/23/18 6:02 p.m.

Text

Dr. Bartlett

2/24/18 11:13 a.m.

Text

Respondent

2/24/18 3:33 p.m.
2/25/18 12:00 p.m.

Call
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

2/25/18 8:35 p.m.

Text

Respondent

2/26/18 10:32 a.m.
2/26/18 12:04 p.m.

Call
Text

Respondent
Respondent

Phone number to call (410)
955-9444
CCU Doctor: Dr. William
Mcevoy
Transplant Doctor: Dr. Anda
Alachkar
Please call and make
arrangements
What time are you calling me?
Steve, I would like to speak to
you before 4. (you are not
taking this matter seriously
enough)
4
Call me back (important)
definitely before 4)
What’s the status of transfer?
Wanted to speak to you before
4
I can only assume that you are
not completely committed to
having these issues resolved!
(you didn’t call me)
Steve. Long day. On the
phone
One last effort! (Can we talk
today for 10 min) clearly in
your interest!
16

1

11

Steve, please get this done
successfully in order to try to
make peace globally (must
know tomorrow – meeting
with clients.
Please call me by 2 with a
heads-up
[voicemail]
Can you give me the name and
# of the chief decision maker
to call. (tell me name and
position) This is only if you
can not accomplish the result.

 2/26/18 12:04 p.m.

Text

Dr. Bartlett

2/26/18 12:04 p.m.
2/26/18 12:04 p.m.
2/26/18 12:04 p.m.

Text
Text
Text

Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

2/26/18 12:04 p.m.
2/26/18 12:04 p.m.
2/26/18 6:54 p.m.

Text
Text
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Respondent

2/26/18 9:58 p.m.

Text

Respondent

2/26/18 9:58 p.m.

Text

Dr. Bartlett

2/26/18 9:58 p.m.

Text

Respondent

2/26/18 9:58 p.m.
2/26/18 9:58 p.m.

Text
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

2/27/18 8:22 a.m.

Text

Respondent

2/27/18 9:41 a.m.

Text

Respondent

2/27/18 9:41 a.m.
2/27/18 9:41 a.m.

Text
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

This is time sensitive as I am
going on a cruise on Thursday
and would []
Steve. I’m in meetings all day
in Easton. The person with
the power is Sue Kinter. She
is the lead attorney for our self
insurance trust.
Did you talk to her?
Did not reach her.
Who is the gentleman who
you said []i could call. (are
you going to talk to her) (call
her on her cell)
I have break at 5.
Call me after your call please.
Can you call me. Can I call
the head of the hospital? (what
is name and #)
I have to assume you were
unable to do anything !
Correct. Mohan Suntha is the
CEO of UMMC. 410-[xxxxxxx]
I’ll call him tomorrow ! Did
you speak to Sue ?
Yes
Ok ( thanks for trying )
Steve , can I tell Suntha, you
had recommended [$Y] and
you wanted the 2 nd case
resolved as well –[J.S.]
CONFIDENTIALLY)
I have a call into Suntha and
you have given me no
direction. I don’t want to say
anything that would create
controversy for you about our
conversations.
Understand
Can I tell him you
12

 recommended [$Y]
(all sic in original)
The Respondent Develops a Plan to
Extract $25 Million from UMMS
33.

On February 28, 2018, J.S. passed away. Once J.S. died, the case became a

wrongful death case with a substantially reduced value pursuant to Maryland Code, Courts
and Judicial Proceedings, § 11-108. Any damages that M.S. could recover following her
husband’s death, excluding punitive damages, were subject to a $3,500,000 cap.
34.

Also on February 28, 2018, the Respondent and UMMS reached an

agreement to settle the L.B. case for $X.
35.

After the L.B. case settled, and the value of the J.S. case was reduced, the

Respondent, as described below, attempted to leverage the information he believed he had
developed during his investigation of the L.B. and J.S. cases to extract $25 million from
UMMS. The Respondent sought the payment of $25 million through either a sham
settlement in the J.S. matter or a sham consulting agreement.
The March 21, 2018 Meeting at the Capital Grille:
The Respondent’s Second Meeting with Dr. Bartlett
36.

The Respondent and Dr. Bartlett exchanged the following text messages

between March 2 and March 7, 2018:
Date
3/2/18
3/2/18

Time
10:44 a.m.
10:44 a.m.

From
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett

Content
Case settled (disappointed) [J.S.] died!
Me too. I heard from Hopkins people he
passed. I sent her a note. Steve, will you
have dinner with me March 21 6:30 PM at

13

 3/2/18
3/3/18

10:44 a.m.
7:53 a.m.

Respondent
Dr. Bartlett

3/3/18

10:02 a.m.

Respondent

3/3/18

10:02 a.m.

Dr. Bartlett

3/3/18

10:02 a.m.

Respondent

3/3/18
3/7/18
3/7/18

10:02 a.m.
3:59 p.m.
3:59 p.m.

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett

3/7/18

3:59 p.m.

Respondent

37.

Baltimore Country Club Five Farms?4
Is this with wives?
That would be great! I talked to my wife,
June, and she can go that night
We will fly back for dinner (but, I can’t
“trash” you in front of your wife.)
Steve, your call! Just guys or wives. I will
enjoy your company either way.
Thanks. (wives) Maybe you and I can have
a 30 minute drink before dinner !
Agreed!!
Flying back on the 20 th.
Steve I made a reservation for 4 at 6:30. I’ll
get there early and we can have a drink
beforehand. Look forward to seeing you
and meeting your wife.
Fine.

On March 21, 2018, the Respondent and Dr. Bartlett met privately at the bar.

The maître d’ delivered a file to the Respondent containing photographs of J.S., a list of
other medical facilities that had declined the kidney that was transplanted to J.S., and
several other documents about the J.S. case. After discussing the J.S. case, the Respondent
told Dr. Bartlett that he wanted $25 million from UMMS and explained that he could
defend UMMS against similar lawsuits. The Respondent advised Dr. Bartlett that he had
videos prepared for release that would publicly smear Dr. Bartlett and the transplant
program, and that he believed he had a good case for Medicare fraud.
38.

Once the Respondent and Dr. Bartlett were seated for dinner with their wives,

the retainer/consulting agreement was not mentioned again.
39.

4

During dinner, the Respondent invited the Bartletts to visit him in Miami and

The dinner was moved to the Capital Grille.

14

 drive his Rolls Royce and he stated to June Bartlett, “we are going to be friends as long as
[Dr. Bartlett] takes care of this.” The Respondent told Ms. Bartlett that his client was
“crazy” and “totally nuts” but that it would be “okay, if [Dr. Bartlett] does what I want him
to do.” Ms. Bartlett reported that the Respondent stated further that his client listens to him
and repeatedly said things to the effect of “we are going to be friends as long as [Dr.
Bartlett] takes care of this” and “everything is going to be okay as long as [Dr. Bartlett]
does what [he] needs to do” and “this all depends on your husband and what he does.”
40.

While Ms. Kinter was aware of the March 21 dinner, Dr. Bartlett failed to

report any of the substantive information discussed to her following the dinner.
The March 31, 2018 Meeting at the Baltimore Country Club:
The Respondent’s Third Meeting with Dr. Bartlett
41.

At dinner on March 21, Dr. Bartlett and the Respondent discussed the

Baltimore Country Club and the fact that Dr. Bartlett was a member. Following the March
21 dinner, the Respondent and Dr. Bartlett continued to communicate by phone and text
message. The available records reveal the following:
Date

Time

Text/
Call
3/22/18 4:26 p.m. Call
3/22/18 6:05 p.m. Call
3/29/18 1:51 p.m. Call
3/29/18 1:52 p.m. Text
3/29/18 1:52 p.m. Text
3/29/18 6:56 p.m. Text
3/29/18 10:44 p.m. Text
3/29/18 11:59 p.m. Text
3/30/18 12:06 p.m. Text

From
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

3/30/18 12:50 p.m. Call

Respondent

Length
(mins)
1
1
1

Content

Can I call you later?
Yes
Steve, are you calling me?
Like to hear from you!
Are u still up?
Calling me at midnight doesn’t
work? Can you speak?
1
15

 3/30/18 1:32 p.m.
3/30/18 1:43 p.m.
42.

Call
Call

Respondent
Dr. Bartlett

10
5

On March 31, 2018, the Respondent and Dr. Bartlett met for a drink. During

the meeting, the Respondent discussed the J.S. matter and sought information about the
identity of the “decision makers” at UMMS. Dr. Bartlett provided the Respondent with
the names of the board members.
43.

Neither Dr. Bartlett nor the Respondent advised Ms. Kinter that they had met

on March 31.
Communications Leading to the April 30 Meeting:
The Respondent Continues to Communicate with Dr. Bartlett
44.

Between April 2, 2018 and the morning of April 13, 2018, Dr. Bartlett and

the Respondent, without Ms. Kinter’s knowledge, continued to communicate by text
message. The available records reveal the following text messages:
Date
4/2/18
4/2/18
4/2/18
4/2/18
4/2/18
4/2/18
4/5/18

Time
4:31 p.m.
approx. 4:31 p.m.
approx. 4:31 p.m.
approx. 4:31 p.m.
approx. 4:31 p.m.
approx. 4:31 p.m.
12:58 p.m.

From
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

4/5/18
4/6/18
4/6/18

10:07 p.m.
Respondent
12:40 p.m.
Respondent
approx. 12:40 p.m. Dr. Bartlett

4/6/18
4/6/18

approx. 12:40 p.m. Respondent
approx. 12:40 p.m. Respondent
16

Content
Did you speak to Sue?
Not yet. But I will. Super busy day.
I want to call her ? (wait til tomorrow)
Ok. Got it.
I will call her at after 12 tomorrow.
K
Please talk to Sue today ! Let me know
when it’s done. We are scheduled to
speak tomorrow.
Did you speak to Sue?
?
Tried her. No answer. Will keep
trying. She surely knows what I
want..,, I never call
Ok
Should talk to her (she is suppose to
call me today.

 4/6/18
4/9/18
4/9/18

approx. 12:40 p.m. Dr. Bartlett
6:42 p.m.
Respondent
11:17 p.m.
Respondent

4/10/18

2:06 a.m.

Dr. Bartlett

4/10/18

11:02 a.m.

Respondent

4/10/18

approx. 11:02 a.m. Dr. Bartlett

4/10/18

12:21 p.m.

Respondent

4/13/18

2:38 p.m.

Respondent

4/13/18

approx. 2:38 p.m. Dr. Bartlett

Yes
Have you talked to Sue?
If I don’t get a straight answer, I’m
going forward full blast.
Gosh Steve I was out of town. I
texted her and I didn’t connect. I will
call again in AM.
This debacle at your hospital, at your
helm, must be taken extremely serious
otherwise ,I cannot help you !!!
Steve
Sue and I just spoke. I explained that
we are in jeopardy for fraud and
punitive damages. She understands.
The ball is in your court.
Steve
I will take a deep breathe [sic] and
continue to try on your behalf. Please
believe me, if it wasn’t for my
friendship with you, I would pursue
this GOLDMINE!!!
Have called her 2xs without a
response. I am getting pissed. I have
NO CONFIDENCE in Sue getting this
done.
Sorry. I spoke to her. Told her the
seriousness

(all sic in original)
45.

On April 13, 2018, the Respondent spoke with Ms. Kinter and requested a

meeting with UMMS representatives to discuss the J.S. case. The Respondent requested
that one of Ms. Kinter’s bosses (presumably Dr. Whye or Dr. Suntha5) be present for the
meeting. Ms. Kinter agreed to arrange a meeting but would not commit to have Dr. Whye

5

At the time, Dr. Mohan Suntha served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the University of
Maryland Medical Center (UMMC). In November 2019, Dr. Suntha was selected as President and CEO of
UMMS.

17

 or Dr. Suntha present. The Respondent reported to Dr. Bartlett on April 13 that he had
spoken with Ms. Kinter and that the two had a “positive conversation.”
46.

On April 17, 2018, Ms. Kinter texted the Respondent and stated, “My boss

hasn’t given me a date. I will let you know if he agrees to meet and when.” The Respondent
replied: “If he doesn’t agree to meet, see you in Court!!! I want an answer as soon as
possible. You promised me a date on Monday You continually give me ammunition to
move forward.” (all sic in original). The Respondent forwarded his April 17 text message
exchange with Ms. Kinter to Dr. Bartlett.
47.

Ms. Kinter ultimately arranged for the Respondent to meet with her, Dr.

Whye, and Natalie Magdeburger, Esquire, outside counsel to UMMS, on April 30, 2018.
The available records show that, between April 17 and April 29, 2018, the Respondent and
Dr. Bartlett continued to communicate by phone and text message as follows (all sic in
original):
Date

Time

4/17/18 5:51 p.m.

Text/
From
Call
Text Dr. Bartlett

4/17/18 5:51 p.m.

Text

Respondent

4/17/18 5:51 p.m.

Text

Respondent

4/17/18
4/17/18
4/20/18
4/20/18
4/20/18

Text
Text
Call
Call
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

5:51 p.m.
5:51 p.m.
3:27 p.m.
5:13 p.m.
6:38 p.m.

Length
(mins)

2
5

Content
Sounds positive!!! For Steve
Snyder your note was pretty
tame
I will let you know as well the
day before I file the complaint
If the complaint and other
projects were completed, I
would have gone forward
today.
I trust our friendship
I’m trying!
[voicemail]
Please call me

18

 4/20/18
4/20/18
4/25/18
4/25/18

6:38 p.m.
6:38 p.m.
4:23 p.m.
6:35 p.m.

Text
Text
Text
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent

4/25/18 9:48 p.m.
4/25/18 9:48 p.m.

Text
Text

Respondent
Dr. Bartlett

4/25/18
4/26/18
4/26/18
4/27/18
4/27/18
4/27/18
4/27/18

Text
Text
Call
Text
Text
Call
Text

Respondent
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

4/29/18 12:31 p.m. Call
4/29/18 5:24 p.m. Text

Respondent
Respondent

4/29/18 5:24 p.m.
4/29/18 5:24 p.m.

Text
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent

4/29/18 5:24 p.m.
4/29/18 5:24 p.m.
4/29/18 5:24 p.m.

Text
Text
Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett

4/29/18 5:24 p.m.

Text

Respondent

4/29/18 5:24 p.m.

Text

Dr. Bartlett

4/29/18 5:24 p.m.

Text

Respondent

4/29/18 5:24 p.m. Text
4/30/18 11:54 a.m. Text
4/30/18 11:54 a.m. Text

Dr. Bartlett
Respondent
Dr. Bartlett

9:48 p.m.
11:50 a.m.
12:43 p.m.
12:19 p.m.
3:58 p.m.
4:17 p.m.
5:03 p.m.

Give me 33
Fine
I need to speak to you.
Please call me at home tonight
410 [xxx xxxx]
?
Faculty dinner. I’ll call
tomorrow
Fine
Time?
4
Call me (important)
I need to speak to you
9
Unless you are coming, I’m
cancelling the meeting on
Monday.
8
Did you have your
conversation? Should I go
forward without you? You
must at a minimum speak to
the lawyer.
Can’t reach her. I tried.
Will you speak tomorrow? Let
me know.
I will try to reach her.
Videos are great for me!
I know it’s serious. But I
smile at how hard you work.
You really want me on your
side !!! You need a lawyer
advocate like natalie to protect
you.
I called her. She will call back
tomorrow
Fine (let me know when you
talk to her) I’m really trying to
protect you.
Ok
Have you spoken to Natalie?
She will call you.
19

 4/30/18 11:54 a.m. Text

Respondent

Why is she calling me before
the meeting?

The April 30, 2018 Meeting:
M.S. Demands $25 Million
48.

On the morning of April 30, 2018, the Respondent delivered a demand letter

to Ms. Kinter shortly before the scheduled settlement conference. The demand letter
outlined the Respondent’s assessment of UMMS’ potential liability for both medical
negligence

and

for

intentional

torts

including

battery,

fraud

(intentional

misrepresentations), fraud (intentional concealment), constructive fraud, and wrongful
death. The Respondent stated his belief that, if the case proceeded to trial, punitive
damages would be awarded. The letter concluded with a $25 million settlement demand
on behalf of M.S., individually and as personal representative of J.S.’s estate.
49.

At the time he delivered his settlement demand, the Respondent knew that

the case was a wrongful death case with a $1 million cap and that it would be “almost
impossible” to get punitive damages in court. He knew that the value of the case was $1
million plus economic damages and that any premium paid would be in exchange for a
confidentiality provision.
50.

Later that day, the parties met for a settlement conference in the J.S. case.

Present were the Respondent, Mr. Stern, Ms. Kinter, Dr. Whye, and Ms. Magdeburger.
51.

At the settlement conference, the Respondent stated that the J.S. case created

significant reputation issues for UMMS and that it would take $25 million to “silence”
what he had developed in his investigation. He said that UMMS would have to pay a
premium for confidentiality and that he could do a great deal of damage to Dr. Bartlett’s
20

 international reputation. The Respondent advised that he was sitting on a “treasure trove”
of information and that he was prepared to begin advertising for other transplant cases
unless a deal was struck in the J.S. case.
52.

The Respondent expressed his belief that UMMS put profits over safety and

used diseased organs because transplants generate revenue. He stated his belief that the
hospital engaged in false advertising and that Dr. L, who had by that time left UMMS,
would testify against Dr. Bartlett. The Respondent stated that he believed he had an
argument for fraud and that M.S. “wants war with Dr. Bartlett” and that she believes the
hospital murdered her husband. The Respondent then played a video recording of a phone
message left by M.S. for Mr. Stern wherein she stated that she wanted the entire transplant
team dismantled.
53.

The Respondent advised that he had confirmed that the Baltimore Sun will

write a front-page article about organ donor fraud and that no one will want to come to
UMMS even if the Respondent is unable to prove fraud at trial in the J.S. case. He stated
that he was also prepared to hold a press conference.
54.

The Respondent stated his belief that UMMS uses “shitty” organs and then

played a video clip of comments made by various transplant doctors discussing how
UMMS is able to do transplants with organs that other institutions cannot use and that their
patients are satisfied.
55.

The Respondent said that he was the “key” to confidentiality and that if the

J.S. case settled, there would need to be an ironclad confidentiality agreement with
liquidated damages. He stated that he was the force that could calm M.S. and that he would
21

 need to “control” her with a confidentiality clause.
56.

The Respondent then played a video, entitled “Caught Red-Handed.” The

video, which was formatted as a commercial for the Respondent’s law firm, stated that
UMMS does not tell its patients that the organ is a bad organ or that they accept organs that
other institutions reject. The commercial stated that J.S. was told that the kidney used in
his case would have been used in the surgeon’s wife but that 250 institutions had rejected
the organ. The video then says that 13 months later, J.S. was dead. The video showed
images of Mr. S with necrotic fingertips and an amputated leg.
57.

The Respondent concluded the meeting by stating that he would launch the

advertising campaign if a deal was not stuck in the J.S. case and that he would wait until
after UMMS had an opportunity to consider their demand. He stated that UMMS needed
to pay him a premium of $25 million to resolve the J.S. case and that UMMS could work
out a deal with him whereby he could be conflicted out of any future cases to confirm
confidentiality on his end and a liquidated damage clause to ensure M.S. maintained
confidentiality.
58.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Magdeburger instructed the

Respondent that he was to have no further contact with Dr. Bartlett. Notwithstanding Ms.
Magdeburger’s instruction, the Respondent, on May 11, 2018, texted Dr. Bartlett: “You
should call and wish me Happy Birthday.”
59.

Notably, at no time during the April 30 settlement conference did the

Respondent propose that he would personally receive compensation from UMMS separate
and apart from any fees associated with his representation of M.S.
22

 60.

The UMMS representatives all believed that the $25 million demand was for

settlement of the J.S. case, consistent with the Respondent’s April 30 demand letter.
The Respondent Decides He Should Be Paid $25 Million
61.

In or about June 2018, the Respondent retained Eric L. Yaffe, Esquire6 and

the law firm Gray Plant Mooty to provide him with advice about: (1) the admissibility of
Dr. Bartlett’s April 10 text message regarding fraud and punitive damages; (2) the
admissibility of the fact that UMMS had transferred six doctors; and (3) the ethics of
entering into a consulting agreement with UMMS.
62.

On June 21, 2018, John J. McNutt, Esquire,7 on behalf of Mr. Yaffe, provided

the Respondent with an email regarding the requested advice. Mr. McNutt advised the
Respondent that, in his opinion, the April 12 text message from Dr. Bartlett to the
Respondent would be admissible at trial and that the fact that UMMS transferred six
doctors involved in J.S.’s care following his death would also be admissible at trial.
63.

Regarding the propriety of entering into a consulting agreement with UMMS,

Mr. McNutt advised the Respondent that (1) he must obtain M.S.’s informed consent; (2)
he must disclose to M.S. all material information about the arrangement; and (3) the
Respondent could only pursue a consulting agreement as part of M.S.’s settlement if the
client would obtain a better settlement as a result. Mr. McNutt recommended that M.S.
receive two-thirds of any funds received from the consulting agreement because the
agreement would constitute “a form of recovery that would not have been feasible without

6
7

Mr. Yaffe is not a member of the Maryland bar.
Mr. McNutt is not a member of the Maryland bar.

23

 the client’s threatened lawsuit against the hospital.”
64.

At some time between the April 30 meeting and the June 22 meeting, the

Respondent decided that he did not want to share any of the $25 million with M.S. The
Respondent decided that, separate and apart from any settlement in the J.S. case, UMMS
would be required to pay him $25 million for his “silence.” He decided that if UMMS
refused his offer he would launch a media and advertising campaign using information
learned during the representation of L.B. and J.S.
65.

Upon information and belief, the Respondent knew that he could not demand

any funds from UMMS in exchange for his silence. The Respondent also knew that Rule
5.6(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibited him from “participating in offering
or making [] an agreement in which a restriction on the attorney’s right to practice is part
of the settlement of a client controversy.” The Respondent, aware of the prohibitions that
he faced, developed a plan by which he could shroud his unlawful demand in legitimacy
by entering into a consultancy or retainer agreement. The sham agreement would purport
to retain the Respondent as a consultant, but the reality of the situation would be that the
Respondent would receive $25 million in exchange for his silence.
The June 22, 2018 Meeting:
The Respondent Demands $25 Million for Himself
66.

On June 22, 2018, the Respondent, along with Mr. Stern, met with UMMS

representatives for a second time. Present were Ms. Kinter, Ms. Magdeburger and Ms.
Reynolds. Dr. Whye was not present. The UMMS representatives believed that the
meeting was in furtherance of settlement discussions in the J.S. case.
24

 67.

The Respondent started the meeting by stating that he had found new

information which made him want to increase his demand to $50 million. He discussed
unrelated cases and then advised that UMMS was “playing with fire” with M.S. He
explained that he had reined her in but that she wanted to “shut down the program.” The
Respondent stated that he had uncovered the problems with the department and, even if the
J.S. case is resolved, UMMS cannot “shut him down” because of Rule 5.6 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
68.

The Respondent stated that he had a “gold mine” and he was not giving it up.

He stated that he would settle the J.S. case for whatever it was worth and that UMMS
would pay him $25 million directly to act as a consultant in the future to conflict him out
of any future case. When Ms. Kinter stated that she thought the $25 million demand was
for the J.S. case, the Respondent replied that M.S. did not “deserve” that much money and
that the $25 million was for him.
69.

The Respondent then provided copies of new articles and other negative

public information about the Baylor University transplant program, which, at the time, was
subject to negative publicity. The Respondent said that if UMMS does not “do the deal,”
he would have a national article akin to the articles written about Baylor as well as the
advertisements for his firm. He stated that everyone will go to Johns Hopkins for
transplants when his advertisements come out and that UMMS will be “destroyed” if his
story gets out. The Respondent stated that he is the only one who has knowledge of what
he believed his investigation revealed and speculated that there are disgruntled employees
who would talk if the information was made public.
25

 70.

The Respondent stated that Dr. Bartlett was in a “shit load” of trouble but

that he (the Respondent) did not want to hurt him. He stated that he knew there were a lot
of wealthy donors to the hospital and that they would be shocked by his allegations and
that UMMS would lose goodwill and reputation if the allegations came to light.
71.

The Respondent then had Mr. Stern queue up a video that he said he would

distribute if UMMS did not pay him $25 million. In reference to the video, he said he was
“the king of taking crazy statements people say and twisting them around” and that the
video had statements made by transplant members. The Respondent stated that he was
sitting on a diamond with such an egregious case as the J.S. case.
72.

When Ms. Kinter asked the Respondent why $25 million, the Respondent

stated, “because that is what you have to pay me” and it could have been “$100 million.”
He stated that he was “not compromising” on his figure.
73.

In response to questions from Ms. Kinter and Ms. Magdeburger, the

Respondent confirmed that the $25 million was for him personally and that it was his
opinion that the J.S. case was “not worth that much money.” He estimated the value of the
J.S. case to be $3-5 million. The Respondent stated that the $25 million would help with
his “legacy.” When asked what he proposed to do to earn a $25 million consulting fee, the
Respondent said, “I could be a janitor.” The Respondent stated that it would be a “tragedy”
if UMMS did not pay him, that Ms. Kinter would get fired and that the hospital would say,
“how the fuck did you let this happen.”
74.
Handed.”

The Respondent then played an updated version of his video, “Caught RedThe video started with the words, in red, “PUBLIC SERVICE
26

 ANNOUNCEMENT” as well as an alert sound associated with television emergency alerts
and then showed a text message from Dr. Bartlett that read: “Sue and I just spoke. She
understands on the hook for fraud and punitive damages. Ball is in your court.” The video
then went on to depict several doctors who, the video stated, left or have been demoted.
Dr. Bartlett is pictured with the words: “DEMOTED NO LONGER DOING SURGERY –
regulated to executive work.” Other doctors are referenced as being “GONE.”
75.

The Respondent said he knew it would take several more meetings to work

out the details of how his demand could be accomplished and stated that Ms. Magdeburger
should contact his attorney, Andrew Jay Graham,8 to “figure out how to do the deal.” The
Respondent then referenced the relationship UMMS had with The Murphy Firm, who had
represented UMMS at trial in a matter. Ms. Kinter stated that The Murphy Firm did not
threaten her to secure work. The Respondent repeated that he would not settle the J.S. case
without a separate $25 million payment directly to him and that he would launch an
advertising and press campaign.
76.

The Respondent advised that he wanted to make a presentation directly to

the UMMS Board because he could present his offer “better” than Ms. Magdeburger or
Ms. Kinter would be able to and that the Board needed to understand that the only way
they could prevent the press conference was to hire him to do work for UMMS. He stated
again that M.S. does not “deserve” $25 million and that the $25 million was for him to
Petitioner is unaware of when the Respondent retained Mr. Graham to represent him in the “consulting”
deal. Upon information and belief, Mr. Graham was led to believe that the consulting agreement was
proposed by Dr. Bartlett and was legitimate. Upon information and belief, the Respondent never advised
Mr. Graham that the agreement was simply a cover for unlawful activities.
8

27

 keep quiet about what he had uncovered. He stated that there were “devastating” emails
that would only be kept confidential if he was paid $25 million.
77.

Ms. Magdeburger suggested that they set a mediation date with Mr. Nash for

the J.S. case. The Respondent stated that UMMS had a month to reach a decision on his
offer and that there would be no deal in the J.S. case unless he knew that UMMS was
prepared to pay him a separate payment of $25 million. Ms. Kinter advised that she would
be presenting the J.S. case to the Board in early September and the Respondent agreed to
wait until the Board meeting for a response to his demands.
78.

During the June 22, 2018 meeting, it became clear to the UMMS

representatives that the Respondent valued the J.S. case at $3-5 million and that the demand
for $25 million was associated with the Respondent’s “case” – a case he considered to be
separate and apart from the J.S. matter.
UMMS Retains Counsel
79.

Following the June 22 meeting, Ms. Kinter and others at UMMS were

stunned by the Respondent’s demands and felt the $25 million demand was extortionate.
UMMS retained Gregg L. Bernstein and John J. Connolly of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP as
outside counsel to advise on UMMS’ ethical and legal obligations.
The Respondent’s Communications with UMMS
Between June 26 and August 7, 2018
80.

On June 26, 2018, the Respondent called Ms. Magdeburger multiple times.

He advised Ms. Magdeburger that they needed to “accelerate the process because it was in
the best interest of the hospital to do so.” He stated that he did not understand why UMMS
28

 was concerned with the J.S. case “as the big case to worry about was his.” He stated further
that M.S. had three conditions to settlement but that he would not tell Ms. Magdeburger
what the conditions were.
81.

Ms. Magdeburger stressed that Ms. Kinter was presenting the J.S. case to the

Board as soon as possible. The Respondent then stated his belief that it was “really
important” that he present his case directly to the Board because the message would be
“unclear” otherwise. Ms. Magdeburger advised that they were considering his proposal to
present to the Board, and they agreed to set up a call for June 28, 2018.
82.

On June 28, 2018, Ms. Magdeburger called the Respondent. The Respondent

stated that M.S. had wanted to sue UMMS from the beginning and that if he had been
completely loyal to M.S., he would have filed suit. He stated that M.S. was “going along”
with things because she thought that the Respondent’s involvement was causing remedial
actions at UMMS. The Respondent stated that M.S. did not want to mediate and that she
accused him of working for the hospital.
83.

During the June 28 conversation, the Respondent stated that, upon reflection,

his loyalty was really to UMMS and that he did not want to hurt the hospital. He stated
that UMMS’ concentration should be on the agreement that conflicts him out and that he
did not want to wait until September to find out whether the deal can be done. He stated
that $25 million is nothing to the hospital to keep him silent and that his loyalties are with
the hospital to get rid of “this fiasco.” He stated that, if he knew the hospital would be
“doing the deal,” even though the components were not etched in stone, he would be okay
with going forward with mediation in the J.S. case. The Respondent repeated several of
29

 the threats he had made at the June meeting.
84.

On June 30, 2018, the Respondent called Ms. Magdeburger again. He stated

that his client “really wanted him to present to the Board” because she trusted that he would
obtain “remedial measures.” The Respondent alluded to the fact that he had been contacted
by another transplant patient and that he had declined the representation, thereby
demonstrating his sincerity. He stated that he would contact Ms. Magdeburger again in a
week for an update. The Respondent again repeated several of the threats he had made at
the June meeting.
85.

On August 6, 2018, Ms. Magdeburger emailed Respondent and requested he

call her to discuss the J.S. settlement and his presentation to the Board.
86.

The Respondent called Ms. Magdeburger on August 7, 2018. The two

discussed that there had been some confusion about scheduling mediation with Mr. Nash
for September 7. The Respondent expressed that M.S. wanted Dr. Bartlett to be present at
mediation and that she wanted him (the Respondent) to present his proposal to the Board.
Ms. Magdeburger advised the Respondent that Dr. Whye was reluctant to allow the
Respondent to present directly to the Board. The Respondent asked Ms. Magdeburger if
she understood that he would not agree to mediate the J.S. case unless he was able to
present his proposal to the Board. Ms. Magdeburger suggested that the Respondent write
down his request to present to the Board including why he wanted to present, the message
he wanted to provide to the Board, and what would happen if the Board did not meet his
demand. The Respondent replied, “I’m not going to write that down. I don’t want to write
that down. I can’t say the things I need to say in a letter. I can’t tell them what could
30

 happen to the hospital if they do not do this.”
87.

Upon information and belief, the Respondent refused to put his “proposal”

or threats in writing because he knew he was engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful
conduct.
UMMS Launches an Internal Investigation
88.

At some time following the April 30 meeting, Ms. Magdeburger began an

internal investigation at UMMS. As part of that investigation, Ms. Magdeburger and Ms.
Kinter confronted Dr. Bartlett, played the Respondent’s videos for him, and asked him
about his ongoing communications with the Respondent.
89.

Ms. Magdeburger was also considering the possibility that, if the J.S. case

went forward to litigation, she would file a motion to exclude the Respondent as counsel
in the J.S. matter and/or a motion to strike the complaint. To that end, in or about June
2018, Dr. Bartlett provided a narrative of his March 21 dinner meeting with the Respondent
to Ms. Magdeburger.
90.

On August 8, 2018, Dr. Bartlett and June Bartlett each signed an affidavit

regarding their communications with the Respondent.
91.

Dr. Bartlett disclosed some, but not all, of his communications with the

Respondent in his affidavit. For example, Dr. Bartlett failed to disclose the February 15
dinner meeting or the March 31 meeting at the Baltimore Country Club.
The FBI Recorded Phone Calls Leading
Up to the August 23, 2018 Meeting
92.

UMMS, with the advice of Mr. Bernstein, decided to bring the matter to the
31

 attention of law enforcement. Mr. Bernstein, Ms. Kinter and Ms. Reynolds met with an
Assistant United States Attorney and agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The
FBI initiated an investigation into the Respondent’s actions.
93.

Between August 16 and August 23, 2018, the FBI, without the Respondent’s

knowledge, recorded telephone calls between the Respondent and Ms. Kinter. At the time,
the two were discussing plans for the Respondent to repeat the presentation he had made
on June 22 to Dr. Whye at a meeting scheduled for August 23, 2018 – a meeting that would
likewise be recorded without the Respondent’s knowledge. Excerpts from the phone calls,
leading up to the August 23 meeting, include the following:
August 20, 2018
[Respondent]

All right, I mean, because honestly . . . for my perspective, I
don’t want to scare you, but this is getting serious. It really is.
You need look no further than the University of Maryland, with
that – with that kidney – I mean, that young kid that died, how
bad publicity causes a lot of problems. It just does.
*

*

*

[Ms. Kinter]

Well, let me ask you this, and don’t take offense. But am I
going to see those emails in an ad, if I find them and give them
to you?

[Respondent]

Of course, not, no, no, that’s private stuff, no, no, no. I
honestly – Sue, I have more than enough without the use of
that. I want to raise my demand to 50 million. Would that –
would that – would you – would you be pissed off at me for
that?

[Ms. Kinter]

Of course, I’d be pissed for you about that. I mean, I’m still
trying to get my head wrapped around it all, to begin with.

[Respondent]

You would?
32

 [Ms. Kinter}

I mean, this is huge for me. This is the biggest thing I’ve ever
worked on. I mean, and you even said to me, “I could lose my
job over this.”

[Respondent]

Yeah.

[Ms. Kinter]

You know?

[Respondent]

You would. You would, if it went south. There’s no question
in my mind.

[Ms. Kinter]

Well, -- and what do you mean by south?

[Respondent]

There is no question. Well, I mean, if you told them not to do
this, that we can handle Steve going forward and a debacle took
place and it really caused damage, they’d be pissed off at you.
So I’m not saying it in a bad way. I’m saying this as a friend.
If you gave a recommendation – as well as Natalie, that this
isn’t worth it, you shouldn’t do it, doesn’t make sense, you
know, we can handle this and it turns out you were 100 percent
wrong, which you would be, I think you’d get fired. I mean,
I’d fire you if you worked for me. So the key to this is let Steve
give the presentation. If they don’t want to do it, it’s not – it’s
not on my ticket. You know?

[Ms. Kinter]

Yeah.

[Respondent]

They got to do this – they got to do this, or they’re in trouble.
I mean, honestly, and honestly, I’m going to make it real simple
for Dr. Whye. I really am.

[Ms. Kinter]

What are you thinking?

[Respondent]

Well, it’s just simple. You know, you settle with her,
confidential, and you get a consulting agreement with me, a
consulting agreement with me that sets out some
responsibilities, and it means I’m conflicted out and I can’t take
cases against [transplant]. It’s as simple as that.

[Ms. Kinter]

And that’s for the 25 – or now, today, the 50 million?

[Respondent]

Well, honestly, I’m sorry I didn’t ask that to begin with,
honestly. I think the case is really – I think it’s a terrible set of
33

 facts, terrible, and I think the proof, there’s [all the] remedial
action you’re taking there. I mean, that may or may not be
admissible for court. Do you – do you understand the [law on]
remedial action? . . . I mean, because I looked it up. I mean,
taking remedial action in response to, you know, somebody’s
giving you information that makes you realize that maybe
we’ve been doing something wrong is normally not admissible
in court. However, if, for example, I put on somebody that says
the hospital committed fraud and this document supports that,
the minute that you contest that – if it goes uncontested, then
you’re fine, but if it goes contested, then it could be used for
impeachment. You know? Then why did you do this? Why
did you do that? Why did you do that? But there’s a big
difference between what’s law and how principles of law are
applied than whether I can use it in a campaign to go forward.
I mean, I certainly would use it in a campaign, if I was doing
this.
The bottom line is I’d prefer to get this off your plate. I really
would. Not that everybody else feels that way, but that’s what
I feel. You know? So I think it’s just very, very simple. Nobrainer. Can I raise it to 50?
[Ms. Kinter]

No, you’re already – you’re already making me nervous.
*

*

*

[Respondent]

. . . And another thing that you have to worry about that’s really
important is an investigation into what’s going on there, and a
formal investigation, by whomever.

[Ms. Kinter]

Now, that’s, (indiscernible) –

[Respondent]

I mean, that’s key, too.

[Ms. Kinter]

No, I hear ya. I hear ya loud and clear.

[Respondent]

So –

[Ms. Kinter]

I mean, your message has not been lost on me. It really has
not.

[Respondent]

No, I know, and honestly [] you may not believe this, but I – it
really – it’s more you than [Dr.] Bartlett. I don’t even know if
34

 I’d recognize [Dr.] Bartlett in a lineup now. I’m being funny,
but you’ve been my friend for 25 years, and while you have to
pay me money, I feel like I’m doing a good deed to give you
this opportunity.
August 22, 2018
[Ms. Kinter]

I was going to say, I mean, I mean, if the [J.S.] case, why not
set it up for a mediation? I mean, I guess I don’t understand
why we wouldn’t do that.

[Respondent]

Well, I have to know what we’re doing on the other part of the
equation. I mean, you know the reason I never called back for
a date is – what’s critical to this one – this lady is more
concerned with who knows what, but you know, I mean,
remedial action, and she believes that I’m a force behind that.
So she wants that to continue. So you know, the two issues are
intertwined. I mean, they are, but you know, take the date [for
mediation].
*

*

*

[Ms. Kinter]

What am I going to see tomorrow? Do I need to bring some
Valium?

[Respondent]

Yeah, you’re going to flip tomorrow. Let me tell you,
seriously. You really do need to bring Valium tomorrow, if
what I – I have it – I don’t – you know, I talk to you differently
that I talk to my other adversaries, but we’ve been working day
and night to prepare to show what the magnitude of exposure
would be. That’s the theme tomorrow. You know, what would
happen here if a member of the community saw this, knew
what was going on here? And that’s what we’re preparing
tomorrow, to show the magnitude of what this means, if it’s
unresolved.
*

[Respondent]

*

*

. . . let me tell you the [J.S. case] is the least of your issues.
Trust me, but I mean, everything flows from the [J.S.] case.
You know? All right. Be happy I’m your friend . . . I will say
– if I go before the board, I will say nice things about you.
35

 94.

On August 22, 2018 at approximately 4:00 p.m., the Respondent sent a

revised demand letter to Ms. Kinter in the J.S. case seeking $6 million.
The August 23, 2018 Meeting
95.

On August 23, 2018, the FBI, without the Respondent’s knowledge, recorded

the Respondent’s meeting with UMMS representatives. In addition to the Respondent,
present were Mr. Stern, Ms. Kinter, Dr. Whye and Ms. Magdeburger. The following are
excerpts from the meeting:
[Respondent]

We’re not recording this meeting, correct? . . . This is an
informal discussion.
*

[Respondent]

*

*

My goal is to ensure that my position is clear and that nothing
gets lost in translation. That’s – that’s where – and that any
and all questions that the Board may have, they can ask and –
and I can answer it, it’ll be, you know, fully answered. I – what
– what I want to discuss is the implications of this case, which
has major ramifications for the hospital.
*

*

*

[Ms. Kinter]

So you’re talking, in this case, we got a demand letter in the
[J.S.] case. . . So, I mean, that’s a case we can resolve.

[Respondent]

Well, I don’t know, because that’s – let – let me keep talking .
. . the major ramifications would – what – what I’m saying is,
what would happen if you said no to this offer? What would
happen? What are the ramifications? While they’re not etched
in cement, I think I can make it clear to all of you that the
ramifications would – would be devastating. And – and they –
they would flow from an egregious set of facts in the [J.S.]
case. The [J.S.] case has an egregious set of facts, it does. And
I’m not really going through those facts, to get it peripherally.
I mean, you know what the facts of [J.S.] are.

[Ms. Kinter]

Yeah, but I also want you to know that – that we have defenses
36

 to those. I – I – I need you to know that.
[Respondent]

. . . in my mind the Board should welcome the opportunity to
– to allow me , uh, to tell them to learn as much as possible, so
they can – so you that you all can fulfill your – your
responsibilities, uh, and make, you know, uh, good decisions.
. . And when we talk about implications, you know, what are
we – what are we talking about?
Uh, we’re talking about potential litigation. And, uh, we’re
talking about reputation of the hospital, and we’re talking
about lost revenues. And we’re talking about, you know,
compliance, being flagged by federal institutions and the loss
of – of Medicare funding.
*

*

*

[Respondent]

I really have a longstanding relationship with Sue. And I
became friends with – friends with Steve. And, you know, we
went out to dinner with the wives, and, uh, I like him. I mean,
I – my communication with him was – I stopped, because they
asked me to . . . but I am – but I – I think I’m just respected
here. I mean he knows that I’m a force to be dealt with. And
he asked me, in no uncertain terms, to, “Don’t taint his
reputation.” He asked me that, I mean, I have texts, and I’ll –
I’ll show you, if you want to see them. He’s asked me that.

[Ms. Kinter]

Can you send me all the texts that you’ve had with him?

[Respondent]

No. No, because it’s sent in – yeah, I’m not gonna send you
all our – why would I do that?

[Ms. Magdeburger] Because he’s a party as well as [we’re] his attorney. . . That’s
usually how it works.
[Respondent]

Well, they’re not – they’re really for my eyes only, so it – it
won’t – but, I – I don’t think I could do that for you. But, let –
let –let me keep going.
*

[Respondent]

*

*

. . . if I don’t make the presentation and Sue did and the Board
said, “No, we could handle this,” and the debacle took place, I
think she’d be gone. . .
37

 [Ms. Magdeburger] They would do a firing?
[Respondent]

Yeah. I think – you know, so, uh, because something would
get lost in the translation. You know, who better than me to
say what I have and what – what – and – and what I think would
happen.
*

*

*

[Respondent]

You hire my firm as a consultant. You hire me to do certain
set-out things, to keep the hospital on the straight and narrow,
to be involved with the Transplant Department as much as
necessary. The – the effect of that would be, is that I’m doing
work for the hospital, okay? If, in the event something arises
in the future, related to the Transplant Department, well, I
would be conflict—conflicted out, by way of implication. You
– you – you follow that? . . .

[Dr. Whye]

So what specifically would you be doing?

[Respondent]

Well, who knows? . . . You know, again, you – you can’t pay
someone off to not take cases. So, you know – so, you’re hiring
me, and – and it’s – this is very important so that – I – I would
do whatever you want me to do. If you don’t want to see me,
over ten years, then that’s fine too.
*

*

*

[Dr. Whye]

So, my job, my role is – is not to litigate cases specific, I – and
we can go back and forth about that, but I – I want to have a
clear understanding of – of the comments that you’re making
with respect to your role. So if I’m a board member and I’m
hearing what you just said about, “well, um, you could work
on their behalf,” okay? And obviously there’s something in
exchange for that. And I – I need to fully understand what that
exchange is. And, if I’m a board member, I’m saying, we
really don’t have anything for you to do. It sounds like I’m just
paying you to avoid any kind of . . . litigation.

[Respondent]

Well, you can’t . . . You’re – you’re not – you can’t do that.

[Dr. Whye]

Right. But that’s the way it’s gonna be interpreted.
38

 [Respondent]

. . . Well, you can’t pay me to not take cases, that – you can’t
pay me. So you can either retain me to do work or hire me as
a consultant, to avoid me taking cases, and to be available, you
– you know, if -if- if -if somebody – some other lawyer turns
up and . . . I would be conflicted out, you – you understand
that? That’s the way it would have to be.
*

[Respondent]

*

. . . I mean, the implications is you don’t do this deal . . . If you
don’t, I don’t think [M.S.] will settle it, because she’s an
advocate of going forward.
*

[Respondent]

*

*

*

. . . but what happened was, when we investigated [the J.S.]
case, we found a shitload of – of information of what’s going
on in this department; and that’s really different, from her case.
In other words, if I’m going to – and I – I get cases against
University of Maryland all the time. I mean Let’s – let’s not
be – let’s be clear on that. I’m, by this agreement, I’m
conflicting myself out of future cases, again – you know,
against this department; not only me, but my sons as well, and
that’s – that’s not a small thing.
*

*

*

[Respondent]

Well you can’t pay someone to not take cases.

[Ms. Kinter]

Right. And that’s what – I – and I don’t mean to for – you
know, I guess what it looks like is this consulting agreement
on paper, right?

[Respondent]

Correct

[Ms. Kinter]

And then, in your mind, whether you do work or whether you
don’t do work is to be determined, I guess, or –

[Respondent]

I mean, I don’t care if I don’t do anything. It’s up to – I don’t
care at all.

[Ms. Magdeburger] So the agreement is basically just to cover the rules?
39

 [Respondent]

Yes. . . Yeah, it is. That’s really what it is.
*

[Respondent]

*

So, you just don’t want to settle [M.S’s] case. You want to
make sure that what I know, that the public doesn’t know is –
it goes to – is confidential. So, settling her case and allowing
me to go forward on mine – we have to settle her case, no
matter what. It’s a – it’s a bad set of facts. But settling her
case, without settling what I know, doesn’t do the hospital any
good. So you really need to get rid of both, at this point.
*

[Respondent]

*

*

*

Well, because there’s a different component to this. The – the
component is that there are facts independent of her case, that
came out of her case through investigation, that relate to the
hospital generally. And you’re getting an agreement where I’m
allegedly doing some form of work for you. Uh, it’s not
extortion. Because the – the – the – the – I’m not using any
facts that aren’t-or, excuse me, I’m gonna talk like [Giuliani],
uh – uh, make – the truth and not the truth. Uh, but I’m using
things that I’ve developed. So, if – what you’re saying – these
are the key things, the – how do we do this where it’s not
perceived as extortion? Because I– again, I – I’m – I’m not
gonna– you know, if you – if– if you accuse me of extortion,
which it’s not, and I’ve totally hired a lawyer to – to look into
that, to make sure it’s not that, then –
*

*

*

[Respondent]

So – so again, I – I don’t – I understand it’s a unique thing. But
– but again, you don’t want to shut her up, which is not
extortion, and not shut me up. You – you want me not to go
forward. So the question is, how do we do it and how is it not
perceived as extortion? And how is it perceived as in
compliance with the rules, isn’t that right? Isn’t that what we’re
talking about?

[Dr. Whye]

Yeah.

[Respondent]

Huh?
40

 [Dr. Whye]

Yeah. But, you know, again, you know, I – I struggle with
knowledge about that this was explained to me, because I hear
it, but is this – this fabrication is to construct a relationship that
one could argue that does not look real [valid] a relationship in
terms of –

[Respondent]

Well, would – can – can I tell you, that’s just sort of theoretical.
I mean, in the real world, you’re the party and I’m the party.
So –

[Dr. Whye]

Right.

[Respondent]

So I – I don’t know how, in the real world, that could happen.

[Dr. Whye]

But if the intent of a relationship was not necessarily devised
for you to provide a service for the –

[Respondent]

Well, it can be. I mean I – I – I don’t know, but –

[Dr. Whye]

But we’re still – you know, it’s still contrived, in a sense, right?
You know, it’s not a legitimate relationship. The intent here is
to prevent you from exposing information about us that may be
determined harmful. And so when you dis – distill it down to
its essence, I mean, one is gonna argue that, in – in exchange
for your – in exchange for purposes that would be considered
illegitimate, right?

[Respondent]

Well, I don’t think it’s illegitimate.

[Dr. Whye]

And so – well, I’m not – I’m

[Respondent]

I mean, if I’m a consultant to – to the hospital, uh, and I could
help out, for example, if for – if the county gets a case, I could
help you resolve those cases, and – and tell you from a citizen’s
perspective, this is a good thing, this is – you know, I’m there
to do that and – and I’m doing it.

[Ms. Magdeburger] Do you think that the Board’s gonna have a hard time with it?
The only reason we are where we are at, now, right, having this
conversation, is because – and we’ll show Dr. Whye the video,
is you’ve got in your mind damaging things, and that if you
didn’t have these damaging things and you didn’t have the
41

 ability to make an ad and go on TV, we wouldn’t be here today
talking about it, right? So that’s –
[Respondent]

Correct.
*

[Respondent]

*

*

The question is, how do we do this and feel that we did the
right thing, okay? Isn’t that really, like a -a [paramount
importance] []? How do we do it and do it the right way?

[Ms. Magdeburger] I think if it’s legitimate, is –
[Dr. Whye]

Is there a way –

[Respondent]

Huh?

[Ms. Magdeburger] – there a right way to do it?
[Dr. Whye]

– right way to get it done?

[Respondent]

Well, the – the altern – I the alternative for that is, uh – uh,
please, uh, don’t count on me – me not doing [campaign/ad].

[Ms. Magdeburger] I wouldn’t count on it. I just – I don’t –
[Respondent]

Yeah, please don’t. That’s not – well, let – let me keep talking,
and - and we’ll try to figure this out. You want to say?

[Ms. Kinter]

Yeah. Uh, just in terms of [M.S.’s] case, I mean, I – I know
you’re – you’re talking about the campaign. But if – if that case
can get resolved –

[Respondent]

It can’t. She won’t resolve it unless she knows that - uh,
remedial action is – is – is – things are – this – this department
is doing things, such as, you know, hiring new people and, uh
– uh, doing things.
*

[Respondent]

*

*

The critical thing is, how do we implement an agreement that
doesn’t let these things surface, that’s not extortion and not–
and– and – and – and – and prevents Steve from handling the
42

 cases, that – that’s the key to this.
*
[Respondent]

*

*

Well, you have to understand, this is a client that really doesn’t
want to settle. So, when you talk about extortion, it’s not a – it
– this is a client that doesn’t want to settle. This is a client that
would like me to go forward. I’m the guy that has really, and –
and truthfully, not provided undivided loyalty to her. I mean,
if you want to call it the way it really is. If, in fact, I was
providing undivided loyalty to her I would have filed this
claim a long time ago. She don’t care about the six million
dollars, or the five, or whatever the number is. She doesn’t
care.
*

*

*

[Dr. Whye]

And so, in my conversation with the – the CO of the hospital,
they’re asking me that appreciation that, at the end of the day,
what this is about is that all of this negative stuff will go away,
we just gotta write out a check for $25 million?

[Respondent]

Plus her case.
*

*

*

[Respondent]

Let me ask you a question. And I don’t know if I’m willing to
do this. But, so maybe a solution is we – we pay one payment
just to [M.S.], whatever the number is, if it’s 30 or what–

[Ms. Kinter]

We can’t do that, because the insurance company won’t pay it.

[Ms. Magdeburger] Well, if – uh, I think it’s just –
[Respondent]

What do you mean? In other words, just pay [M.S.] and get
confidential – confidential –

[Ms. Kinter]

But –

[Respondent]

– and – and – and –

[Ms. Kinter]

For – for five or six million and then move on, that’s –
43

 [Respondent]

That’s – I’m not say – paying the 30 or, you know, 31 million
to [M.S.], as a one-time settlement. I’m not a consultant for the
hospital. And I’ll deal with her, you know–

[Ms. Kinter]

And what would yours be if –

[Respondent]

It doesn’t matter. Uh – huh? I thought that’s a solution that’s
great for you. It - it removes worrying about me doing work,
why – why you – you know, again, why is that bad? That would
be great for you. I didn’t want to do it that way, but I think
that’s a solution, just pay her one –

[Ms. Kinter]

But her – her case isn’t worth 30 million dollars.

[Respondent]

It doesn’t matter whether it’s worth – you get – that’s a
solution, you get rid of everything. You don’t have to worry
about Steve [Snyder] being a consultant. Uh, you don’t have to
worry about any of that, at all. Why is that bad?

96.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Respondent asked if Ms. Kinter wanted

to meet again and include Mr. Graham. Ms. Kinter suggested a break in the discussions
and agreed to call the Respondent the next day.
Communications Between August 24 and September 5, 2018
97.

Between August 24, 2018 and September 5, 2018, the FBI recorded ten (10)

telephone calls between the Respondent and Ms. Kinter.9 At the time, the two discussed
the Respondent’s desire to present his $25 million demand to the Board as well as the J.S.
settlement. Ultimately, the J.S. mediation was scheduled for September 7 and Ms. Kinter
advised the Respondent that he would be able to present his demand to certain board
members the following week. Excerpts from the phone calls, leading up to the September

9

In addition to recording the telephone calls between the Respondent and Ms. Kinter, on August 27, 2018,
the FBI recorded a phone call between Ms. Magdeburger and Mr. Graham without Mr. Graham’s
knowledge.

44

 7, 2018 mediation, include the following:
August 25, 2018
[Ms. Kinter]

Well, I mean, I’ll be honest with you. One of the – one of the
reasons --- you know, one of the things I needed to learn from
our meeting on Thursday was how serious you are about going
forward with this or is there really a chance that you might
now, and, you know, you told me what you told me. So I think
that’s a – that’s a valuable piece of information.

[Respondent]

So have you concluded I will go forward?

[Ms. Kinter]

Correct, if that’s still true.

[Respondent]

Yeah, it is. Yeah, I have to. You know, definitely.
*

*

*

[Respondent]

Yeah. I mean, Sue, are you – are you an advocate of this thing
getting done?

[Ms. Kinter]

I’ll tell you what I’m struggling with. You know, I’ll put it this
way. I’m an advocate for bad publicity not being said about
the hospital.

[Respondent]

Right. All right, I hear you. Is that all your – is that your
statement.

[Ms. Kinter]

That’s my statement.

[Respondent]

Well, be happy I didn’t ask for more. Be happy it’s me. . . I
said be happy it’s me on the other side, and I mean, this
[client’s] tough. I mean, I got to tell you. You know, it’s not
going to be a pleasant mediation with her, I don’t think. You
know? She’s just very (inaudible).
*

*

*

[Respondent]

What did you think of the presentation? It was good, wasn’t it?

[Ms. Kinter]

Yeah, I mean, I think you hit the high points. I think you made
it clear what would happen if – you know, if we didn’t go along
45

 with the deal.
[Respondent]

Right.

[Ms. Kinter]

I think Dr. [Whye] heard that loud and clear. You know?
*

*

*

[Ms. Kinter]

The simple part is just kind of entering into an agreement with
you, and that should be – I mean, it sounds simple.

[Respondent]

And you’ll use – and you’ll use me when you want me, if at
all. You know, when you need me, you know, you’ll call me
once a month, or you’ll have lunch with me once and month,
and you’ll – and you’ll get advice from me. Hopefully, nothing
will ever surface, no cases or anything. I don’t think they will.

[Ms. Kinter]

Yes, yeah, I hope note. I hope not.

[Respondent]

Yeah. All right, I worked hard on this thing.

[Ms. Kinter]

It showed. You did a nice job.

[Respondent]

All right. Thank you.

[Ms. Kinter]

Dr. Whye got to see some of your flare and je ne sais quoi.

[Respondent]

Let me tell you something. If I pursued this, I’d make more
money pursuing it than what I’m doing, by far. I’m convinced
of that, 100 percent, and I’d get all kinds of notoriety, but you
don’t believe that it’s partly because of you. Do you believe
that or you don’t?

[Ms. Kinter]

I don’t believe what?

[Respondent]

Do you believe that I’m doing this partly because you and I
have a pretty good relationship?
August 28, 2018

[Ms. Kinter]

. . . Natalie [Magdeburger] will not be an obstructionist. I can
tell you that. Probably – and I don’t know, because you haven’t
made a presentation at the board, but my sense is where we all
46

 are going to reach an agreement, is you, know – and I don’t
mean any disrespect to you, Steve. Don’t get me wrong, but
you know, we don’t really want to enter into an agreement. We
realize that that’s something that is necessary and that what we
will do, and because of that, my guess is we would be very
comfortable with you doing nothing and it would probably be
our preference, and however that gets worded by Andy
[Graham] -[Respondent]

You know, you – you did hire Billy one time.

[Ms. Kinter]

I’m not going to go – yeah, he didn’t threaten me, Steve but –

[Respondent]

Honestly, Sue, . . . Listen to me as a friend. I’m 71. Get this
off your plate. You’ll be a hero, and it’ll never surface. Even
if she did something she’s not supposed to do, she’d be under
confidentiality. No lawyer would take the case. If she ever
said anything, they would come to me. She wouldn’t even
know what to say. She would only say – I mean, she doesn’t
know what I know, and she hasn’t seen my videos. So the
worst that she could say is they gave my husband a bad kidney
and they killed him. So I think if you get this done, this goes
away.

[Ms. Kinter]

No, I hear you. I hear you loud and clear. I hear you loud and
clear. So –

[Respondent]

But it’s not subject to compromise, but you know, I said – I
said another thing to you, and I just – I threw it out there, and
I’m not sure I want to do it. But would it be better for you if
you paid money over a period of time?
August 30, 2018

[Respondent]

No, I mean, again, I want to – you don’t want anything – look,
you don’t want to create impediments that force me to file the
suit. So you’ve got to make peace with [M.S.], and then
Natalie got to work with Andy to, you know, formulate an
agreement that everybody’s comfortable with, and you know,
–

[Ms. Kinter]

Well, let me ask you this, Steve, and I need you to be – I need
you to be honest with me, alright?
47

 [Respondent]

Yes.

[Ms. Kinter]

Let’s say we can’t come to terms with [M.S.], right, because
either she needs us to set up this fund, or she needs me to make
promises, and all this other stuff, and you file. And so, you
have to file the lawsuit. Does the filing of the lawsuit mean
that you’re also going to do all this negative campaign, or if we
work something out with you in your own case, would that
happen?

[Respondent]

I think it’s got to be both. I don’t know how you can isolate
one from the other, because I mean, her case is the egregious
set of circumstances from which, you know, all the negativity
flows, but I don’t – you know, I haven’t thought of what you
just said.
*

[Ms. Kinter]

*

*

I’m not asking you to make any decisions, but the more I think
about this in my head, I hear everything you’re saying about
[M.S.], how angry she is. I view her case – and, you know, this
is just me. I look at her case – I look at it as a typical medical
malpractice case. There are allegations that our people did
things wrong, I know you have some of these other issues that
you believe to be strong and stuff in the video, but I mean, you
can look at her case as a typical medical malpractice case.
When a transplant – you say he shouldn’t have had the
transplant. He’s shouldn’t have gotten the kidney. Dr. Bartlett
says we delayed diagnosing something, and he had a horrible
course, and he died, and we can all calculate what damages
she’s entitled to, under Maryland law. There’s a cap. We
know what his past medicals are. We know what his lost wages
are, and so I guess my thought to you is . . . you know, we could
take her case, and if we don’t settle her case, we don’t settle
her case. You file your lawsuit. We litigate that case like a
typical medical malpractice case, and then there’s your
separate case that’s separate, and you know, if you felt that,
you know, you had to even – you know, you weren’t
comfortable or she wouldn’t agree to having anybody else
represent her, you know, we could waive the conflict for her
case only. And you could file the lawsuit.
48

 [Respondent]

How is that good for you guys? . . . I don’t know how that’s
good for – I don’t know how that serves your purpose. The
better part of this is do what you have to –

[Ms. Kinter]

It serves my purpose if you would tell me that you’re not going
to run this ad campaign that destroys the hospital. So if we
don’t – I mean, I feel – I almost feel like you’re pressuring me
from two points. You know? Sue, you have to settle the [J.S.]
case. Now, you have to add additional money so she can – she
can have some foundation for him, and then you also have to
pay me the 25 million dollars, and if you don’t do all 3 of those,
then what are you going to do, Steve?

[Respondent]

No. I hear you. No, I would. I’d go forward, I mean –

[Ms. Kinter]

And by go forward –

[Respondent]

– to be honest with you – to be honest with you, I’m in the
middle, right this minute – although I’m by myself, working
on the videos, you know, finalizing them, you know, for the
presentation. But I think – let me be candid with you. I think
you should – you have to pay a premium to her, and honestly,
I may not even take a legal fee, but you have to factor in that
there’s the potentiality of getting punitive damages. I mean,
and you have to factor that in to get rid of this lady. So –

[Ms. Kinter]

I’m not going to – I’m not going to factor it in pre-suit, though.
I’m not . . . Because I don’t believe – I don’t believe it’s strong.

[Respondent]

That doesn’t make any sense . . . But you don’t want to kill the
case, the whole deal because you’re playing with a couple
million dollars on her.

[Ms. Kinter]

Well, that’s what I’m trying . . . to ask you. Like would it really
kill the whole deal?

[Respondent]

Yeah, I think it would.

[Ms. Kinter]

And why would it kill the whole deal?

[Respondent]

I don’t know. I’m talking to you as a friend now.
49

 [Ms. Kinter]

I know.

[Respondent]

I don’t know how you – I don’t know how you would want her
out there.

[Ms. Kinter]

Well, she wouldn’t be out there. It would be you’d file this
lawsuit and we’d litigate it or negotiate it in the normal course.

[Respondent]

I mean, I don’t think she would take – she’s not going to take
3 million on her case. I know it. She – you know, she’s –
although I really don’t discuss money with her that often. I
was hoping that you’d pay her 6 and that I would put $1 million
in a – in a charitable trust for her, let her run it, knowing that
I’m going to be doing work with the hospital, and, you know,
and then I probably wasn’t even going to take a fee on the 5.
That’s how I thought it would play out. So that’s what
(inaudible).

[Ms. Kinter]

Yeah, but I mean, and that’s the other part, and we . . . And we
can talk about that. I mean, but you really wouldn’t be doing
work for the hospital.

[Respondent]

No, I understand, but I would help her – you know, I would
make her feel good. I mean, we just saw – you know, we had
– we have people that help us on this case, and you just got rid
of another doctor. I don’t know what his name is, and that’s
Scalias [] talking about leaving and going another place. I
mean, you know, we have people that help us on this case, and
I have like experts from the Cleveland Clinic, statistically, I
mean, you know, I have a lot of stuff on this. But I think, Sue,
you know, I think you just have to pay for her. Honestly, and
I’m not even posturing for me on that. You’ve got – . . .You’ve
got to do a – you’ve got to do a mea culpa on her, let [Dr.]
Bartlett talk to her. I think we – I think we should go to
[mediation] on the 7th and let [Brian Nash] – and then, as a final
contingency to the deal, that [Dr.] Bartlett will talk, sit down
with her, one-on-one on whatever it is, the following week. So
the deal would be subject –

[Ms. Kinter]

Can I – could I ask – yeah, can I ask you a favor?

[Respondent]

Sure, yes.
50

 [Ms. Kinter]

Because I’m getting so I’ve heard two things, and I need to
understand – I need to understand [this] if – I need to
understand if they’re written in stone. So the two things I’ve
heard is, number one, we need to have an agreement in
principle about your part of the case, the 25 million dollars,
before we go into the mediation on Friday, and then she wants
[Dr.] Bartlett in the mediation on Friday.

[Respondent]

Correct.

[Ms. Kinter]

So on one hand, she’s asking – . . .

[Respondent]

But I just said to you we can do all that, and then at the
mediation, it’s not [a signed] – let’s agree on everything, except
[Dr.] Bartlett talking to her, and that’ll –

[Ms. Kinter]

Okay . . . The favor I need to ask you is I’m having trouble,
just because of people’s schedules – that’s all it is – getting the
three people I need to have you present to. I’m having a great
deal of difficulty doing that before the 7th, and so, don’t give
me – you don’t have to give me an answer now, because I know
I’m making a big ask of you, and I recognize it, but I’m asking
if there’s any way we could move it to – I’ve got—I’ve got the
12th and the 13th, where 2 people can come on the 12th and 3
people can come on the 13th, and we’re trying to see if the third
person on the 13th could come on the 12th to even make it
sooner than – sooner than the 13th.
*

[Respondent]

*

*

All right, here’s what I think you should do. You know, I will
– it doesn’t make sense, after all the effort, – and I hear you
that you clearly do not want to do this campaign. You do not
want this campaign to go forward, and I clearly hear you that
the 25 million dollars is not going to be negotiated. I hear you
on that, but you have to get permission from these people, but
I think – I’m talking to you as a friend. You should get her
under wraps, and you ought to be able to tell her on the 7th –
that’s with Brian – that you’re sorry, the hospital wants to do
this, and the number we’ve agree upon – and have Brian [Nash]
tell her that it’s confidential and have as a condition precedent
to the finality of that she’s going to meet with [Dr.] Bartlett and
that there’s an unwritten agreement between us that I’m going
51

 to go before the board on the 12th or 13th to make the
presentation. I think that’s the way to go.
*
[Respondent]

*

Right, and you don’t have to say anything about that I’m
making a presentation on the – you know, again, Sue, you don’t
want it, through Natalie or yourself, create an impediment to
make the deal not work that forces me to file the lawsuit. So
you know, but I want – I want to make sure that there’s a
meeting of the minds.
*

[Respondent]

*

*

*

All right. Talk to Whye. Dr. Whye – again, I think you should
give her, you know, the $6 million and create a – let her – let –
say that, as part of this, we want you to create a fund, and
against – and I’m not going to take a fee on this stuff, and get
her under wraps, subject to the two remaining conditions, and
do the other thing.
September 5, 2018

[Respondent]

Do you want me to call – I got to --- let me tell you something.
I got a really – I hate to tell you this. I got a really, really big
case against your hospital. Are you the risk manager for
Maryland General?

[Ms. Kinter]

I am the senior vice president of claims litigation and risk
management for the system, which includes Maryland General,
yes.

[Respondent]

All right. You probably should get rid of me forever.

[Ms. Kinter]

What’s the patient’s – what’s the patient’s name? What’s the
patient’s name?

[Respondent]

I don’t really know, but honest – Wade, I think. He’s like a 14year-old boy. It’s pretty messed up.10

10

As of September 2018, the Respondent had not been retained to represent a client against Maryland
General and the “other case” that he valued at potentially $20-30 million was a reference to the consulting
agreement, not the phantom case of the 14-year-old boy.

52

 *
[Respondent]

98.

*

*

You can’t get rid of me – I mean, this other case is a $20, $30
million case, potentially.

On the morning of September 6, 2018, Ms. Kinter cancelled the meeting with

the Respondent scheduled for 11:00 a.m.
The September 7 Mediation and Its Aftermath
99.

On September 7, 2018, the parties attended mediation with Mr. Nash. The

Respondent and Mr. Stern represented M.S. Ms. Kinter and Ms. Reynolds represented
UMMS. Before the session began, the Respondent told Ms. Kinter and Ms. Reynolds that
he still intended to seek the $25 million payment from UMMS notwithstanding the fact
that he had submitted a revised demand in the J.S. case, requesting $6 million.
100.

At the outset of mediation, the Respondent presented five terms that M.S.

wanted included in any settlement, one of which was a requirement that the Respondent
“become a consultant to the University of Maryland Department of Transplantation.”
UMMS rejected the provision and Mr. Nash clearly advised the Respondent that any
consulting agreement would not be included in any part of the J.S. settlement.
101.

During mediation, M.S. never raised the issue of the consulting agreement to

Mr. Nash. The Respondent, however, on multiple occasions throughout the day, referenced
the consulting agreement.
102.

At the conclusion of the mediation, the parties agreed to settle the case for

$Z. The amount included $a for non-economic damages, $b for lost wages, $c for past
medical expenses, and $d representing a premium for confidentiality with a $e liquidated
53

 damage clause equal to 50% of the total compensatory damages allowable. The parties
agreed that they would incorporate the additional terms negotiated at mediation into the
settlement. The terms included: (1) A statement that UMMS had no intention of rehiring
five doctors who had been involved with Mr. S’s care and who had left the hospital; (2)
Dr. Bartlett would meet with M.S.; (3) The compensation paid by UMMS included the
payment of medical bills; (4) M.S. could prepare a video for use by UMMC for educational
purposes; and (5) A statement about the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) score of the
kidney implanted in J.S.
103.

After mediation, the Respondent and Ms. Kinter spoke briefly.

The

Respondent stated that “the settlement with [M.S.] was ‘off’ if the UMMS board did not
accept his separate agreement for a payment to him personally.” Ms. Kinter replied that
she understood that the Respondent “was tying the settlement with [M.S.] to his
agreement.” The Respondent stated that he did not like the way Ms. Kinter framed it, “but
yes.”
104.

Following the mediation, the parties disagreed about some of the terms of the

settlement agreement. Ms. Magdeburger drafted the release to include consideration in the
amount of $d for the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions. The Respondent,
contrary to the agreement reached at mediation, contended that the appropriate amount of
consideration was $f.
105.

On September 11, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., Mr. Bernstein met with Mr. Graham.

Mr. Bernstein expressed UMMS’ concern that the Respondent may interfere with the J.S.
settlement, instructed that the Respondent was to have no further contact with UMMS, and
54

 advised that the Respondent would not be presenting to the Board on September 12.
106.

At 4:16 p.m. on September 11, 2018, the Respondent texted Ms. Kinter,

“Sue, is there a meeting tomorrow[?]”
M.S. Executes a “Waiver”
107.

On September 14, 2018, M.S. executed a document entitled “Waiver.” The

document stated:
I, [M.S.], Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
[J.S.], am and throughout the pendency of my case have been aware
of, and consent to the following:
Stephen L. Snyder and Snyder & Snyder, P.A. may enter into a
consulting agreement with University of Maryland Medical System
after my case has been settled. I feel that I have been appropriately
advised, on several occasions, regarding this potential agreement and
by signing below I consent to it and waive any conflict that may be
perceived to arise as a result. I have also been advised and encouraged
to seek independent counsel from another attorney if I feel it is
necessary.
I am an advocate of Mr. Snyder and his firm becoming consultants to
the hospital and specifically its transplant department and I want it to
be a condition of a settlement in my case. I have been advised,
however, that most likely, this consulting agreement may have to be
separate and apart from my settlement. I also understand that, if a
consulting agreement is reached, Mr. Snyder and his firm will be
compensated, and I feel that is appropriate and justified.
I am aware that Mr. Snyder has met with key employees at the
University of Maryland Medical System and their attorneys on
multiple occasions to discuss both my case and the potential
consulting agreement. I was made aware of these meetings prior to
them occurring and gave Mr. Snyder my consent to do so. Mr. Snyder
informed me that he had proposed a 10 year agreement and was to be
compensated up to $25 million. I am aware that Mr. Snyder is
scheduled to appear before hospital board members to make a
presentation regarding his consulting agreement.
55

 Immediately after my mediation, I became aware that the Defendant
and its attorneys were threatening Mr. Snyder and his firm, included
a $d confidentiality provision and indicated that it may no longer enter
into a consulting agreement. I am livid and outraged at this to say the
least and I fully expect this threat to be removed immediately. I
absolutely want this consulting agreement between Mr. Snyder and
University of Maryland Medical System. I am not accepting the $d
confidentiality provision payment and I am inclined to decline my
settlement if is not all resolved.
108.

The Waiver was prepared by a lawyer at the Respondent’s firm.

109.

The Respondent openly admitted that his loyalty was to the hospital, not

M.S.; he failed to keep M.S. fully apprised of all material communications related to the
“consulting agreement” including failing to advise her that he intended to use the video she
had authorized him to make as a commercial for his law practice; he failed to discuss with
her how any funds would be disbursed; he failed to advise her of any potential or actual
conflict of interest; and he failed to obtain her informed consent, confirmed in writing.
M.S. Meets with Dr. Bartlett and
Signs the Settlement Agreement
110.

On September 27, 2018, M.S., accompanied by the Respondent, met with Dr.

Bartlett and Ms. Magdeburger. At the conclusion of the meeting, M.S. executed the
Release, notwithstanding the Waiver in which she contended that she was “not accepting
the $d confidentiality provision payment” and was “inclined to decline [her] settlement” if
the issue with the Respondent’s “consulting agreement” was not resolved.
The Respondent’s October 9, 2018 Letter to Brian Nash
111.

On October 9, 2018, the Respondent, unable to communicate directly with

Ms. Kinter, wrote to Mr. Nash. The Respondent disparaged Ms. Magdeburger and
56

 referenced his friendship with Dr. Bartlett. He concluded by stating:
Having worked so hard to protect the University of Maryland
[sic] egregious conduct and far-reaching implications through
notoriety, one would think that Sue [Kinter] and I should clear
the slate and continue our discussions related to a consultancy.
This is true, especially in light of [M.S.’s] case being resolved
and settled. There appears to be no ethical impediments to
continue discussions.
112.

Mr. Nash forwarded the October 9 letter to Ms. Kinter.
Bar Counsel’s Investigation

113.

On October 22, 2018, Ms. Kinter and Dr. Whye filed a complaint with Bar

Counsel.11 On January 4, 2019, the Respondent, through counsel, filed his response to the
complaint.
114.

In his counsel’s January 4, 2019 letter to Bar Counsel, the Respondent

contends that the proposed “fee” of $25 million was reasonable. He stated the fee was
reasonable because: (1) he agreed the $25 million could be paid over 10 years; (2) UMMS
would have paid “far less in consulting fees than it is certain to pay for the settlement of
future cases”; (3) he “could have provided UMMS with valuable advice in defending
existing transplant cases”; and (4) he “could have shown UMMS how to change its existing
procedures and processes so as to avoid liability for future cases.”
115.

During his statement under oath, taken by Bar Counsel during the

investigation, the Respondent was asked about the services he believed he could perform
in exchange for $25 million. He testified that he could: (1) give UMMS the perspective of

11

Ms. Magdeburger notified Bar Counsel of the matter pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-308.3 on November
16, 2018.

57

 a respected plaintiff’s lawyer; (2) address issues with what the Respondent regarded as
insufficiencies with the hospital’s informed consent provisions; (3) advise the hospital
regarding settlement of other cases because he had “trained” the “vast majority” of other
plaintiff’s attorneys pursuing claims against UMMS; and (4) assist with the hospital’s
marketing materials and public relations. The Respondent acknowledged that he had never
drafted a medical informed consent provision and that he is not “an expert on that subject.”
He admitted that he had never represented an organizational client or drafted any contracts
or advised a client as it relates to advertising or public relations. He admitted that he had
no special training in risk assessment for organizational clients.
116.

The Respondent admitted that, as of April 30, 2018, he had already advised

Dr. Bartlett of the issues he perceived with the hospital including the informed consent,
advertising, and public relations issues. The Respondent testified that, while he had
identified the issues to Dr. Bartlett, he had not advised the hospital on how to correct any
issues. When pressed about what the hospital would receive in exchange for $25 million,
the Respondent testified, “My street smart skills. My 50, 45 years as a plaintiff’s lawyer
having won $100 million on different cases from University of Maryland.”
The Charges
117.

Petitioner charges that the Respondent, by his acts and omissions as set forth

herein, violated the following Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule 19-301.7. Conflict of Interest – General Rule (1.7).
(a) Except as provided in section (b) of this Rule, an attorney shall not represent a
client if the representation involves a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists
if:
58

 (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be
materially limited [] by a personal interest of the attorney.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a conflict of interest under section (a) of this
Rule, an attorney may represent a client if:
(1) the attorney reasonably believes that the attorney will be able to provide
competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against
another client represented by the attorney in the same litigation or other proceeding
before a tribunal; and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Rule 19-301.8. Conflict of Interest; Current Clients; Specific Rules (1.8).
(i) An attorney shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or
subject matter of litigation the attorney is conducting for a client, except that the
attorney may:
(1) acquire a lien authorized by law to secure the attorney’s fee or expenses; and
(2) subject to Rule 19-301.5 (1.5), contract with a client for a reasonable contingent
fee in a civil case.
Rule 19-301.16. Declining or Terminating Representation (1.16).
(a) Except as stated in section (c) of this Rule, an attorney shall not represent a client
or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of
a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of
Professional Conduct or other law;
Rule 19-304.2. Communications with Persons Represented by Attorney (4.2).
(a) Except as provided in section (c)12 of this Rule, in representing a client, an
attorney shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person
who the attorney knows is represented in the matter by another attorney unless the
attorney has the consent of the other attorney or is authorized by law or court order
to do so.
Rule 19-305.6. Restrictions on Right to Practice (5.6).
An attorney shall not participate in offering or making:
(b) an agreement in which a restriction on the attorney’s right to practice is part of
the settlement of a client controversy.

12

Section (c) provides: An attorney may communicate with a government official about matters that are
the subject of the representation if the government official has the authority to redress the grievances of the
attorney’s client and the attorney first makes certain required disclosures.

59

 Rule 19-308.4. Misconduct (8.4).
It is professional misconduct for an attorney to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional
Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of
another; 13
*
*
*
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court:
A.

Take such disciplinary action against the Respondent as it deems appropriate;

B.

Assess against the Respondent in the form of a money judgment, the
reasonable costs of these proceedings both arising subsequent to the filing of
these charges and necessarily incurred in investigating the same prior to the
filing of said charges; and

C.

Take such other and further action as this Court may deem just and proper
under the circumstances.

13

Petitioner contends that the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(a) in that he: (1) violated other Rules of
Professional Conduct as charged; and (2) attempted to violate Rule 19-301.5(a) (fees). Rule 1.5(a) states:
(a) An attorney shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable
amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the
following:
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite
to perform the legal service properly;
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude
other employment of the attorney;
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;
(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney or attorneys performing the services; and
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

60

 Date: July 13, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lydia E. Lawless
__________________________
Lydia E. Lawless
Bar Counsel
Attorney Grievance Commission
of Maryland
200 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Suite 300
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
lydia.lawless@agc.maryland.gov
CPF ID No. 0712110441

61