Disbarred lawyer facing federal contempt charge

A disbarred Laytonville lawyer now faces a federal criminal contempt charge and a $15,000 fine for repeatedly failing up to show for hearings in a lawsuit he filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.

Judge Roger W. Titus issued the order last week, directing that Ralph T. Byrd be prosecuted for criminal contempt.

In the order, Titus disqualified himself from the upcoming hearing because the contempt involves “disrespect” toward him as a judge. The contempt hearing will be held on Oct. 5 before Judge Catherine Blake.

Byrd failed repeatedly to appear at hearings from March through May, despite continued filings in the underlying case — a lawsuit against the attorney who represented him at his disbarment hearing.

Byrd has several actions pending in U.S. District Court and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The actions center on an involuntary bankruptcy action against Byrd and his family in 2004 and his 2009 disbarment by the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Byrd was not available for comment as of press time on Friday.

The criminal contempt proceeding stems from the suit Byrd filed in July 2011 against Melvin Bergman, the Beltsville lawyer who represented him during his disbarment proceeding.

Byrd initially sought $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages from Bergman.

That lawsuit was dismissed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt on Feb. 15, when Titus ruled that the federal court lacked jurisdiction because it was a claim for “basic legal malpractice.”

In an earlier ruling, the court held that it “would be obvious to even the most newly-minted” attorney that federal court had no jurisdiction. Last week, Titus reiterated that the lawsuit was not only baseless, but was “frivolous.”

“Any individual trained in the legal profession, especially one who had been licensed to practice law for almost three decades, could tell from the face of the Complaint that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter,” Titus wrote in the July 2 memorandum.

Byrd was admitted to the Maryland bar in 1992 after practicing law for 12 years in New York.

The Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred Byrd for mishandling client matters in eight cases. Contributing to the decision were Byrd’s actions in his personal bankruptcy proceedings, which the court labeled “particularly egregious.”

In the July 2 order, Titus also mentions that Byrd has been excoriated for overzealous litigation in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Titus cited a March 20 opinion by U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams Jr.

“This Memorandum Opinion represents the latest chapter in an epic saga that one might suitably title To Make a Mountain Out of a Molehill,” Williams wrote in March.

“What started as an involuntary action to collect a $30,000 credit card debt from a single debtor spiraled inexorably into decade-long litigation unleashing thousands of docket entries, multiple appeals, and administrative expenses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The transmogrification of this relatively minor case into a behemoth owes to the vexatious and overzealous manner in which pro se Appellant Ralph T. Byrd has litigated it.”

Titus imposed the $15,000 penalty on March 30 because of Byrd’s “long history of vexatious and frivolous litigation.”

Byrd was supposed to pay within 30 days, but got an extension after he filed an emergency motion — in the federal court in Baltimore, rather than Greenbelt — claiming he suffered a transient ischemic attack, or mini stroke.

He failed to show up at the next scheduled hearing.

“It is inconceivable to this Court how any individual, much less one who practiced law for three decades, could disregard not one, but six Orders signed by a federal judge,” Titus wrote.

In a phone interview on Friday, Bergman said he has not had contact with Byrd in some time. Bergman said he was not sure what his former client’s motivations were for the continuing litigation.

“I’m totally mystified as to what he’s trying to do,” Bergman said. “I don’t understand what he’s driving at, but he’s driving himself toward a criminal contempt hearing, that’s for sure. And criminal contempt in a federal court is a really scary thing.”