MD Supreme Court indefinitely suspends attorney for conduct in ADA ‘tester’ cases

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court last month indefinitely suspended a lawyer for his conduct in hundreds of Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” cases.

The court on Nov. 21 suspended Tristan Wade Gillespie for at least a year; he may only apply for reinstatement to the Maryland Bar after he is allowed to resume practicing in Maryland federal court.

Gillespie and a partner filed more than 600 ADA lawsuits against hotels across the country alleging their websites lacked information about accessibility. The two plaintiffs in these cases were known as “testers” because they did not intend to visit the hotels, but posed as potential customers to gather evidence of unlawful conduct.

The clients did not want money from the lawsuits; their goal was to force the hotels into compliance with the law and into paying settlements that covered attorneys’ fees.

A panel of judges of the Maryland U.S. District Court in 2023 suspended him for six months for failing to adequately communicate with clients, failing to act with candor toward the court, and failure to act with fairness and candor towards opposing counsel during settlement negotiations.

They noted that he had made defendants believe his clients were paying him when they were not, that his demands for fees were excessive, and that he displayed a “cavalier approach to the truth before scores of tribunals.”

That suspension was retroactively reduced to four months after Gillespie appealed, saying he didn’t get adequate notice of some of the charges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the four-month suspension in May.

The discipline imposed by the Maryland Supreme Court was harsher than the four-month suspension that he and the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission had jointly requested.

Justice Jonathan Biran, writing for the unanimous court, said the parties were incorrect in saying a four-month suspension would correspond to the Maryland federal court’s decision.

“Corresponding discipline in Maryland in this case would be an indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement after four months,” Biran wrote.

“However, a four-month sit-out period would not be commensurate with the nature and gravity of Gillespie’s misconduct. The egregious nature of Gillespie’s misconduct, evidenced by his numerous instances of dishonesty, warrants a more serious sanction.”

Maryland Bar Counsel Tom DeGonia declined to comment. Gillespie’s attorney, William C. Brennan Jr. of Greenbelt, also declined.

Gillespie is living and working in Georgia, where he is an active member in good standing with the state bar, but he has been suspended by a number of federal district and appellate courts.

His petition for reinstatement to the federal bar in Maryland is pending, according to a joint supplemental submission filed in September. In February, his license to practice in New York was suspended for a year. Five federal appellate courts and eleven federal district courts have suspended him, too.

“Our decision today echoes the growing consensus that a four-month suspension understates the nature and gravity of Gillespie’s misconduct,” Biran wrote. “The protection of the public and the integrity of the legal profession demand more.”