DOJ argues former med-mal attorney Stephen Snyder was competent to represent himself

Federal prosecutors responded on Wednesday to Stephen Snyder‘s appeal of his felony conviction for attempted extortion, arguing the prominent former medical malpractice attorney fully understood the risks of representing himself at trial.

In his opening appeal brief, filed in August, Snyder argued that he was not competent to represent himself due to a combined diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease and dementia, and that a judge should have revoked the privilege and appointed a lawyer for him.

Snyder — who became one of Maryland’s most famous lawyers during a career spanning more than 50 years — was convicted in November 2024 of attempting to extort the University of Maryland Medical System. He avoided prison time due to his declining health.

He threatened a smear campaign against the hospital system’s transplant division if he wasn’t paid $25 million for a “consulting” agreement that would have conflicted him out of suing UMMS, but required no other work. The U.S. Department of Justice called the proposed agreement a “sham.”

After his lawyer quit, Snyder represented himself from December 2023 through his conviction. Snyder waived his right to counsel despite repeated warnings and insisted he could represent himself.

Throughout the trial, he failed to follow the rules of evidence, questioned witnesses improperly, struggled to stay on topic and was rude to witnesses, prosecutors and U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman. Boardman ultimately found him in criminal contempt of court and ordered him jailed for one night after closing arguments. He was convicted of one count of Hobbs Act attempted extortion and several counts under the Travel Act.

Snyder is now represented by Baltimore defense attorney Justin Brown. Brown was initially appointed as standby counsel after Snyder’s previous standby counsel, Gerald Ruter, was removed after detailing Snyder’s cognitive decline in a post-conviction legal filing.

While arguing he was not competent to represent himself, Snyder did not say he was incompetent to stand trial.

Prosecutors noted that Snyder appeared before a magistrate judge in December 2023 and October 2024 for Faretta hearings, at which judges determine if defendants are giving up their right to a lawyer voluntarily and intelligently. The judge repeatedly told Snyder, a career civil lawyer, that self-representation in a criminal case was a bad idea.

“In response, Snyder was unequivocal,” prosecutors wrote. “He thought the judge was ‘dead wrong’ about his abilities.”

Snyder insisted he was “100% equipped to handle this case” and that “there’s nobody better than me.”

“Short of forcing Snyder to accept counsel he clearly did not want, the magistrate judge and district court did everything possible to ensure that Snyder’s waiver was competently made,” the DOJ’s response states. “The court’s efforts on this front were more than enough to allow Snyder to proceed pro se.”

Snyder also argued his conviction should be vacated because Boardman denied his request for a jury instruction on the “advice of counsel” defense. That defense can protect defendants facing extortion charges if they acted on the advice of an attorney. While Snyder did retain attorneys as he sought the consulting agreement, evidence showed they knew little about his proposed terms.

He further argued that the jury may have been prejudiced by news coverage of his contempt finding, and wanted Boardman to ask the jury if they had seen recent coverage. Boardman declined, saying her repeated orders for jurors to avoid news coverage.

Snyder’s last argument objected to the restrictions Boardman placed on his cross-examination of a witness, who was a former client and signed a nondisclosure agreement as part of her settlement with UMMS.

To all three arguments, prosecutors said the court acted reasonably and did not abuse its discretion.