Mr. Adams denied the allegations set forth in the Motion to Strike Order Granting Reinstatement and argued that counsel for Mr. Brooks lacked the right or authority to challenge his reinstatement to the practice of law. Mr. Adams further argued that the only grounds in Md. Rule 16-781, of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, for striking a reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland are: 1) failure to comply with order of reinstatement, or 2) knowingly making a false statement or material omission in the Petition for Reinstatement – counsel for Mr. Brooks had not alleged either ground.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland agreed with Mr. Adams and dismissed the Motion to Strike Order Granting Reinstatement. The Court held that only Bar Counsel may file a petition to vacate a reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland.

Subsequently, Bar Counsel filed its own Motion to Strike Order Granting Reinstatement alleging that Mr. Adams failed to disclose the nature of the litigation that was pending at the time he sought reinstatement. Specifically, Bar Counsel alleged that Mr. Adams failed to disclose that the pending federal litigation involved an allegation that he had appended Mr. Brooks' name to a contract for the purchase of real property, without Mr. Brooks' knowledge. The failure to disclose the true facts of the litigation combined with the finding against him in federal court, argued Bar Counsel, satisfied the requirements for vacating the reinstatement order. According to Bar Counsel, along with disclosing the fact that litigation was pending, Mr. Brooks was also required to disclose the precise theory on which the opposition party relies to establish his liability; in other words, Mr. Adams should have disclosed that the pending litigation involved an allegation of fraud.

Mr. Adams argued that Bar Counsel was not knowingly misled and that he substantially complied with the reinstatement order. Mr. Adams further argued that the outcome of the federal litigation, because it was rendered after he had been reinstated, had no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings.

The Court of Appeals in considering the arguments of both parties, held that if an individual seeking reinstatement to the Bar fails to completely disclose a material fact that is relevant to the disposition of his or her reinstatement petition, the order reinstating the attorney may be vacated. Although Mr. Adams failed to disclose that there was an allegation that he defrauded Mr. Brooks and acted without authority in taking title to the property in Mr. Brooks' name, he had supplied Bar Counsel with a Memorandum Opinion filed by the federal judge that ruled on the pre-judgment motions in that case. According to the Court of Appeals, the Memorandum Opinion submitted by Mr. Adams clearly set forth the precise nature of the litigation between Mr. Adams and Mr. Brooks that was pending in federal court. In light of the fact that "Bar Counsel was fully aware, or should have been, of the nature and gravity of the allegations being made against Mr. Adams in the federal litigation," the Court of Appeals held that Bar Counsel had the true facts in advance of the entry of the Order of Reinstatement. The Court further held that Mr. Adams had provided adequate disclosures to Bar Counsel prior to reinstatement and that the outcome of the federal litigation or the trial judge's factual findings did not render the Mr. Adams' disclosures incomplete or inadequate.