Background
This post publishes the full text of a Bar complaint filed against Maryland attorney Richard H. Schimel for his role in abusive legal filings orchestrated with his associate Benson J. Fischer. The complaint describes how Schimel has been involved in repeated misuse of peace‑order and temporary‑restraining‑order procedures to harass critics, file frivolous motions, and weaponize the courts to suppress protected speech.
For context, see our earlier breakdown of Fischer’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and how his own exhibits prove the motion has no merit. That article explains in detail how the case was dismissed when Fischer failed to appear and how he attached Dennis Yu’s public article as evidence, which actually undermined his claims. This Bar complaint builds on that documentation and names Richard Schimel specifically.
Full Bar Complaint
Your Name:
Dennis Yu
[Address redacted for privacy]
Attorney Complaint Is Against:
Richard H. Schimel, Esq. (Maryland attorney)
I. Summary of Complaint
I am submitting this complaint to report serious and ongoing misconduct by Maryland attorney Richard H. Schimel, who appears to be advising, assisting, or partnering with Benson J. Fischer in a long‑running pattern of lawfare‑style harassment, knowingly false filings and misuse of peace‑order and TRO procedures. Mr Schimel’s conduct violates multiple Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 3.1 (meritorious claims only), Rule 3.3 (candor to tribunal), Rule 4.4 (respect for rights of third persons, no harassment), and Rule 8.4 (misconduct).
II. Background and Pattern of Misconduct
Mr Schimel, working with Mr Fischer, has been involved in repeated bad‑faith filings, including temporary peace orders, TROs, frivolous motions and baseless claims. For example, the peace‑order case D‑06‑CV‑25‑826641 was dismissed after Mr Fischer failed to appear, yet they later filed a motion to vacate the dismissal using arguments contradicted by police reports. Their pattern is to keep re‑filing until something sticks.
III. Evidence of Misrepresentation (Rule 3.3 Violations)
Benson Fischer’s motion to vacate judgment contains false and misleading statements, such as claiming that Dennis Yu evaded service and that the case was dismissed due to clerical error. The exhibits attached to that motion directly contradict these statements: the police report shows Yu was served and cooperative, and the court docket shows the case was dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear. If Mr Schimel helped prepare, supervised or approved these filings, he is responsible for assisting misrepresentations to a tribunal.
IV. Attempt to Censor Protected Speech (Rule 8.4 Abuse)
Attorney Schimel previously filed a TRO attempting to force removal of Dennis Yu’s public posts reporting on these legal proceedings. These posts contained factual reporting and cited public court documents. Using court orders to suppress lawful speech is an abuse of process and violates Rule 8.4(d) (“conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”) and Rule 4.4.
V. Enabling or Directing a Non‑Lawyer to Conduct Abusive Litigation
If Mr Schimel is advising Mr Fischer, and Mr Fischer repeatedly files legally defective, retaliatory claims, this raises concerns about improper supervision and using a pro‑se litigant as a proxy to weaponize court filings for intimidation. Attorneys are prohibited from using non‑lawyers to engage in misconduct that they themselves could not do directly.
VI. Requested Action
This complaint asks the Attorney Grievance Commission to investigate Richard Schimel’s role in the abusive filings made by Benson Fischer, determine whether he drafted, supervised or approved filings containing knowingly false statements, and assess whether he violated Rules 3.1, 3.3, 4.4 and 8.4. I am prepared to provide police reports, filings, screenshots, court docket extracts, and a full timeline upon request.
VII. Certification
I certify that the statements above are true to the best of my knowledge based on publicly available court documents, Fischer’s own filings and the attached evidence.
Signed,
Dennis Yu
Exhibits
- Exhibit A: Henderson, Nevada police incident report showing that Dennis Yu was served with the temporary order and acknowledged it.
- Exhibit B: Public article documenting the dismissal of the peace‑order case and explaining how Fischer’s own evidence undermines his motion. See Lawfare Fail: How His Own Evidence Sinks His Motion.
- Exhibit C: Court docket extract showing that the peace‑order case was dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear.
Dennis Yu
Dennis Yu is the CEO of Local Service Spotlight, a platform that amplifies the reputations of contractors and local service businesses using the Content Factory process. He is a former search engine engineer who has spent a billion dollars on Google and Facebook ads for Nike, Quiznos, Ashley Furniture, Red Bull, State Farm, and other brands.
Dennis has achieved 25% of his goal of creating a million digital marketing jobs by partnering with universities, professional organizations, and agencies. Through Local Service Spotlight, he teaches the Dollar a Day strategy and Content Factory training to help local service businesses enhance their existing local reputation and make the phone ring.
Dennis coaches young adult agency owners serving plumbers, AC technicians, landscapers, roofers, electricians, and believes there should be a standard in measuring local marketing efforts, much like doctors and plumbers must be certified.