Stephen L. Snyder, the flamboyant plaintiff’s lawyer who won hundreds of millions of dollars during a five-decade career, was convicted of attempted extortion and other violations by a federal jury Friday.

Snyder, 77, defended himself against allegations that he tried to subvert the University of Maryland medical system for $25 million in exchange for not revealing what he said were deficiencies in its program organ transplantation. Snyder said he had been aggressive — just like his calling card throughout his career — but insisted he had no criminal intent and was being framed by the government.

The jury deliberated for only a few hours and found him guilty on all counts.

Snyder was jailed Thursday night following the conclusion of closing arguments, after U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman found that he had repeatedly and intentionally violated several of her orders and after being warned that he faced criminal contempt. He now faces a prison sentence for his extortion conviction.

The allegations dated to 2018, when Snyder cared for two clients who suffered serious complications from organ transplants and ultimately died. Snyder produced television ads accusing UMMS of prioritizing “profits over safety” and said he would air them as part of a media blitz that would cripple the hospital.

“You are playing with fire,” he wrote in a prepared presentation.

As a malpractice lawyer, Snyder was able to secure a total of $13.5 million in confidential settlements for his clients – which he claimed during his trial was an acknowledgment of problems within the hospital program – but persisted in requesting $25 million from UMMS for itself to act as a consultant.

In conversations secretly recorded by the FBI, Snyder questioned what exactly he would do to make money, saying they could use it as much or as little as they wanted, suggesting a monthly lunch or no contact at all. Snyder said the deal would also create a conflict that would prevent him from bringing additional cases.

Prosecutors initially cleared him of any criminal wrongdoing, only to indict him two years later — a fact the judge blocked Snyder from telling jurors about, but sought to discuss anyway.

“The wrong person is being prosecuted,” Snyder told jurors. “This is Maryland’s misconduct that has not been exposed.”

Hospital officials said they were stunned by Snyder’s speech and never wanted to make a deal with him, but they kept the conversations going out of concern over his threats. Snyder said officials guided him and should have just let him know they weren’t interested.

“If Maryland didn’t want to do it, that was the end of it,” Snyder said.

Snyder had consulted three legal experts during his campaign and pointed to this as evidence that he was trying to be ethical and proper. Although that was the reason he was initially cleared, trial prosecutors said it amounted to nothing more than a cover-up because he did not tell those attorneys about his threats to expose the hospital .

There was a trial within the trial to determine whether UMMS actually had serious problems in its organ transplant program. Hospital officials and prosecutors said Snyder twisted and misrepresented information and did not understand the complexities of organ transplants.

Current and former hospital leaders testified that UMMS transplanted higher-risk kidneys at a higher rate than other institutions, but said that was because they wanted to help more people who otherwise could remain on dialysis and risk dying sooner.

Snyder had consulted medical experts around 2018 who he said gave him searing assessments of the hospital, but during his criminal trial he largely failed to bring those charges to fruition, which could be an indication of the erosion of his courtroom skills.

His final witness, a Philadelphia doctor whom Snyder consulted six years ago about alleged problems at UMMS, testified that he did not remember the vast majority of what he told Snyder. The lawyer did not present any document likely to refresh the doctor’s memory. It was the prosecutors, under cross-examination, who showed him an email summarizing his opinions.

By his own admission, Snyder was not at the top of his game. He told the court he was in poor health and struggling. He clashed with the judge several times. Most of his direct examinations and cross-examinations were peppered with sustained objections for failing to follow court rules and Boardman’s orders, including 100 in a single day of testimony.

That culminated in Boardman’s criminal contempt finding Thursday evening. Snyder asked Boardman to reconsider her decision given her medical condition, but she did not deviate from his order.

Snyder arrived at court Friday morning after his detention in a blue pinstripe suit. He said hello to Boardman as he walked past the bench to the trial table.

During his campaign to extract money from UMMS, Snyder took a top hospital official, Dr. Stephen Bartlett, to dinner at the Capital Grille with their relatives. Snyder directed Bartlett to the bar, where the maître d’ handed him an envelope containing graphic images of a hospital patient and internal hospital documents. Snyder said he wanted to be paid to stay silent.

With red face and bloodshot eyes, Snyder repeatedly told Bartlett’s wife, “As long as he does what I want him to do, he’ll be fine,” according to Bartlett, who was the doctor- head of the UMMS.

“I was sick inside,” Bartlett testified. “I felt like I was having dinner with a very bad person. »

Bartlett then sent Snyder a text message saying he told another hospital official they were at risk of fraud and punitive damages. Snyder told jurors it was an admission of wrongdoing, but Bartlett said it was conveying Snyder’s threat.

Andrew Jay Graham, a well-known Baltimore lawyer whom Snyder hired for ethical advice, testified that he thought it was appropriate for Snyder to seek the consultant agreement, although he also said he was unaware of the threats Snyder was making. Another legal expert also testified that there was nothing unusual about the proposed arrangement and said it appeared to him, based on Snyder’s claims, that the hospital was at risk of economic harm more important.

Michele Sanders, Snyder’s client who lost her husband to serious complications following a kidney transplant, said she wasn’t looking for economic help but wanted to make sure there was changes to the UMMS. She said she wanted Snyder to become a consultant “so that this would never, ever happen to anyone else again.”

She said she still trusts Snyder to this day. But in response to Snyder’s last question, she said she was upset after learning that Snyder’s consulting firm would have put him “on their side”, in reference to the hospital.

That would mean “you couldn’t help people like me anymore,” Sanders testified. “I said if you ever did that, I would never speak to you again.”

Yet outside the courtroom, Sanders told a reporter that she believed Snyder was not guilty.

Jurors also heard from a former associate who worked for Snyder, Kevin Stern, who said Snyder ordered him to destroy his notes from a meeting Snyder had with hospital officials. Stern did not destroy the notes, but made several copies and contacted an attorney.