301 A.3d 142
Md.2023Background:
- Asher N. Weinberg represented Megan Lemons in a 2019 Anne Arundel County armed-robbery prosecution; the complaining witness was cashier Kaija Hirsch whose identification of the robber was central to the State's case.
- Weinberg contacted Hirsch, showed photos, and arranged an in-person meeting between Hirsch and Lemons on June 5, 2020; Hirsch never told Weinberg she was 100% certain Lemons was not the robber.
- Weinberg filed a June 18 motion and a habeas petition asserting Hirsch would testify she was “100%” certain Lemons was not the robber; the hearing judge found those statements knowingly false.
- After his appearance was stricken in Lemons, Weinberg made public and in-court attacks on several judges (calling one a liar, corrupt, and "complicit in kidnapping"), emailed an administrative judge, and circulated a flyer accusing judges of "Bias, Lawless, Criminality." The hearing judge found multiple MARPC violations.
- This Court sustained findings that Weinberg violated Rules 3.3, 8.2 (for certain statements), and 8.4, but sustained his exceptions to alleged violations of Rules 1.1 and 1.2 (no-contact order ambiguity). The sanction imposed: indefinite suspension with right to apply for reinstatement after six months, plus costs.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Weinberg violate Rules 1.1 (competence) and 1.2(d) (assisting criminal conduct) by arranging the June 5 meeting in violation of a no-contact order? | Weinberg knew or should have known the no-contact order was in effect and assisted Lemons in violating it. | Weinberg reasonably believed the March 6 home-detention order superseded the no-contact restriction; he lacked notice and acted in good faith. | Court sustained Weinberg's exception: insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence that the no-contact order remained in force; no violation of Rules 1.1/1.2. |
| Did Weinberg violate Rule 3.3(a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal) by filing pleadings that misrepresented Hirsch's statements? | Weinberg knowingly asserted Hirsch would testify she was "100%" certain Lemons was not the robber, which was false. | Weinberg says the pleadings were proffers of anticipated testimony based on communications with Hirsch and were made in good faith. | Court overruled exception: accepted hearing judge's credibility findings and concluded Weinberg knowingly made false statements to the court in the motion and habeas petition (Rule 3.3 violation). |
| Did Weinberg violate Rule 8.2(a) (statements about judges) by accusing judges of lying, corruption, kidnapping, and lawlessness? | The statements were false or made with reckless disregard and thus impugned judicial integrity in violation of 8.2(a). | Weinberg contends his statements were protected advocacy, lacked proof of "actual malice," and some communications (e.g., email to an administrative judge) were private and not likely to harm public confidence. | Mixed: Court found 8.2(a) violations for the in-court attacks and for the publicly disseminated flyer (reckless, factual accusations). It sustained Weinberg's exception as to the August 8 private email to the administrative judge (no 8.2 violation). |
| What sanction is appropriate? | Bar Counsel: indefinite suspension with right to apply for reinstatement after one year. | Weinberg: dismiss the charges. | Court imposed an indefinite suspension with right to seek reinstatement after six months, and ordered Weinberg to pay costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Basinger, 441 Md. 703 (2015) (discipline for public attacks on judicial integrity can be sanctionable)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Stanalonis, 445 Md. 129 (2015) (reckless-disregard standard in attorney-discipline context and relation to New York Times actual malice test)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Frost, 437 Md. 245 (2014) (distinguishing protected criticism from false factual attacks on judges)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Keating, 471 Md. 614 (2020) (indefinite suspension where attorney submitted knowingly false documents; mitigation weighed)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. White, 480 Md. 319 (2022) (standard for attorney-discipline review and evaluation of aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Parris v. Attorney Grievance Commission, 482 Md. 574 (2023) (failure to comply with court orders can implicate competence rule)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for false statements about public officials)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (distinguishing protected opinion from actionable false statements of fact)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968) (definition of reckless disregard for truth in defamation law)
- Norman v. Borison, 418 Md. 630 (2011) (absolute privilege for certain in-court statements in defamation context; discussed in discipline analysis)