Attorney Grievance Commission v. Greenleaf
438 Md. 151
| Md. | 2014Background
- Robert J. Greenleaf, Chief Deputy Clerk of the Court of Special Appeals, used a Maryland Judiciary computer and e-mail to communicate with an undercover police officer posing as “Beth,” who identified herself as age 14–15.
- Greenleaf and “Beth” exchanged sexually explicit chats and e-mails on about 150 occasions between March 2010 and January 2011; nearly half of those contacts occurred from his workplace computer.
- The hearing judge found Greenleaf believed “Beth” was 14 or 15, repeatedly solicited sexual acts (including asking “Beth, do you want to have sex with me?”), and “groomed” her for sex; the judge rejected Greenleaf’s claim that he thought she was an adult role‑playing.
- Greenleaf entered an Alford plea to attempting to violate Maryland Code § 11‑203 (sale/display of obscene item to minor) and received probation before judgment; he retired from his judicial employment.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission charged violations of MLRPC 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(a); the Court of Appeals adopted the hearing judge’s findings and disbarred Greenleaf.
Issues
| Issue | Attorney Grievance Commission (Plaintiff) | Greenleaf (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greenleaf committed a criminal act reflecting adversely on fitness to practice (MLRPC 8.4(b)) by soliciting a minor/law‑enforcement decoy | Solicitation of an alleged 14–15 year old for sex violated CR § 3‑324(b) and thus 8.4(b) | Claimed lack of intent to immediately violate statutory sexual‑offense provisions and asserted belief Beth was an adult role‑playing | Court upheld finding he intended to solicit a minor; violated 8.4(b) and criminal conduct reflects on fitness to practice |
| Whether use of state workplace computer for the communications constituted dishonesty (MLRPC 8.4(c)) | Repeated clandestine use of Judiciary computer to commit crime showed dishonesty to employer | Argued personal use or role‑playing; tried to minimize conduct and workplace relevance | Court held extensive, secret use of employer equipment to commit crime violated 8.4(c) |
| Whether the conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice (MLRPC 8.4(d)) | Solicitation of a minor by a senior judicial employee damaged public confidence in courts and the bar | Argued he did not identify himself as a lawyer or judicial employee in chats | Court found public perception harmed and violation of 8.4(d) established |
| Appropriate sanction | Commission recommended disbarment given criminality, pattern, aggravators, workplace use of state equipment | Asked for reprimand or indefinite suspension with right to apply for reinstatement after one year; cited Childress | Court found eight aggravating factors and only one mitigating factor (no prior record) and disbarred Greenleaf |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheinbein v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 372 Md. 224 (2002) (disbarment imposed for criminal conduct reflecting on fitness to practice)
- Painter v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 356 Md. 293 (1999) (disbarment for crimes involving abuse and moral turpitude)
- Dechowitz v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 358 Md. 184 (2000) (disbarment for serious criminal drug conduct)
- Childress v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 364 Md. 48 (2001) (indefinite suspension, with mitigation from mental‑health treatment and remorse, for Internet solicitation of minors)
- Reno v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 436 Md. 504 (2014) (standards on 8.4(d) and public perception of the profession)