Attorney Grievance Commission v. Marcalus
112 A.3d 375
| Md. | 2015Background
- Jeffrey S. Marcalus, admitted 1993, represented a custody-modification client (Minchin) against self-represented mother Lindsay Dudley.
- Marcalus exchanged texts and communications with Dudley (a non‑client opposing party) about modeling work and a potential “sugar daddy,” requested photos, met her in person, and discussed sexualized subjects (including that a sugar daddy would pay her to masturbate).
- Dudley later retained counsel and filed a grievance; Bar Counsel charged Marcalus with violations of multiple MLRPC provisions, including 8.4(d).
- The hearing judge found Marcalus violated MLRPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) but not certain other rules; Marcalus was found to have been deceptive in his response to the Commission.
- The Court of Appeals, reviewing de novo legal conclusions and for clear error factual findings, affirmed the 8.4(d) violation and imposed disbarment based principally on the egregious nature of the conduct plus multiple prior discipline matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marcalus violated MLRPC 8.4(d) by sexting a self‑represented opposing party | Marcalus’s sexually explicit texts and proposals with an adverse, unrepresented litigant prejudiced public confidence in the profession | Marcalus claimed the exchanges were joking/private and denied culpability; later argued Link limits liability for purely private conduct | Court held clear and convincing evidence established an 8.4(d) violation—objective standard: a reasonable member of the public would view the conduct as damaging; conduct was related to practice (not purely private) |
| Whether deception occurred in the disciplinary proceeding | Commission asserted Marcalus misrepresented his role (implying an actual sugar‐daddy) and failed to disclose that statements were a joke | Marcalus argued texts showed joke status and denied deceptive intent in his letter | Court upheld finding of deceptive practice because his letter to the Commission contradicted his hearing testimony |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Commission sought disbarment given repeated similar misconduct and prior discipline | Marcalus sought dismissal or, alternatively, reprimand/suspension; cited remorse and claimed mitigation | Court disbarred Marcalus: aggravating factors (prior discipline, pattern, likelihood of recurrence, deceptive conduct, long experience) outweighed minimal mitigation (remorse) |
| Whether other rule violations needed resolution to impose sanction | Commission asked the Court to sanction even if only 8.4(d) proved | Marcalus contested findings and scope | Court concluded disbarment appropriate based solely on 8.4(d) violation and did not need to resolve all other charged violations |
Key Cases Cited
- McDowell v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 439 Md. 26 (standard of review and 8.4(d) analysis)
- Saridakis v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 402 Md. 413 (objective public‑perception standard for 8.4(d))
- Link v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 380 Md. 405 (private conduct standard for 8.4(d))
- Greenleaf v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 438 Md. 151 (limitations on mitigation such as lack of further contact or less‑serious misconduct)
- Worthy v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 436 Md. 633 (consideration of likelihood of repetition in sanctioning)
- Marcalus v. Attorney Grievance Comm’n, 401 Md. 496 (prior disciplinary suspension for similar sexting misconduct)