Attorney Grievance Commission v. McDonald
437 Md. 1
| Md. | 2014Background
- McDonald was admitted to the Maryland bar in 1995 and served as Deputy State’s Attorney for Queen Anne’s County beginning in 2003.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission charged McDonald with a pattern of misconduct involving an inappropriate relationship with Melissa Knotts, the office manager, including five nolle prosequi entries for Knotts’s traffic tickets as personal favors.
- McDonald also allegedly helped Knotts take unentitled leave, interfered with Knotts’s embezzlement prosecution, and deleted Knotts’s emails from her former work computer after termination.
- A five-day evidentiary hearing in 2013 concluded with findings that McDonald’s conduct violated MLRPC 8.4(a) and 8.4(d); Bar Counsel sought disbarment.
- The hearing judge found, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, that McDonald’s actions constituted dishonesty and prejudiced the administration of justice, supporting disbarment.
- The Court of Appeals sua sponte considered Bar Counsel’s and McDonald’s exceptions, ultimately upholding the disbarment and ordering payment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ticket fixing violate 8.4(a) and 8.4(d)? | Bar Counsel contends five nolle prosequi entries were improper personal favors with no business purpose. | McDonald asserts office policy or confidential information motivated the actions and argues lack of illegal purpose. | Yes; violations established. |
| Did interference with Knotts’s embezzlement prosecution violate 8.4(a) and 8.4(d)? | Bar Counsel showed persistent attempts to influence the special prosecutor and others to affect the case. | McDonald claims his actions were improper yet justified by assertions about a plea agreement and restitution. | Yes; violations established. |
| Did falsified timesheets and aiding fraud implicate 8.4(c) and 8.4(d)? | Bar Counsel argues McDonald doctored two timesheets and cooperated with Knotts to misreport hours. | McDonald contends no fraudulent intent proven, arguing lack of objective criminal behavior. | Yes for 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). |
| Did McDonald’s unauthorized access to Knotts’s computer violate 8.4(c) or 8.4(d)? | McDonald’s entry and deletion of emails undermined integrity and could influence investigations. | McDonald argues conduct was not criminal and evidence doesn’t prove wrongdoing. | Yes for 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). |
| Was the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action procedurally valid given due process concerns? | Bar Counsel asserts authority and notice were proper under Rule 16-751(a)(1). | McDonald argues lack of explicit proof of Bar Counsel’s authority undermines due process. | Petition sufficient; due process satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325 (2013) (sets standard for reviewing attorney disciplinary sanctions)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rand, 411 Md. 83 (2009) (discusses limitations on prosecutorial discretion and ethics)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Link, 380 Md. 405 (2004) (impact of private conduct on public duties in ethics cases)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hall, 408 Md. 306 (2009) (procedural context and credibility in disciplinary matters)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rand, 411 Md. 83 (2009) (reiterated in opinion; credibility/standard references)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gansler, 377 Md. 656 (2003) (prosecutor standards and ethics)