126 A.3d 6
Md.2015Background
- In 2012 St. Mary’s County primary for Circuit Court judge, Assistant State’s Attorney Joseph M. Stanalonis ran against recently appointed Judge David W. Densford; both campaigned vigorously.
- Stanalonis’ campaign flyer stated under Densford’s photo: “Opposes registration of convicted sexual predators.”
- Stanalonis testified he believed Densford opposed the sex-offender registry based on conversations and prosecutors’ experiences with Densford as a defense attorney; Densford said he opposed registry placements only as to individual clients, not as a general policy.
- The Attorney Grievance Commission charged Stanalonis with violating MLRPC 8.2(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d); a hearing judge found a violation of all three for that statement, though noting Stanalonis had a “demonstrable basis.”
- The Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the legal conclusions and, emphasizing First Amendment protections for campaign speech and the evidentiary record, held the Commission failed to prove reckless disregard or knowing falsity and dismissed the charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stanalonis violated MLRPC 8.2(a) by making a false statement about a judicial candidate with knowledge or reckless disregard for its falsity | The flyer statement was false and Stanalonis failed to verify it, so he acted with reckless disregard/knowing falsity | Stanalonis believed the statement based on conversations and had a demonstrable basis; no evidence he entertained serious doubts | No violation — Commission did not prove reckless disregard or knowing falsity given credited testimony and demonstrable basis; First Amendment context weighs against expansive application |
| Whether Stanalonis violated MLRPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation) | The flyer was a misleading falsehood reflecting dishonesty and merits discipline | The statement was not knowingly false or the product of intentional deceit — at most mistaken belief | No violation — Court requires intentional or conscious objective to mislead; record shows no such intent |
| Whether Stanalonis violated MLRPC 8.4(d) (prejudicial to administration of justice) | Publishing an unverified, inflammatory claim about a judge undermines public confidence and prejudices administration of justice | Candidate speech in contested judicial elections is highly protected; statement arose from belief grounded in prosecutorial interactions and thus does not meet the objective standard for prejudice | No violation — Given demonstrable basis and First Amendment concerns, the statement did not objectively show prejudicial conduct |
| Proper standard for “reckless disregard” under MLRPC 8.2(a) (subjective vs. objective) | Commission and some judges favor an objective standard (gross departure from reasonable conduct) to police judicial campaign speech | Majority emphasizes First Amendment protection in election context and applies result that is the same under either standard here | Court declined to decide definitively; held outcome would be same under either subjective or objective test in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (establishes “reckless disregard” subjective standard for public-figure defamation)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (explains that reckless disregard requires proof defendant entertained serious doubts about truth)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Frost, 437 Md. 245 (applies MLRPC 8.2(a) and discusses standards for discipline involving statements about judges)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gansler, 377 Md. 656 (context on applying professional-conduct rules to public statements by prosecutors)