Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Frost

Decision Date26 February 2014
Docket NumberSept. Term, 2012.,Misc. Docket AG No. 69
Citation85 A.3d 264,437 Md. 245
PartiesATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. James Albert FROST.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Lydia E. Lawless, Assistant Bar Counsel (Glenn M. Grossman, Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland), for Petitioner.

James Albert Frost, for Respondent.

BARBERA, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD and WATTS, JJ.

GREENE, J.

The Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (Petitioner or “Bar Counsel), acting pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–751(a), filed a “ Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action” against James Albert Frost (Respondent or “Frost”), on December 5, 2012. Petitioner charged Frost with violating various Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC” or “ Rule”), specifically Rule 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 1Rule 8.2(a) (Judicial and Legal Officials); 2 and Rule 8.4(a), (c) and (d) (Misconduct).3

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–752(a) (Order Designating Judge), this Court referred the matter to the Honorable Paul F. Harris of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to render findings of fact and recommend conclusions of law pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–757. After Petitioner made reasonable attempts to personally serve Respondent with a copy of the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action and related papers, including discovery requests and a written request for admission of facts and genuineness of documents,4Petitioner effectuated service on Respondent by serving the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–753.5 Respondent filed no response to the Petition for Disciplinary Action and discovery requests, including the Requests for Admissions, prompting the hearing judge's entry of an order of default. SeeMd. Rule 16–754(c) (providing that the failure to file an answer shall be treated as a default).

On May 14, 2013, Judge Harris conducted a hearing on the merits. Respondent failed to appear for or participate in the hearing. During the brief hearing, Petitioner requested that all of Petitioner's Requests for Admissions, which went unanswered by Respondent, be deemed admitted. Judge Harris granted the request and accepted the Requests for Admissions into evidence. Thereafter, the hearing judge issued “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” in which he found by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's actions constituted violations of MLRPC 8.1(b), 8.2(a), 8.4(a), (c) and (d). In doing so, Judge Harris made the following findings of facts:

Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar on June 29, 1972. He does not maintain an office for the practice of law. On April 23, 2012, Respondent wrote an email to his ex-wife, stating, inter alia:

With regard to Case # 110082–C, you know or should know that: (1) Ann S. Harrington, a lawless judge, arranged for deputy sheriffs of the Montgomery County, MD, Sheriff's Office to illegally arrest me on May 13, 2008, with no probable cause to do so and there by committed the crime under State of Maryland law of making a false report to an agency of the state with police powers; ... (3) There was no basis in law or in fact for Judge Stephen P. Johnson, a weak man and corrupt judge acting under improper and political influence, to have me locked up in the county jail on a “no bond” order for 87 days and 87 nights but that's what was done; and (4) The crooked State's Attorney for Montgomery County, MD, John J. McCarthy, Esq., a protégé of Douglas F. Gansler, Esq., the corrupt Attorney General of Maryland, and a political ally of Maryland Governor O'Malley, a pretty-boy hack politician, didn't let his assistant prosecutors drop the phon[y] charge against me until August 8, 2008.

With regard to Case # 11041–C ... you know or should know that the Maryland State Police deceived District Court of Maryland Commissioner Kaitlyn Boyle into signing a warrant to arrest me and then deceived Circuit Court Judge Joseph A. Dugan, Jr., into signing a search and seizure warrant by and through perjury on the warrant applications signed on August 13, 2008, by Maryland State Trooper Michael Brennan, who was ordered to do that by Maryland State Police Captain Clifford T. Hughes, his supervisor,and Maryland State Police Superintendent Terence B. Sheridan, who were acting under improper and political influence exerted (through an intermediary) by Governor O'Malley and his wife, Judge of the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City Catherine Curran O'Malley.

Respondent made the April 23, 2012 statements regarding the Honorable Ann S. Harrington, specifically calling her a “lawless judge” and accusing her of “arrang[ing] for deputy sheriffs of the Montgomery County, MD Sheriff's Office to illegally arrest [him] knowing the statements to be false and with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. Respondent has no facts to support the statements made regarding Judge Harrington.

Respondent made the April 23, 2012 statements regarding the Honorable Stephen P. Johnson, Retired Judge for the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County, specifically calling him “a weak man and corrupt judge acting under improper and political influence ...” knowing the statements to be false and with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity. Respondent has no facts to support the statement regarding Judge Johnson.

Respondent made the April 23, 2012 statement regarding John J. McCarthy, State's Attorney for Montgomery County, specifically calling Mr. McCarthy a “crooked” State's Attorney, knowing the statement to be false and with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity. Respondent has no facts to support the statement regarding Mr. McCarthy.

Respondent made the April 23, 2012 statement regarding Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, specifically calling Mr. Gansler “corrupt,” knowing the statement to be false and with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity. Respondent has no facts to support the statement regarding Mr. Gansler.

Respondent made the April 23, 2012 statement regarding Governor O'Malley, specifically that he exerted “improper” influence over members of the Montgomery County Police Department, knowing the statement to be false and with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity. Respondent has no facts to support the statement regarding Governor O'Malley.

Respondent made the April 23, 2012 statement regarding the Honorable Catherine Curran O'Malley, Judge [for the] District Court of Baltimore City, specifically that she exerted “improper” influence over members of the Montgomery County Police Department, knowing the statement to be false and with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity. Respondent has no facts to support the statement regarding Judge Curran O'Malley.

On or about May 2, 2012, Respondent mailed a copy of the April 23, 2012 email to George Meng, Esquire. Prior to May 2, 2012, Respondent had no relationship or communication with Mr. Meng. On or about May 2, 2012, Respondent forwarded a copy of the April 23, 2012 email to Paul Carlin, Esquire. On or about May 2, 2012, Respondent forwarded a copy of the April 23, 2012 email to Katherine Kelly Howard, Esquire.

On May 4, 2012, Mr. Meng emailed Respondent asking why the April 23, 2012 email was sent to him, directing him to Rule 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct and requesting a response as how the April 23, 2012 email did not violate Rules 8.2 and 8.4 and did not require reporting to Petitioner pursuant to Rule 8.3. On May 10, 2012, no response having been received to his May 4 email, Mr. Meng again emailed Respondent requesting a response to the questions posed on May 4, 2012. On May 18, 2012, Respondent emailed Mr. Meng stating, “You should have something from me in your mail Monday.” On May 18, 2012, Respondent mailed Mr. Meng a letter directed to Chief of Police J. Thomas Manger, Montgomery County, Maryland. The May 18, 2012 letter did not, in any way, respond to the questions posed by Mr. Meng in his emails of May 4 and May 10. Mr. Meng received the May 18, 2012 letter on May 21, 2012. On May 21, 2012, Mr. Meng emailed Respondent again requesting a response to his May 4 and May 10 emails.

On May 23, 2012, no further communication having been received from Respondent, Mr. Meng filed a complaint with the Petitioner and enclosed: (1) Respondent's April 23, 2012 email, (2) Mr. Meng's May 4, 2012 email to Respondent, (3) Mr. Meng's May 10, 2012 email to Respondent, (4) Mr. Meng's May 18, 2012 email to Respondent, (5) Respondent's letter of May 1, 2012 to Chief of Police J. Thomas Manger, and (6) Mr. Meng's May 21, 2012 email to Respondent.

By letter dated July 11, 2012, Bar Counsel forwarded a copy of the May 23, 2012 complaint and enclosures to Respondent and requested a response thereto be provided, in writing, no later than July 27, 2012. Respondent received Bar Counsel's July 11, 2012 letter and enclosures. On or about July 26, 2012, Respondent sent a letter to Bar Counsel stating: “The statements of mine concerning which objections have been presented to your office are protected from state action by the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” On or about July 27, 2012, Respondent sent a letter to Bar Counsel stating, inter alia:

How did it happen, I wonder, that ten days after my e-mail message of April 24 long-time A.G.C. of Maryland Commissioner George Meng (to whom I had forwarded that email on the subject perjury ) sends me an e-mail message (for the first time in his life) with the absurd allegation that I'm in violation of Rule 8 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility? No reasonably prudent individual would believe that you and he and, most likely, some other people had not conferred with one another about me and my truth-telling before on May 4th George...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Slade Healthcare, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 31 mars 2019
    ...Mixter for the proposition that "[a]bsolute privilege is a broad defense to tort claims[.]" Att'y Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Frost , 437 Md. 245, 268 n.14, 85 A.3d 264, 277 n.14 (2014). The Court of Special Appeals reiterated its support for extending the absolute privilege to other to......
  • Adams v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 21 mai 2014
    ...602 A.2d 1191, 1213 (1992) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964)); see Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Frost, 437 Md. 245, 85 A.3d 264, 282 (2014). Actual malice must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Batson, 325 Md. at 728, 602 A.2d at 1213......
  • Kiddie Acad. Domestic Franchising, LLC v. Wonder World Learning, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 31 mars 2019
    ...233 Md. App. at 360, 165 A.3d at 554 (quoting Marchesi, 283 Md. at 134-35, 387 A.2d at 1131); see also Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Frost, 437 Md. 245, 276, 85 A.3d 264, 282 (2014); Batson, 325 Md. at, 728, 602 A.2d at 1213. In Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 106 Md. Ap......
  • State v. Goldberg
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 26 février 2014
    ... ... §§ 8–402.3(j)(3)(ii)– (k)(1) (ii), limiting the amount of attorney's fees that would be available as part of a judgment ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criticizing Judges: a Lawyer's Professional Responsibility
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Law Review (FC Access) No. 56-1, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...the Sullivan [subjective] standard," replacing it with an "objective reasonableness standard"); see also Att'y Grievance Comm'n v. Frost, 85 A.3d 264, 277 (Md. 2014) (applying the objective standard because "[e]ven outside the courtroom, the speech of a lawyer may be curtailed to an extent ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT