Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Stanalonis

• Citation: 445 Md. 129,126 A.3d 6
• Decision Date: 23 November 2015
• Docket Number: Misc. Docket AG No. 74, Sept. Term, 2013.
• Parties: ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Joseph M. STANALONIS.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

445 Md. 129
126 A.3d 6

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
v.
Joseph M. STANALONIS.

Misc. Docket AG No. 74, Sept. Term, 2013.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Argued Sept. 9, 2015.
Filed Nov. 23, 2015.

126 A.3d 8

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

William C. Brennan, Esquire (William A. Mitchell, Jr., Brennan Sullivan McKenna Manzi & Shay), Greenbelt, MD, for Respondent.

Argued before: BARBERA, C.J., BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD, WATTS and GLENN T. HARRELL, JR., (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

McDONALD, J.

445 Md. 133

This case arose out of a hotly-contested primary election campaign for a position on the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County. An experienced prosecutor in the County sought to

445 Md. 134

unseat a newly-appointed judge who, during the course of his career, had represented defendants in criminal cases in the County. As in many election campaigns, each candidate touted, with some exaggeration, his own experience and credentials. And each candidate disparaged, in various ways and without absolute accuracy, those of his opponent. The question before us is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that a statement in the challenger's campaign flyer was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and therefore violated the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct ("MLRPC").

The Attorney Grievance Commission ("Commission") charged Respondent Joseph M. Stanalonis with violating MLRPC

126 A.3d 9

8.2(a) (false statement as to qualification or integrity of a judge, public legal officer, or candidate for such office), MLRPC 8.4(c) (misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and MLRPC 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) by virtue of three statements about his opponent in a campaign flyer circulated on his behalf. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 16–752(a), this Court designated Judge Melanie M. Shaw Geter of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County¹ to conduct a hearing concerning the alleged violations and to provide findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law.

Following a hearing at which Mr. Stanalonis was present and represented by counsel, the hearing judge issued findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law. The hearing judge concluded that two of the statements did not violate the MLRPC, but that the third statement violated all of the cited rules, although Mr. Stanalonis had a "demonstrable basis" for making that statement. Mr. Stanalonis excepted to the conclusion that he had violated the MLRPC. We sustain that exception, and, as a result, shall dismiss the charges.

445 Md. 135

Background

The hearing judge's fact findings are uncontested.² Therefore, we treat them as established. Maryland Rule 16–759(b)(2)(A). Those findings, as well as undisputed matters in the record, establish the following.

The 2012 Primary Election for Circuit Court Judge

Mr. Stanalonis was admitted to the Maryland Bar on December 19, 1996 and, since that time, has been employed as an Assistant State's Attorney in St. Mary's County. In January 2012, Mr. Stanalonis declared his candidacy for the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County. His opponent would be David W. Densford, whose appointment to the Circuit Court had been announced by the Governor a few weeks earlier. Judge Densford took office on February 3, 2012. The primary election was scheduled for April 3, 2012. In that election, Mr. Stanalonis and Judge Densford would appear on both the Democratic and Republican ballots.³ As the hearing judge found, both candidates were active in their campaigns and, by all accounts, the ensuing election campaign was vigorous and contentious.

The Stanalonis Campaign Flyer

Judge Densford began to distribute campaign material on February 3, 2012, the day of his investiture. The campaign material included signs displaying a photograph of Judge Densford in a judicial robe with the words, "KEEP JUDGE DENSFORD, Experience Matters." Judge Densford later testified that the "experience" to which this referred included: (1) the 60 days he would have served on the bench as of the

445 Md. 136

date of the primary election in April and (2) his prior 27 years in private practice.

On or about March 27, 2012, in response to Judge Densford's campaign material,

126 A.3d 10

Mr. Stanalonis' campaign mailed a flyer to voters that purported to contrast the experience and outlooks of the two candidates. The left side of the flyer displayed a photograph of Mr. Stanalonis in a jacket and tie, below which appeared a number of statements about him, such as "16 Years as a St. Mary's County Prosecutor" and "Protecting Our Community, Not the Criminals." The right side of the flyer displayed a photograph of Judge Densford in a Hawaiian shirt, below which appeared a number of statements about him, such as "Donated $1,000 to O'Malley on July 14, 2010" and "Opposes your right to elect judges." A panel at the bottom of the flyer displayed a photograph of Mr. Stanalonis with his family and reiterated his experience as a prosecutor. Judge Densford later responded with his own flyer comparing the qualifications of the two candidates. At issue before us is one of the statements in the Stanalonis campaign flyer that appears under Judge Densford's photograph: "Opposes registration of convicted sexual predators."⁴

Evidence concerning Judge Densford's Views on Sex Offender Registration

Both Mr. Stanalonis and Judge Densford testified in this proceeding. Mr. Stanalonis testified that Judge Densford, while in private practice, had represented defendants in criminal

445 Md. 137

cases involving sex-related offenses and that Mr. Stanalonis and his colleagues in the State's Attorney's Office had dealt with him in that capacity. Mr. Stanalonis testified that Judge Densford had told him, in conversations related to the representation of his clients, that he "was opposed to the registration because it was a long-lasting-life-long impact on [defendants] and would carry with them forever," and moreover "that the punishment should be what it is in the statute for the particular sex offense and that if the crime called for a maximum incarceration of ten years, that the maximum [time that] these individuals should be under the supervision of the Court should be ten years." The hearing judge found, based on Mr. Stanalonis' testimony, that Mr. Stanalonis "determined that [Judge] Densford opposed the [sex offender] registry" through "conversations surrounding the issue and interactions with fellow prosecutors."

Judge Densford, for his part, testified that he had not expressed opposition to the registration of sex offenders as a general matter. During his testimony he was asked, "At any time prior to your appointment on December 22, 2011, in your capacity as a private person or as a criminal defense attorney, did you express opposition to the registration of convicted sexual predators?" He replied, "No. Not as a group. I did when I represented individuals. I didn't want particular people to have to register and would negotiate that. That had nothing to do with the offender registry. It had to do with representation." He explained that he had sought to avoid having his clients "plead[ ] to [charges] that would get them registered as sexual offenders." He testified that he preferred "a plea to assault instead of

126 A.3d 11

something that put them on the registry." He stated that he did not believe that he had made a blanket statement opposing registration of sex offenders generally.

The hearing judge found the testimony of Mr. Stanalonis and Judge Densford "equally compelling." In particular, she found credible Mr. Stanalonis' testimony that Judge Densford routinely opposed registration of his clients on the sex offender registry while he was a defense attorney. On the other hand,

445 Md. 138

she also credited Judge Densford's testimony that, while he had opposed plea arrangements that would result in his clients being placed on the sex offender registry, he had not discussed the topic with Mr. Stanalonis outside the context of representation of a client. She also noted that Judge Densford had never made a public statement concerning the sex offender registry.

In the end, the hearing judge found that Mr. Stanalonis "had a demonstrable basis for believing that [Judge] Densford opposed the Sex Offender Registry." But in concluding that Mr. Stanalonis had violated the MLRPC, she also opined that he should have made a "more...