Opinion ID: 3156792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: MLRPC 8.2(a)

Text: MLRPC 8.2(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer, or 5 The Maryland Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee was created in 2005. It has established certain standards for the conduct of contested judicial elections in Maryland and asks candidates to pledge to adhere to those standards. See www.mdjccc.org>. During the 2012 primary election, Judge Densford agreed to abide by those standards; Mr. Stanalonis did not. 7 public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.” MLRPC 8.2(a). To establish a violation of this rule, three things must be proven by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the lawyer made a false statement; (2) that the statement concerned the qualifications or integrity of a judge or a candidate for judicial office; and (3) that the lawyer made the statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.6 In this case, the parties have focused on the third element – whether the statement in Mr. Stanalonis’ campaign flyer was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.7 6 The rule is based on a model rule proposed by the American Bar Association. See American Bar Association, Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct 651 (8th ed. 2015). Courts in other states that have adopted the rule have also recognized that it requires proof of these three elements. See In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Involving File No. 17139, 720 N.W. 2d 807, 813 (Minn. 2006). 7 Although not at issue before us, there may be a question as to whether the second element of MLRPC 8.2(a) is met – i.e., whether this statement relates to the qualifications or integrity of a judicial candidate. While a particular view about the utility of sex offender registration may or may not be politically advantageous, it is not at all clear that it relates to the “qualifications or integrity” of a judicial candidate. “[O]pinions that a lawyer may have expressed before becoming a judge, or a judicial candidate, do not disqualify anyone for judicial service because every good judge is fully aware of the distinction between the law and a personal point of view.” Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 798 (2002) (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.2, comment 2 (“although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question”). Apparently, Mr. Stanalonis thought otherwise in including the statement on his campaign flyer and presumably that is why he did not argue that the second element was lacking. 8
This Court has applied the MLRPC, and MLRPC 8.2(a) in particular, to statements made by lawyers in a variety of contexts. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Frost, 437 Md. 245, 359-68, 85 A.3d 264 (2014) (statements by an attorney about judges and other public officials made in email sent to ex-wife and later forwarded to other attorneys); cf. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Gansler, 377 Md. 656, 835 A.2d 548 (2003) (statements made by prosecutor about pending cases in press conferences). This case involves a statement made in the context of an election campaign. This context is relevant for three reasons. First, as the Supreme Court has observed, “speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office,” including judicial candidates, is “at the core of our First Amendment freedoms.” Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 774 (2002); see also McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1441 (2014) (“the First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of [election] campaigns’”) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971)). The speech at issue in this case — which purported to describe the views of a candidate for judicial office — is core political speech and has the highest level of First Amendment protection.8 This is important because the canon of constitutional 8 The dissenting opinions would ignore or minimize the extent to which the First Amendment constrains government entities in regulating campaign speech. For example, Judge Harrell’s opinion relies heavily on the position of the MJCCC in framing its analysis. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Harrell at 1-2, 7 & nn.1-2. Unlike State entities, including this Court, the MJCCC is a private entity not constrained by the First Amendment. As the MJCCC’s website explains, it was created in part precisely because the First Amendment limits a state supreme court’s ability to 9 avoidance requires that we be cognizant of the constitutional values at stake in construing the MLRPC: to the extent that MLRPC 8.2(a) “‘is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which would not involve a decision as to the constitutionality of the [provision] while the other would, the construction which avoids the determination of constitutionality is to be preferred.’” G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co., 308 Md. 746, 763, 521 A.2d 1225 (1987) (quoting Maryland State Board of Barber Examiners v. Kuhn, 270 Md. 496, 505, 312 A.2d 216 (1973)). Thus, any interpretation of MLRPC 8.2(a) in an election context must take into account the First Amendment protections for speech in election campaigns. Second, the election context is significant as there inevitably is some imprecision in language used during the heat of a political campaign. There are often short timeframes in which a candidate must respond to claims or criticisms made by an opponent, there may be limited time to vet language, and a short and snappy oneliner usually prevails over a lengthier, more carefully phrased sentence. 9 Opposing restrict candidate speech in judicial elections. See . 9 For example, a campaign flyer supporting Judge Densford’s election asserted that the County Judicial Nominating Commission had found Mr. Stanalonis “Not Qualified to be a Judge” when, in selecting among the applicants for appointment to a circuit court position it did not send his name to the Governor. As Judge Densford conceded during his testimony, this was a “technically inaccurate” description of the determination made by the nominating commission. See COMAR 01.01.2008.04F & COMAR 01.01.2015.09F (executive orders specifying the function of judicial nominating commissions). 10 candidates for judicial office do not have the opportunity to depose each other.10 And campaign flyers are not appellate briefs. In this context, imprecise wording is not necessarily a violation of MLRPC 8.2(a). Finally, although this particular case arises out of an election for judicial office, MLRPC 8.2(a) also regulates statements by lawyers about “public legal officers,” such as the Attorney General and State’s Attorneys, and candidates for those elective offices. Frost, 437 Md. at 261 & n.9. Thus, whatever we hold in this case will also control what a lawyer may say about a candidate for election as Attorney General or as a State’s Attorney.
In the charges that initiated this case, the Commission alleged that the statement in Stanalonis campaign flyer was “knowingly false” and did not assert that it was made with “reckless disregard” (although the pleading later quoted MLRPC 8.2 in its entirety). Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action at p. 3, ¶ 7. In its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted to the hearing judge following the hearing, the Commission maintained that position and asked the judge to conclude that the statement was “knowingly false,” although it argued that a negligent misrepresentation would also violate MLRPC 8.2(a). As noted above, the hearing judge did not find that the statement was knowingly false, but rather concluded that it was made with “reckless disregard” as 10 They do not have the opportunity to depose one another about their respective positions unless they do so, as here, well after the campaign during a disciplinary proceeding. 11 to its truth or falsity. Before us, the Commission did not except to the hearing judge’s conclusion and has dropped any contention that the statement was “knowingly false.”11 Hence, the relevant standard under MLRPC 8.2(a) is whether the statement was made with “reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.”
In the First Amendment context, “reckless disregard for truth or falsity” evokes the subjective test for civil liability for defamation of a public figure set forth New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Under this test, “reckless disregard for truth or falsity” is not “measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity....” St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968). The subjective test thus focuses on what the defendant personally knew and thought. The drafters of the model rule from which MLRPC 8.2(a) is derived apparently intended to import this test into the rule. See American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Proposed Final Draft (May 30, 1981) at 206 (explaining that Model Rule 8.2 is consistent with the New York Times standard). 11 It thus appears that the Commission did not prove what it actually charged in the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action – a knowing falsehood. It may well be that, in outlining the underlying facts and quoting MLRPC 8.2 in its entirety at the end of the document, the Petition provided adequate notice to the Respondent that the charges against him might be established by proof of a recklessly made falsehood. In any event, Mr. Stanalonis has not excepted on this ground and, in light of our disposition of the case, we need not resolve it. 12 As this Court observed in Frost, however, “[t]here appears to be disagreement among the states as to whether the general defamation standard announced in New York Times, i.e. the subjective test, should apply equally to attorney discipline cases.” 437 Md. at 265 n. 11. The Court noted that a number of courts have preferred to develop an objective test not keyed to the knowledge or understanding of the particular lawyer. Id. A comparison thus might be made to other contexts where courts must apply a standard of “recklessness” or “reckless disregard.” For example, the test for recklessness in the context of reckless endangerment is “whether the [defendant’s] misconduct, viewed objectively, was so reckless as to constitute a gross departure from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe.” Minor v. State, 326 Md. 436, 443, 605 A.2d 138 (1992). Such a test is akin to gross negligence. In fact, the definition of “gross negligence” sometimes includes the phrase “reckless disregard.” See, e.g., Cooper v. Rodriguez, 443 Md. 680, 686, 118 A.3d 829 (2015) (“Gross negligence has been defined as, among things, ‘an intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another, and also implies a thoughtless disregard of the consequences without the exertion of any effort to avoid them.’”) (quoting Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157, 187, 935 A.2d 699 (2007)); State v. Pagotto, 361 Md. 528, 548, 762 A.2d 97 (2000) (“In order for the accused's conduct to constitute gross negligence, the conduct must manifest a wanton or reckless disregard of human life.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 13 Finally, even if a court would normally favor an objective test in assessing the “reckless disregard” prong of MLRPC 8.2(a), there is a significant argument that a subjective test should be applied in an election context, in light of the “core” First Amendment values at stake. See In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Involving File No. 17139, 720 N.W. 2d 807, 813-15 (2006) (raising, but not resolving, the question whether the Minnesota Supreme Court would apply a subjective test in evaluating an alleged 8.2(a) violation in an election context, even though that court applies an objective test in other contexts). In Frost, this Court expressly did not resolve whether the test for “reckless disregard” in applying MLRPC 8.2(a) should be a subjective one or an objective one. 437 Md. at 265 n. 11. We need not resolve that question for purposes of deciding this case either, as our resolution is the same under either standard. 4. Whether There is Clear and Convincing Evidence of Reckless Disregard The question that we must resolve is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Stanalonis made a statement concerning Judge Densford’s views about sex offender registries with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of that statement. In testimony that the hearing judge found credible, Mr. Stanalonis stated that he was familiar with Judge Densford as a criminal defense attorney and with his efforts to keep his clients off the sex offender registry. The hearing judge found that, in reliance on conversations, and interactions with other prosecutors, Mr. Stanalonis “determined [Judge] Densford opposed the registry,” although she also found that his determination proved to be incorrect. 14 Perhaps the Stanalonis campaign flyer could have been more precise in its description of his understanding of Judge Densford’s position and the source of that understanding. For example, according to Judge Densford’s testimony in this proceeding, a sentence that read “While in private practice and representing clients, attorney David Densford opposed placing his clients on the sex offender registry,” would have been more accurate than, “Opposes registration of convicted sexual predators.” But Mr. Stanalonis was speaking in the context of an election campaign, and MLRPC 8.2(a) does not require absolute precision in the expression of political speech as part of an election campaign. Mr. Stanalonis apparently drew an incorrect inference from his conversations with Judge Densford that Judge Densford opposed the registration of convicted sex offenders generally but, as the hearing judge found, there was a “demonstrable basis” for making this inference. In short, whatever Judge Densford’s true feelings, Mr. Stanalonis appears to have actually believed that Judge Densford opposed the registry according to his testimony (which the hearing judge generally credited). There is no evidence that Mr. Stanalonis “entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his” statement, see St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731. Thus, the statement in the campaign flyer would not satisfy the subjective test for “reckless disregard” as to truth or falsity. Given the testimony of both Mr. Stanalonis and Judge Densford concerning their discussions of the sex offender registry, the hearing judge’s finding that Mr. Stanalonis had a “demonstrable basis for believing” that Judge Densford opposed the 15 sex offender registry finding was not clearly erroneous.12 In light of that demonstrable basis, we cannot say that there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Stanalonis’ belief was a “gross departure” from the understanding that a reasonably prudent lawyer in his position would have.13 It is not a gross deviation from the behavior of a reasonable attorney to make a statement that one has a demonstrable basis for believing, even if that belief turns out to be incorrect. In sum, there is not clear and convincing evidence that the statement in the campaign flyer was made with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement, regardless of whether a subjective or objective test is applied. Accordingly, we conclude that a violation of MLRPC 8.2(a) has not been proven.