Court Opinion

ID: 9635666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:58:59.885543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:37.053740
License: Public Domain

RAKER, J.,
dissenting:
The Court imposes an indefinite suspension in this case. I respectfully dissent from the sanction imposed by the Court because I believe respondent, Gary Thompson, should be disbarred.
Gary Thompson was convicted of the criminal offense of stalking a thirteen-year-old boy whom he met at a Montgomery County swim center. He made an inappropriate sexual remark to the young boy and then called him on the telephone and appeared uninvited at the boy’s home.
Respondent pled guilty to stalking and was sentenced to a term of incarceration of six months, all suspended, three years probation, one hundred hours of community service and a fine *345of $1,000.00. Respondent has been diagnosed with “nonexclusive homosexual Ephebophilia.”1 He acknowledged that he has been sexually attracted to pubescent boys since he was in his late teens.
I am mindful that respondent has been punished under the criminal laws of Maryland for his criminal misconduct. Disciplinary sanctions, in contrast, are intended not to be punitive but to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal system, as well as the confidence of the public in the system. In light of these purposes, it is important to observe that respondent concedes that he poses a threat to the community, as evidenced by his explanation that he has “told basically all of our neighbors and our close friends about my condition and made sure that they understand it’s important for them to protect their sons and to take appropriate steps that they feel is necessary.” I do not believe that respondent’s seeking treatment from Dr. Berlin is a mitigating circumstance that justifies the lesser sanction of indefinite suspension. Likewise, respondent’s cooperative attitude during the proceedings, display of remorse, and lack of a prior disciplinary record are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to avoid disbarment.
In order to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal system, respondent should be disbarred. While his conduct was not connected with the practice of law, he has *346been convicted of a serious crime, and this Court has found that he is unfit to practice law. Our observation in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Protokowicz, 329 Md. 252, 619 A.2d 100 (1993), is equally fitting in this case: “This is outrageous behavior, a world apart from what this Court, the profession, and the public is entitled to expect from- members of the bar.” Id. at 261-62, 619 A.2d at 104.
In not disbarring respondent and imposing an indefinite suspension, the majority says that “[w]e do not reject the possibility that, at some point in the future, respondent may be able to demonstrate to us a track record sufficient to restore a level of trustworthiness and fitness to practice law..., ” 367 Md. at 331-32, 786 A.2d 773-74. It seems to me highly unlikely that respondent can demonstrate a sufficient “track record” to convince this Court that he is fit to practice law in the near future. Since there is no such thing as permanent disbarment in this State,2 but see Fellner v. Bar Ass’n of Balt. City, 213 Md. 243, 247, 131 A.2d 729, 732 (1957) (ordering that respondent be permanently disbarred), respondent should be disbarred, with the heavy burden upon him to demonstrate that he is fit to practice.
Other jurisdictions also view sexual offenses against children as most serious. For example, in In re Kern, 551 N.E.2d 454 (Ind.1990), the Supreme Court of Indiana said that “[t]he offense of child molesting, however, is not only a serious crime abhorred by our society and strictly proscribed by our criminal laws, but, by its very nature, it renders the perpetrator unfit to be an officer of the Court and warrants the strictest sanction.” Id. at 456-57.

. Ephebophilia has been described as a sexual preference by adult men for the young male person, that is, the young person shortly after puberty. See United States v. Black, 116 F.3d 198 (7th Cir.1997) (“sexually attracted to young men’’); Lisa M. Smith, Lifting the Veil of Secrecy, 18 Law & Psychol. Rev. 409 (1994) (“people who sexually fixate on [male] adolescents”). Ephebophilia fits under a larger category of disorders known as Paraphilias, the essential features of which are “recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself of one's partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons, that occur over a period of at least six months.... ” American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mf.ntal Disorders 522-23 (4th ed.1994). Paraphilias are, by definition, recurrent. Id. at 524. "The disorders tend to be chronic and lifelong....” Id.

. Unlike Maryland, many States permanently disbar attorneys for certain misconduct. See, e.g., Arkansas, Kentucky, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Washington, South Dakota, Oregon, California, New Jersey, Mississippi, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina.