Breaking news:
Former States Attorney Disbarred:; John Mark McDonald
By ANGELA PRICE baytimes@kibaytimes.com
ANNAPOLIS — The Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred John Mark McDonald, former Queen Anne's County Deputy State's Attorney, in a reported Feb. 21 opinion, "in order to protect the public, maintain the public's confidence in the legal profession, and deter similar misconduct by public officials in the future."
The summary of the case states McDonald "due to his infatuation with a co-worker, used his position while in office to enter nolle prosequi dispositions for five traffic citations as personal favors to the co-worker, facilitated the co-worker taking leave to which she was not entitled, interfered with a criminal prosecution of the co-worker for embezzling funds from the State's Attorney's Office, and deleted protectively emails from the co-worker's former work computer after her termination."
The Attorney Grievance Commission filed a petition against McDonald Sept. 12, 2012, alleging attorney misconduct related to an "inappropriate relationship" between McDonald and the former co-worker and seeking disciplinary action. Specifically, the Attorney Grievance Commission said McDonald violated Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), which makes it misconduct to violate the rules, knowingly assist or induce another person to do so or to do so through the acts of another; 8.4(b), which makes it misconduct to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; 8.4(c), which makes it misconduct to engage in dishonesty, fraud, deception or misrepresentation; and 8.4(d) which makes it misconduct to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Judge Diane O. Leasure heard five non-consecutive days of testimony and argument in Queen Anne's County Circuit Court in January 2013 and found March 19 that the Attorney Grievance Commission had presented "clear and convincing evidence" McDonald violated MLRPC 8.4(a) and 8.4(d). She filed her Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusions of Law in April 2013.
Both parties in the case appeared before the Court of Appeals Dec. 10, 2013, to present their exceptions and make their recommendations, Linda Lawless representing the Bar and McDonald representing himself after his lawyer David G. Whitworth had a fall earlier in the day.
Lawless took no issues with Leasure's findings of fact but did file four exceptions to the proposed conclusions of law concerning disciplinary charges against McDonald. Lawless took exception to the hearing judge's conclusion that McDonald's "ticket fixing," interference in a criminal prosecution, creating and submitting falsified time sheets and accessing his co-worker's computer after her termination did not violate MLRPC 8.4(c). Lawless also argued the "ticket-fixing" scheme was a violaltion of 8.4(b) and that accessing the computer was a violation of both 8.4(b) and (d).
She recommended McDonald be disbarred immediately.
"The conduct in this case, as I stated earlier, deals with betrayal — betrayal on all levels to every obligation that the respondent had as deputy state's attorney for Queen Anne's County, a complete disregard for his obligations to the public, to the criminal justice system, to this court, and his oath as both an attorney and a prosecutor," Lawless said.
McDonald filed 14 initial exceptions, then four supplemental exceptions, challenging Leasure's factual findings, procedural issues and conclusions of law. McDonald recommended he receive a reprimand, at most.
In its reported opinion, the Court of Appeals overruled all of McDonald's exceptions.
"McDonald's argument consists mostly of meritless finger-pointing and personal attacks on (Queen Anne's County State's Attorney Lance) Richardson, propped up by snippets of testimony (devoid of context) and reiteration of arguments that were, in our view, rejected properly by the hearing judge," the court wrote regarding two of the exceptions related to the ticket fixing. Responses to other exceptions are similar.
The court sustained Lawless's exception regarding MLRPC 8.4(c). "We suspect that the judge's conclusion regarding 8.4(c) may be the result of a misinterpretation,"Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote, of the rule that defines misconduct as involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
He continued, "'[D]ishonest'y is the broadest of the four terms, and encompasses, inter alia, 'conduct evincing a lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; [a] lack of fairness and straightforwardness .... Thus, what may not legally be characterized as an act of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation may still evince dishonesty.'" Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 25, 741 A.2d 1143, 1156 (1999).
Harrell noted the hearing judge found "McDonald abused his position as Deputy State's Attorney to perform personal favors, with no legitimate law enforcement business purpose, for an employee with who he had 'an intense, and at times obsessive, infatuation.'"
The court found that was sufficient evidence to conclude McDonald violated 8.4(c) in each of the five ticket-fixing incidents.
"The lack of integrity, fairness and straightforwardness exhibited in McDonald's egregious misuse of the power afforded to him as a prosecutor in performing acts of favoritism for his love interest constitute dishonesty under the Rule," the court wrote.
The court also found sufficient factual findings by the judge to sustain 8.4(c) violations in McDonald's interference in the embezzlement prosecution, in the falsification of time sheets and in accessing his co-worker's computer the day after her termination.
The court also sustained Lawless' exception 8.4(d), that McDonald's actions regarding the computer were prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The court did not consider the merits of 8.4(b), stating the sanctions for its violation would be no different than for the violations already found.
In administering sanctions, the court listed several aggravating factors: McDonald allowed dishonest or selfish motives to overbear professional integrity and responsibilities; he exhibited a pattern of misconduct; he committed multiple offenses; he refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct; and, given his experience, McDonald should have known his actions were unethical. The only mitigating factor, the court noted, was the lack of a prior disciplinary record.
The court ordered McDonald be disbarred and pay all court costs.
Richardson declined to comment. Neither McDonald nor his attorney had returned phone calls Friday night.
More about John Mark Mcdonald
ARTICLE: Man to serve 10 years for attempted robbery
ARTICLE: Service honors fallen heroes
ARTICLE: Civil case against McDonald goes to judge
ARTICLE: McDonald takes stand on own behalf
Discuss
Print
ShareShare
Posted in Queen annes county, Local news on Friday, February 21, 2014 9:30 pm. Updated: 11:27 pm. | Tags: John Mark Mcdonald, Attorney Grievance Commission, Disbarment, Diane O. Leasure, Linda Lawless, Legal Ethics, Attorney, Abuse Of The Legal System, Practice Of Law, Maryland Court Of Appeals, Queen Anne's County Deputy State S Attorney, State's Attorney S Office, Glenn T. Harrell Jr., Queen Anne's County Circuit Court,David Archuleta G. Whitworth, Prosecutor, Bay Times, Record Observer
Former States Attorney Disbarred:; John Mark McDonald
By ANGELA PRICE baytimes@kibaytimes.com
ANNAPOLIS — The Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred John Mark McDonald, former Queen Anne's County Deputy State's Attorney, in a reported Feb. 21 opinion, "in order to protect the public, maintain the public's confidence in the legal profession, and deter similar misconduct by public officials in the future."
The summary of the case states McDonald "due to his infatuation with a co-worker, used his position while in office to enter nolle prosequi dispositions for five traffic citations as personal favors to the co-worker, facilitated the co-worker taking leave to which she was not entitled, interfered with a criminal prosecution of the co-worker for embezzling funds from the State's Attorney's Office, and deleted protectively emails from the co-worker's former work computer after her termination."
The Attorney Grievance Commission filed a petition against McDonald Sept. 12, 2012, alleging attorney misconduct related to an "inappropriate relationship" between McDonald and the former co-worker and seeking disciplinary action. Specifically, the Attorney Grievance Commission said McDonald violated Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), which makes it misconduct to violate the rules, knowingly assist or induce another person to do so or to do so through the acts of another; 8.4(b), which makes it misconduct to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; 8.4(c), which makes it misconduct to engage in dishonesty, fraud, deception or misrepresentation; and 8.4(d) which makes it misconduct to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Judge Diane O. Leasure heard five non-consecutive days of testimony and argument in Queen Anne's County Circuit Court in January 2013 and found March 19 that the Attorney Grievance Commission had presented "clear and convincing evidence" McDonald violated MLRPC 8.4(a) and 8.4(d). She filed her Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusions of Law in April 2013.
Both parties in the case appeared before the Court of Appeals Dec. 10, 2013, to present their exceptions and make their recommendations, Linda Lawless representing the Bar and McDonald representing himself after his lawyer David G. Whitworth had a fall earlier in the day.
Lawless took no issues with Leasure's findings of fact but did file four exceptions to the proposed conclusions of law concerning disciplinary charges against McDonald. Lawless took exception to the hearing judge's conclusion that McDonald's "ticket fixing," interference in a criminal prosecution, creating and submitting falsified time sheets and accessing his co-worker's computer after her termination did not violate MLRPC 8.4(c). Lawless also argued the "ticket-fixing" scheme was a violaltion of 8.4(b) and that accessing the computer was a violation of both 8.4(b) and (d).
She recommended McDonald be disbarred immediately.
"The conduct in this case, as I stated earlier, deals with betrayal — betrayal on all levels to every obligation that the respondent had as deputy state's attorney for Queen Anne's County, a complete disregard for his obligations to the public, to the criminal justice system, to this court, and his oath as both an attorney and a prosecutor," Lawless said.
McDonald filed 14 initial exceptions, then four supplemental exceptions, challenging Leasure's factual findings, procedural issues and conclusions of law. McDonald recommended he receive a reprimand, at most.
In its reported opinion, the Court of Appeals overruled all of McDonald's exceptions.
"McDonald's argument consists mostly of meritless finger-pointing and personal attacks on (Queen Anne's County State's Attorney Lance) Richardson, propped up by snippets of testimony (devoid of context) and reiteration of arguments that were, in our view, rejected properly by the hearing judge," the court wrote regarding two of the exceptions related to the ticket fixing. Responses to other exceptions are similar.
The court sustained Lawless's exception regarding MLRPC 8.4(c). "We suspect that the judge's conclusion regarding 8.4(c) may be the result of a misinterpretation,"Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote, of the rule that defines misconduct as involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
He continued, "'[D]ishonest'y is the broadest of the four terms, and encompasses, inter alia, 'conduct evincing a lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; [a] lack of fairness and straightforwardness .... Thus, what may not legally be characterized as an act of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation may still evince dishonesty.'" Attorney Grievance Commission v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 25, 741 A.2d 1143, 1156 (1999).
Harrell noted the hearing judge found "McDonald abused his position as Deputy State's Attorney to perform personal favors, with no legitimate law enforcement business purpose, for an employee with who he had 'an intense, and at times obsessive, infatuation.'"
The court found that was sufficient evidence to conclude McDonald violated 8.4(c) in each of the five ticket-fixing incidents.
"The lack of integrity, fairness and straightforwardness exhibited in McDonald's egregious misuse of the power afforded to him as a prosecutor in performing acts of favoritism for his love interest constitute dishonesty under the Rule," the court wrote.
The court also found sufficient factual findings by the judge to sustain 8.4(c) violations in McDonald's interference in the embezzlement prosecution, in the falsification of time sheets and in accessing his co-worker's computer the day after her termination.
The court also sustained Lawless' exception 8.4(d), that McDonald's actions regarding the computer were prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The court did not consider the merits of 8.4(b), stating the sanctions for its violation would be no different than for the violations already found.
In administering sanctions, the court listed several aggravating factors: McDonald allowed dishonest or selfish motives to overbear professional integrity and responsibilities; he exhibited a pattern of misconduct; he committed multiple offenses; he refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct; and, given his experience, McDonald should have known his actions were unethical. The only mitigating factor, the court noted, was the lack of a prior disciplinary record.
The court ordered McDonald be disbarred and pay all court costs.
Richardson declined to comment. Neither McDonald nor his attorney had returned phone calls Friday night.
More about John Mark Mcdonald
ARTICLE: Man to serve 10 years for attempted robbery
ARTICLE: Service honors fallen heroes
ARTICLE: Civil case against McDonald goes to judge
ARTICLE: McDonald takes stand on own behalf
Discuss
ShareShare
Posted in Queen annes county, Local news on Friday, February 21, 2014 9:30 pm. Updated: 11:27 pm. | Tags: John Mark Mcdonald, Attorney Grievance Commission, Disbarment, Diane O. Leasure, Linda Lawless, Legal Ethics, Attorney, Abuse Of The Legal System, Practice Of Law, Maryland Court Of Appeals, Queen Anne's County Deputy State S Attorney, State's Attorney S Office, Glenn T. Harrell Jr., Queen Anne's County Circuit Court,David Archuleta G. Whitworth, Prosecutor, Bay Times, Record Observer
4 comments:
Can we do this to Obameeee and Holdeeee too????
Lance Richardson lied to get rid of the person who knew about all of his illegal activities.
He was an unethical states attorney as well. I heard he was fired, I am surprised there were no priors.
Lance was fired?
Post a Comment