Legal Opinion

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Marcalus

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 27, 2015No. 64ag/13PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWatts, J.

This attorney discipline proceeding involves a lawyer who, among other misconduct, engaged in “sexting” 1 with a female party in litigation in which he represented the opposing party, and informed the female party that a “sugar daddy” 2 would pay her to watch her masturbate.

Jeffrey S. Marcalus (“Marcalus”), Respondent, a member of the Bar of Maryland, texted Lindsay Dudley (“Dudley”) — a self-represented party in litigation in which Marcalus represented the opposing party — to, among other things, request a photograph of Dudley in a bathing suit; discuss whether Dudley would be willing to use…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. LinkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GreenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
  3. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GreenleafCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
  4. Attorney Grievance Commission v. BasingerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. McDowellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. ShulerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
  3. Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. SandersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2019
  4. Attorney Grievance v. Markey & HancockCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
  5. Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. PaulCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2018

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API