Attorney Grievance Commission v. Marcalus
Court of Appeals of Maryland
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
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. LinkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GreenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GreenleafCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BasingerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. McDowellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. ShulerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. McLaughlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. SandersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2019
- Attorney Grievance v. Markey & HancockCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. PaulCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2018
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.