Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robert John Greenleaf

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred Robert John Greenleaf for using a state-owned computer to solicit sexual acts from a law enforcement officer posing as a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old girl. The Court held that his conduct violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d), and concluded that disbarment was warranted based on the intentional, repeated, and egregious nature of the misconduct.

Holdings

1. The hearing judge did not clearly err in finding that Greenleaf believed the person identified as Beth was a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old girl.
2. Greenleaf violated MLRPC 8.4(b) by violating Criminal Law § 3-324(b), which prohibits knowingly soliciting a law enforcement officer posing as a minor to engage in conduct that would be unlawful under § 3-307.
3. Greenleaf violated MLRPC 8.4(c) because his extensive, clandestine use of a Maryland Judiciary computer during work time to commit the crime of soliciting a purported minor for sex constituted dishonesty.
4. Greenleaf violated MLRPC 8.4(d) because soliciting sexual acts from a person he believed was a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old girl negatively affected the public's perception of the legal profession and the Maryland Judiciary.
5. Greenleaf violated MLRPC 8.4(a) because he violated MLRPC 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
6. Disbarment was the appropriate sanction because Greenleaf deliberately solicited a person he believed was under the age of consent, committed multiple related offenses over an extended period, engaged in criminal conduct and dishonesty, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and demonstrated that he was unfit to continue practicing law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the hearing judge clearly erred in finding that Greenleaf believed the undercover officer was a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old girl.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Greenleaf violated MLRPC 8.4(b) by criminal conduct reflecting adversely on his fitness as a lawyer.
3. Whether Greenleaf's use of his employer's computer during work time to solicit a purported minor for sex constituted dishonesty under MLRPC 8.4(c).
4. Whether Greenleaf's solicitation of a purported minor for sexual acts was conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under MLRPC 8.4(d), and consequently violated MLRPC 8.4(a).
5. What sanction was appropriate for the violations and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Disposition

other