Lawyer's 'sugar daddy' offer to unrepresented opposing party is cited in disbarment decision
A Maryland lawyer has been disbarred for sexting an unrepresented opposing party and offering to find a “sugar daddy” who would pay to watch her masturbate.
Maryland’s top court disbarred Annapolis lawyer Jeffrey Marcalus on Feb. 5, the same day the court heard oral arguments in the discipline case, and released an opinion explaining its actions on March 27. The Capital Gazette covered the initial disbarment, and the Legal Profession Blog covered the opinion by the Maryland Court of Appeals.
The court said Marcalus had violated an ethics rule barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The unrepresented litigant was the mother in a child custody modification action. Marcalus represented the father.
According to the Court of Appeals opinion, the “sugar daddy” talk began in November 2012 when Marcalus asked the woman after a deposition whether she would be willing to move to the school district in which his client lived. The woman replied that the area was too expensive and joked that she would need a sugar daddy to live there.
Later that day, Marcalus texted the woman that he would let her know if he could think of a “s d” for her. Later that month, Marcalus and the woman texted each other to discuss what she was willing to do for the sugar daddy. In a phone conversation, Marcalus told the woman a sugar daddy would be willing to pay to watch her masturbate.
Marcalus also asked the woman to come to his office to discuss modeling work, and while she was there, he said she would have to bring bathing suits, high heels and a short dress to the modeling jobs. He also requested a photo of the woman in a bathing suit.
Both the woman and Marcalus testified in an evidentiary hearing that the sexual talk was a joke, though Marcalus failed to mention he was joking in a letter responding to the disciplinary complaint, the court said. In that letter, Marcalus said he did have a single friend interested in meeting the woman, and “whatever the two of them did was between the two of them.” The Court of Appeals viewed the letter as conveying that “there was an actual potential ‘sugar daddy.’ ”
Even if the conversations were consensual and intended as a joke, the Court of Appeals said, “we are beyond satisfied” that the conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice, given that the woman was a self-represented opposing party.
Marcalus had a 2007 suspension for sexting and a 2010 suspension for giving a woman a pain killer in exchange for oral sex. “Marcalus has demonstrated that he is extremely likely to repeat his misconduct, no matter how many times this court suspends him from the practice of law in Maryland,” the court said.
Marcalus did not immediately respond to a phone message by the ABA Journal seeking comment.