Create a Case Brief... of Maryland v. Stanalonis, 126 A.3d 6 (Md. 2015), decided that an attorney running for judicial office was permitted to exercise his right to free speech when commenting on the views of his opponent, a sitting judge at the time. The attorney produced a campaign flyer that slighted his opponent's qualifications and, as it turned out, erroneously misconstrued that judge's views on a critical legal issue. "Not all attorney statements that turn out to be untrue violate [RPC 8.4(c)]. 'While this Court has some- times drawn fine distinctions among the four horsemen of the rule- dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation-each pertains to a false statement by an attorney only if the attorney makes use of the false statement knowing that it is untrue." Id. at 16, citing Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Smith, 109 A.3d 1184, 1196 (Md. 2015). The lower court determined that "the statement reflected negatively on the legal profession because the [attor- ney's] campaign made it without 'conducting a full and thorough investiga- tion' into its accuracy." Id. at 17. However, the appeals court reversed this determination because the attorney had a "demonstrable basis" for believing the statement he published. The Appellate Court held that "[i]t is hard to imagine that making such a statement would negatively impact that public's perception of the legal profession, except insofar as any campaign material that of the opponent who, as in this case, is an attorney who holds public office. But such a standard would be incompatible with the State's current policy, incorporated in the State Constitution, of holding contested elections for circuit court judgeships and public legal officers such as the Attorney General and State's Attorneys. Accordingly, there was no violation of [RPC 8.4(d)]." Id. at 17-18.

Commission of Maryland v. Stanalonis, 126 A.3d 6 (Md. 2015), decided that an attorney running for judicial office was permitted to exereise his right to free speech when commenting on the views of his opponent, a sitting judge at the time. The attorney produced a campaign flyer that slighted his opponent's qualifications and, as it turned out, erroneously misconstrued that judge's views on a critical legal issue. "Not all attorney statements that turn out to be untrue violate [RPC 8.4(c)]. 'While this Court has sometimes drawn fine distinctions among the four horsemen of the ruledishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation-each pertains to a false statement by an attorney only if the attorney makes use of the false statement knowing that it is untrue."' Id. at 16, citing Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Smith, 109 A.3d 1184, 1196 (Md. 2015). The lower court determined that "the statement reflected negatively on the legal profession because the [attorney's] campaign made it without 'conducting a full and thorough investigation' into its accuracy." Id. at 17. However, the appeals court reversed this determination because the attorney had a "demonstrable basis" for believing the statement he published. The Appellate Court held that "[i]t is hard to imagine that making such a statement would negatively impact that public's perception of the legal profession, except insofar as any campaign material that of the opponent who, as in this case, is an attorney who holds public office. But such a standard would be incompatible with the State's current policy, incorporated in the State Constitution, of holding contested elections for circuit court judgeships and public legal officers such as the Attorney General and State's Attorneys. Accordingly, there was no violation of [RPC 8.4(d)]." Id. at 17-18. As noted in $402, the law of lawyering as set forth in the Terminology section of the Rules of Professional Conduct permits a disciplinary authority to "infer from circumstances" that a lawyer knows what a reasonable person would know. More than this, the law takes account of a lawyer's legal training and experience in assessing his or her state of mind. A lawyer is an adult, a man or a woman of the world, not a child. He or she is also better educated than most people, more sophisticated and more sharply sensitized to the legal implications of a situation. The law will make inferences as to a lawyer's knowledge with those considerations in mind