Why Attorney Gregory Slate Was Disbarred

On March 2, 2018, the Court of Appeals of Maryland—then the state's highest court—ordered the disbarment of Gregory Allen Slate. The court concluded that Slate had knowingly withheld the most damaging facts about a federal lawsuit from Maryland's attorney-admissions authorities and had falsely represented that he had made the required disclosure.

The case behind the disbarment

The disciplinary proceeding traced back to a federal copyright lawsuit Slate filed against American Broadcasting Companies. The case concerned hidden-camera footage created during a police-accountability project involving ABC and the Police Complaint Center.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled against Slate. Her opinion did more than reject his copyright theory. The court described what it regarded as a persistent course of bad-faith litigation conduct, including a fabricated letter, testimony that was likely perjurious or at least intentionally misleading, repeated discovery abuse, and the use of judicial process to harass and discredit Diop Kamau, a central witness in the case.

The letter that could not fit the timeline

One of the most important pieces of evidence was a letter dated August 21, 2006, which Slate claimed he had sent to an ABC producer. The letter attempted to establish that Slate had already separated himself from the Police Complaint Center and asserted individual rights in the investigative footage.

The problem was a reference in the letter to Slate's recent success in receiving an Emmy Award. The chronology did not permit that statement to have been written on the date shown. The relevant nominations were announced later, the winners were announced months afterward, and Slate's name was not added to the winning entry until December 2006.

Judge Howell concluded that the letter had been fabricated after the fact. The court also documented contradictions between Slate's sworn testimony and contemporaneous emails concerning receipts, camera equipment, and his dealings with ABC.

What Slate told Maryland

Slate applied for admission to the Maryland bar in 2014. He identified the ABC lawsuit and stated that it had been dismissed while an appeal was pending. But Maryland's disciplinary courts found that he did not disclose the federal opinions or their central findings concerning fabrication, misleading testimony, discovery abuse, and bad-faith litigation.

His application also asked whether there were other unfavorable incidents bearing on his character or fitness that had not otherwise been disclosed. Slate answered no. He later affirmed under oath that the application remained accurate.

Maryland's findings

Slate argued that identifying the case itself was enough, that admissions officials could have found the opinions on their own, and that he would have produced certified copies if the application had specifically demanded them. Maryland rejected that explanation. The court concluded that the omissions were knowing and that the later statement to Bar Counsel was false.

Why the sanction was disbarment

The court identified five aggravating factors: a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of dishonesty, multiple professional-rule violations, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and the conclusion that Slate was likely to repeat the misconduct. Although the court recognized limited mitigating considerations, it found no compelling circumstances sufficient to justify a lesser sanction.

Disbarment was therefore not imposed simply because Slate had lost a lawsuit or failed to provide a document. It was imposed because Maryland concluded that the omissions were intentional, concerned information directly bearing on character and fitness, and were followed by additional misrepresentation.

A brief timeline

The bottom line

Gregory Slate was disbarred because Maryland concluded that he knowingly concealed the most important facts about a federal case that reflected directly on his honesty and fitness to practice law, falsely reaffirmed the accuracy of his bar application, and later misrepresented his disclosure to Bar Counsel.

The underlying federal record was not a vague criticism. It included a judicial finding that a key letter had been fabricated after the fact, findings concerning misleading testimony and discovery abuse, and a finding that legal process had been used to harass and discredit a witness.

This report does not ask readers to substitute the authors' opinion for the public record. It asks readers to examine the record and understand why Maryland concluded that disbarment was necessary.