The MD public defender and Jane Doe

On Jan. 21, a lawsuit was filed by Jane Doe against the Office of the Public Defender and State Public Defender Natasha Dartigue in her official as well as her personal capacity. Doe is seeking $5 million in damages.

Prior to the filing of the complaint, efforts were made to resolve serious issues concerning the potential defamation of Doe by Dartigue and other employees of the OPD. To that end, a “Name Clearing Hearing” was held before Patrick Woodward, a former chief judge of what was then the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in his current role as a mediator with The McCammon Group.

Woodward’s findings present concerns about the actions of OPD employees and Dartigue herself, concerns that deserve investigation by the agency’s Board of Trustees. Those actions, at least in light of the judge’s findings, show that Jane Doe’s once-bright career path has been significantly damaged.

The lawsuit alleges that Doe, a former stellar law clerk in the Baltimore City OPD office, was fired, without basis, by Dartigue who then went on to allegedly defame Doe by contacting the associate dean at Doe’s law school and telling him that Doe was fired for stalking a lawyer at the OPD office and posing a potential threat of violence.

Doe, whose sole goal was to work for the OPD and whose nickname at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where she was a second-year student, was “Miss OPD,” was fired without warning by Dartigue on March 18, 2024. The saga leading to her termination began in early March, when a male attorney in the city office informed Doe’s supervisor that Doe “stalks” him “as she seems to know when he gets off the elevator and then follows him to his office to talk to him and try to get him to work with her.”

One week later, the supervisor informed the agency’s human resources director that an unnamed law clerk was “following around” an attorney who was uncomfortable with this. No action was taken by either the supervisor or the human resources director. One week after that, the “stalked” attorney, who did not testify at the name clearing hearing, informed Doe’s supervisor that on the prior evening he was looking through Doe’s desk for a flash drive when he discovered three unfired hollow-point bullets.

Doe’s supervisor, via email, told the human resources director that Doe had been “stalking” the lawyer and that bullets were found in her desk. This email was forwarded to Dartigue who ordered that Doe be terminated immediately. The following business day, Doe was terminated. No investigation was undertaken by Dartigue into the claims, and no one spoke to Doe about them.

Testimony at the hearing credited by Woodward revealed that the desk, used by Doe, formerly belonged to a female attorney who rarely came into the office. That attorney testified that she often met clients in her office prior to going to court and that “[b]ecause there was no metal detector in the [OPD] building … her clients would have ‘stuff in their pockets,’ such as knives, bullets and other contraband” that she would place in her desk to hold for the client until they returned from court.

On the same day Doe was terminated, Dartigue contacted the associate dean for student affairs at the UB law school, who took contemporaneous notes of their conversation. Although Dartigue denied having made these comments, the associate dean testified that Dartigue told him of the termination of Doe for “stalking an OPD attorney” and that while there had been no direct threat of violence, she was concerned about a “possible” threat. Dartigue further informed the associate dean, he testified, that Doe had been banned from all “OPD offices and that if she returned to the office, a peace order would be sought.”

Woodward concluded that Doe “did not pose any potential threat of violence, and that Dartigue’s statements to the contrary lack[ed] any credible evidentiary foundation,” and that the claim was “baseless.” He also found that there was no credible evidence that Doe engaged in “stalking” and that the use of that word was a “gross mischaracterization” of Doe’s behavior.

At the hearing, the director of human resources also testified that Dartigue’s disclosure of these claims about Doe to the associate dean was “a violation of OPD Personnel Law and Maryland Personnel Law.”

Dartigue’s actions did not stop there. According to Woodward’s findings, the OPD “notified the Department of General Services … security that [Doe] was banned from the office at 201 St. Paul Place as well as all other offices of the OPD in Baltimore City, and sent a photograph of Doe to DGS for posting at the security station” at the St. Paul Place location.

Doe was also prevented from entering any courthouse in the city. Dartigue then ordered that the removal of Doe’s personal belongings from her office be filmed. This filming took place during regular business hours with the office door ajar where those who passed by could hear the attorneys filming expressing safety concerns about Doe.

Based on these actions by Dartigue and other employees of the OPD, Woodward in his Nov. 27 findings concluded that the “OPD publicized false information that was damaging to [Doe’s] reputation” and ordered
Dartigue to take 11 specific measures to restore Doe’s reputation. None of these measures have been put in place; thus, the lawsuit was filed.

Since her appointment to the public defender’s post in 2022, Dartigue has been an aggressive advocate for the office who has fought to obtain more resources for her staff. But in this matter, her actions deserve serious investigation.

Editorial Advisory Board members Susan Francis, Ericka N. King and Catherine Curran O’Malley did not participate in this opinion. EAB member Nancy Forster was the Maryland State Public Defender from 2005-2009.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

James K. Archibald

Gary E. Bair

Eric Easton

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

George Nilson

Catherine Curran O’Malley

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.