Republican attorney general nominee sets a Fells Point killing beside the state-funded defense of the governor. The bill is smaller than first requested, but the legal questions are still open
By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
BEL AIR, Md. — Jim Rutledge, the Republican nominee for Maryland attorney general, used a Wednesday press release to set a fatal Fells Point robbery beside the state’s spending on Gov. Wes Moore’s lawyers. His argument is that Attorney General Anthony Brown has his priorities upside down.
The number on the table shrank before the vote. The Board of Public Works approved $50,000 on Wednesday for Moore’s outside counsel, not the roughly $550,000 the attorney general’s office first requested.
The release describes the request as an estimated $550,000 headed to the board on Oct. 7. That was the figure in the original request, according to The Baltimore Sun. The attorney general’s office revised it twice, most recently on Oct. 6, and the board voted on a $50,000 payment to cover the motion to dismiss that Moore’s lawyers filed Oct. 2. The $50,000 is a cap on fees for that first phase, not the price of the whole case. It is unclear when the office will ask for more, or how much, if the motion is denied.
Rutledge says the original number shows where the office’s attention was. “Brown went shopping for a defense fund,” he said in the release. He argues the office should be spending its time on violent repeat offenders, gang cases, fentanyl trafficking and fraud against seniors, and backing State’s Attorneys and police.
“The $50,000 is a cap on fees for that first phase, not the price of the whole case.”
What the board did
“When Moore appears in a TV interview, he is speaking as our governor.”
Here is what the Sun and Maryland Matters reported about the vote:
- Treasurer Dereck Davis and Comptroller Brooke Lierman voted to approve the payment.
- Moore chairs the board but was absent. Lt. Gov. Aruna Miller sat in for him and did not vote. The Sun called it an abstention and Maryland Matters called it a recusal. Neither gave a reason.
- The firm, Foley Hoag, will bill $700 an hour for attorneys and $250 an hour for paralegals and litigation support, plus costs.
- The money comes from the state’s general fund.
Lierman defended the arrangement. She said state law requires the state to defend public employees sued while performing official duties, and that it applies to a governor. When Moore appears in a TV interview, she told the board, “he is speaking as our governor.” She also warned against letting a plaintiff with a big legal budget chill public officials into silence. Maryland Matters reported she predicted the motion to dismiss will probably succeed, and that if it does, the cost stops there. That is a prediction, not a ruling.
The Question Behind the Legal Bill
David Smith, co-owner of The Baltimore Sun and executive chairman of Sinclair, sued Moore on July 31 in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court. The suit alleges defamation and false light invasion of privacy over remarks Moore made June 16 on MS NOW. According to the complaint, Moore said Smith was “invested in by Jeffrey Epstein.” The complaint says Epstein-linked entities held at most about 0.063 percent of Sinclair’s Class A stock, in 2002 and 2013, and that Smith had no personal relationship with Epstein. Moore’s personal attorney has said Epstein-linked funds held Sinclair stock while Smith led the company. The governor’s office has called the claims baseless.
“A ruling on the first might not settle the second.”
The complaint also says Moore spoke in his individual capacity, not as part of any official function. That is Smith’s allegation, not a finding, but it is the center of Rutledge’s complaint.
Two separate questions are in play. The first is whether Moore is protected from Smith’s claims. His attorneys argue his statements are “absolutely privileged” and that he has immunity, according to Maryland Matters. Michael Grygiel, and Kelly McNamee, who lead Foley Hoag’s First Amendment and media practice, are among the lawyers who filed the motion. The second is whether state law entitles Moore to a state-funded defense. A ruling on the first might not settle the second.
On the second question, the statute is specific. Under Maryland State Government § 12-304, the attorney general must represent a state officer sued in a civil case when certain conditions are met. They include a written request, an investigation of the facts and a signed agreement under § 12-305. The attorney general must decline if the investigation finds the act or omission was outside the scope of employment, malicious or grossly negligent. The statute also gives the attorney general sole discretion over whether to take a case.
“The reporting reviewed does not explain how the scope-of-employment standard was applied to remarks made on a national television program.”
The attorney general’s office has determined Moore qualifies, and it said its own lawyers could not practicably handle the case. The Sun reported that the office has not outlined why Moore qualifies. The reporting reviewed does not explain how the scope-of-employment standard was applied to remarks made on a national television program, which is the point Rutledge presses. The Sun also reported that former state officials and legal scholars say Moore should not take part in decisions about his own defense. A spokesperson for the attorney general said the firm was chosen through a competitive process.
Taxpayers have one possible backstop. Section 12-305 requires an official who receives state representation to sign an agreement that lets the attorney general recover legal costs if a court finds, among other things, that immunity does not apply and that the conduct was malicious, grossly negligent or outside the scope of employment. Whether that could apply to Moore depends on findings that have not been made.
An initial request of roughly $550,000 to defend the governor against a lawsuit that names him personally, later cut to $50,000 for the first phase, invites scrutiny of both the legal basis for state representation and the cost to taxpayers. MDBayNews has reported that Maryland faces a budget gap of nearly $3 billion in fiscal 2028.
The Fells Point case
“Nothing in the reporting ties Brown’s office to the Fells Point case.”
On the morning of Sept. 29, Claudia Bismark, 76, and her husband, Wade, left breakfast at Broadway Market. Baltimore police said officers responded just after 9:30 a.m. and that the couple told them an unknown man knocked them down and took a wallet. Bismark owned the Bismark-Wilson Art Gallery on Bank Street. Friends told WBFF the couple had lived in Fells Point for decades. She died of her injuries on Thursday, Oct. 1.
Montray McCray, 32, was arrested Oct. 1. Charging documents, as reported by WBFF, say surveillance video shows a suspect inside the restaurant while Wade Bismark paid for breakfast in cash. Investigators allege the suspect watched, then followed the couple out. Police say Claudia Bismark was knocked unconscious. The wallet was later recovered, but the cash was gone.
McCray was first charged with assault, robbery and reckless endangerment. WBFF has since reported he faces first- and second-degree murder charges. A judge ordered him held without bail on Oct. 2 after prosecutors called him a high-risk defendant with at least five prior convictions over roughly a decade. WBFF reported those offenses range from drug and gun charges to traffic citations, evading arrest and retaliating against a witness. He is presumed innocent, and his public defender indicated the defense may challenge whether he is the man on the video. A preliminary hearing is set for Oct. 29.
WBFF, citing court records, also reported this history:
- A 2016 felony drug case in Baltimore City, listed as STET, meaning it stays pending with no action taken.
- A 2018 felony drug and gun case that the State’s Attorney’s Office said was never prosecuted.
- A 2019 finding of guilt for violating probation, with a sentence of two and a half years.
- A 2023 finding of guilt for violating a protective order.
- A separate alleged assault and robbery near the Inner Harbor on Sept. 26, according to court documents.
A prosecutor with the State’s Attorney’s Office told the court it is working on the case, WBFF reported. That office, not the attorney general’s, ordinarily prosecutes crimes in Baltimore. Nothing in the reporting ties Brown’s office to the Fells Point case, and the release frames the two as a question of priorities rather than cause and effect. Friend Kate Norris, speaking to WBFF after a candlelight vigil, said “it feels like the system failed us.”
Brown’s response
The attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to the Sun’s questions Wednesday. A response from Brown’s campaign to Rutledge’s release was not available in the reporting reviewed for this story. Brown, a Democrat, has been attorney general since January 2023 and faces Rutledge on the Nov. 3 ballot.
“Brown went shopping for a defense fund.”
What to Watch
- Whether Foley Hoag’s motion to dismiss succeeds, and whether the attorney general’s office seeks more taxpayer money.
- Whether the state publicly explains its determination that Moore qualified for representation under § 12-304.
- Whether any later court findings could trigger the reimbursement provision in § 12-305.
- Why Lt. Gov. Miller did not vote, and why the governor was absent.
- McCray’s Oct. 29 preliminary hearing.
- Early voting, which begins Oct. 22.
Sources: This report draws on the Rutledge for Attorney General press release dated Oct. 7, 2026, which is campaign material; Bryan P. Sears, Maryland Matters, “Board approves hiring powerhouse law firm to defend Moore in defamation case,” Oct. 7, 2026; Tinashe Chingarande, The Baltimore Sun, “Maryland board approves $50,000 for Gov. Moore’s legal defense against David Smith,” Oct. 7, 2026, read as syndicated by the Hanford Sentinel; Chingarande’s Oct. 5, 2026, Sun report on the $550,000 request and a related Sun report on Foley Hoag’s court filing, both as published by WBFF (Fox45); Smith’s complaint in Smith v. Moore, as posted by Courthouse News Service, and Courthouse News’s coverage of it; WBFF/Spotlight on Maryland reporting on the lawsuit and on Moore’s attorney’s response; Fox News’s report on Smith’s pre-suit threat; Md. Code, State Government §§ 12-304 and 12-305, as published by the Maryland General Assembly and FindLaw; Rebecca Pryor and Alexa Ashwell of FOX45 News, Oct. 2, 2026, on McCray’s bail hearing and the Bismark vigil; Dave Urbanski, Blaze Media, Oct. 6, 2026, summarizing WBFF’s reporting on the murder charges, McCray’s record and the Oct. 29 hearing; and MDBayNews’s Sept. 27, Sept. 29 and Oct. 2, 2026, reports. WBFF is a Sinclair station and Smith is Sinclair’s executive chairman. Murder charges and McCray’s record are as reported by WBFF and have not been checked against court records by MDBayNews. Moore’s motion to dismiss and the Board of Public Works meeting documents were not reviewed directly. MDBayNews did not contact the campaign, the attorney general’s office or the governor’s office for this report.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.