Why Maryland Removed Judge Marc Knapp

What Knapp Did

Marc Knapp was elected to the Anne Arundel County Orphans’ Court in 2022, one of three judges chosen that year to sit on the court alongside Chief Judge Vickie Gipson and a third judge, David Duba. Maryland’s Orphans’ Courts handle probate (wills, estates, and the property of minors and others under guardianship), and in most counties, including Anne Arundel, the judges are elected and need not be lawyers. Knapp earned a law degree in his seventies after a career in finance and had not practiced law in Maryland.

Most of the conduct that ended his tenure grew out of a prolonged, public feud with Chief Judge Gipson. The Commission found that Knapp engaged in a persistent course of unprofessional behavior: berating and belittling fellow judges and court staff in ways that undermined public confidence in the judiciary and interfered with the court’s operations. He testified that he had cursed at colleagues and leaned over their desks during arguments, and at a peace-order hearing he told the court flatly that he would not obey anything he perceived as an order from Gipson. The feud grew loud enough that police were called to the courthouse more than once, and a Maryland district court granted Gipson a temporary peace order against him.

The opinion identifies one piece of conduct as the case’s centerpiece: after being accused of secretly recording his colleagues, Knapp deleted several of the recordings in front of police officers who were investigating the complaint. The Court called that single act sufficient on its own to justify removal, on top of the long list of other violations.

Separately, Knapp was indicted in December 2024 on a criminal charge of unlawfully recording his colleagues. That prosecution never reached a verdict: a circuit judge found the key recording had been seized under a defective warrant and suppressed it, and the state dismissed the charge in 2025. The Commission’s ethics case proceeded on its own, separate track and did not depend on the criminal case’s outcome.

The Court’s opinion is notably even-handed about fault. Justice Booth wrote that Knapp was not solely to blame for the breakdown, and that Chief Judge Gipson herself is not “free from blame” for the conflict between them, a finding that runs alongside a separate Commission recommendation that Gipson also be removed. But the Court held that mutual fault does not excuse conduct that is fundamentally incompatible with judicial office, and that the judiciary is entitled to expect more from its members at every level.

What It Takes to Actually Remove a Judge

Removal is rare by design. In Maryland, the Commission on Judicial Disabilities investigates complaints, holds a trial-like proceeding, makes findings, and recommends a disposition, but it cannot remove anyone. Only the Supreme Court of Maryland can do that, under Article IV of the Maryland Constitution, on a finding of misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform the duties of the office, or conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. The Court reviews the record, hears argument, and decides.

Knapp’s case ran that full course. The Commission opened its investigation in February 2025 and recommended removal the following month; lesser measures (a temporary suspension, attempted mediation, and implicit-bias training) had already been tried and had not changed his behavior. The Supreme Court did not hear argument until June 4, 2026, and removed him the same day. Its full written opinion, laying out that reasoning in detail, followed six weeks later. In it, the Court wrote that it had “no trouble” concluding Knapp’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and separately called the misconduct “egregious.”

The case is also a reminder that an Orphans’ Court bench is not a single judge. Anne Arundel’s, like most in Maryland, is a three-judge panel, with a chief judge and two associate judges sharing the same courtroom and staff. That structure is exactly what turned a personal feud between two of the three into a matter the Commission and the Supreme Court had to resolve: there was no way to separate the judges from each other, or from the public they all served.

How It Works in Texas

Texas readers encounter a different body with a similar ladder: the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC), created by the Texas Constitution in 1965. The SCJC can issue private or public sanctions on its own: admonition, warning, reprimand, an order of additional education, or, as the most severe sanction it can impose itself, a public censure. What it cannot do is remove a judge by itself.

Removal in Texas runs through a separate Review Tribunal, a panel of appellate justices, to which the Commission recommends removal or retirement; the Tribunal decides, and the Texas Supreme Court hears any appeal. A judge sanctioned short of removal can also demand a Special Court of Review, a panel of three appellate justices, and a fresh trial de novo.

Texas reshaped this machinery recently. Proposition 12, approved by voters in 2025, restructured both the Commission and the Review Tribunal, authorizing private reprimands or training for first-time, non-criminal matters, requiring public sanctions or a removal-or-suspension referral when misconduct is willful or persistent, and empowering the Tribunal to suspend a judge without pay and, in some cases, bar a removed judge from holding judicial office again.

The throughline holds in both states: the conduct commission investigates and recommends, but the power to actually end a judge’s tenure rests with a court. For a fuller walk-through of the Texas process, see our explainer, The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Explained.

The Rules He Broke

How It Played in the Press

Maryland outlets followed the case in two waves. In June, coverage emphasized how fast the end came: the high court removed Knapp within hours of oral argument, granting the Commission’s request for expedited action, and noted the justices’ pointed, skeptical questioning of his counsel about whether he had made any effort to get along with Chief Judge Gipson. When the Court’s full 75-page opinion followed in July, coverage shifted to its reasoning: the deleted recordings as the case’s centerpiece violation, the Court’s finding that Gipson herself was not blameless, and the broader point that judges are not held to a standard of perfection, only to a standard of cooperation the Court called “paramount.” Reporting framed the outcome as a rare, on-the-record removal, the kind of sanction a disciplinary system reserves for cases it cannot fix any other way.

Where Is He Now?

Knapp’s removal took effect immediately on June 4, 2026. Removal did not bar him from seeking the seat back: he ran in this year’s Democratic primary for his old post but finished last among four candidates and will not appear on November’s ballot. Chief Judge Gipson did not seek reelection. Her own case (the Commission recommended her removal in May 2026) remains pending before the Supreme Court of Maryland, with a hearing set for September 9, 2026. Between Knapp’s loss and Gipson’s decision not to run, none of the three judges elected to the Anne Arundel Orphans’ Court in 2022 will be on the bench after this year. If Gipson’s case produces a ruling, the Gavel of Shame will follow up.

Sources

PRIMARY SOURCE

• Supreme Court of Maryland, In the Matter of the Hon. Marc Knapp (JD No. 1, Sept. Term 2025): order dated June 4, 2026; full opinion filed July 17, 2026. gov
• Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, Charges, CJD 2024-033 et al. gov

NEWS COVERAGE

• The Baltimore Banner: Maryland Supreme Court removes Anne Arundel Orphans’ Court Judge Marc Knapp. com
• The Baltimore Banner: Ethics commission recommends removal of Anne Arundel probate judge. com
• The Daily Record: MD Supreme Court had “no trouble” deciding to remove Anne Arundel Judge Marc Knapp (July 20, 2026), reporting on the Court’s full opinion. com
• Maryland Matters: State Supreme Court removed Anne Arundel Orphans’ Court judge for “egregious misconduct” (July 20, 2026). org
• The Baltimore Sun: Why was Anne Arundel judge removed? State Supreme Court explains ruling (July 21, 2026). com

REFERENCE

• Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct: FAQ. texas.gov
• Deandra Grant Law: The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Explained. com
• Ballotpedia: Texas Proposition 12 (2025). org

This post summarizes public judicial-discipline records and news reporting for general informational purposes. It is not legal advice, and nothing here implies that Chief Judge Gipson’s still-pending matter has been decided.