FEDERAL COURT / BALTIMORE, June 12 — Jacob
Rappaport, 41, a Towson attorney and former partner at
Levin Gann PA, pleaded guilty in federal court on April
22, 2026 to a felony conspiracy charge after federal
prosecutors accused him of fraudulently inflating prices
in real estate deals to secure more favorable loan terms.
A sentencing hearing before United States District Judge
Matthew J. Maddox is scheduled for June 23 at 10 a.m. in
Baltimore.
Rappaport's defense attorney moved
to file the sentencing letters entirely under seal, citing
medical information, information about minor children,
financial information, and sensitive personal information
. The motion does not explain why targeted redaction of
specific details would be insufficient, as required by
Fourth Circuit precedent and the District of Maryland's
own Local Rule 105.11.
Inner City Press filed an application with
Judge Maddox opposing the wholesale sealing. On June 12,
2026, Judge Maddox docketed
the application — formally placing ICP's press access
request into the public record of the case. Sentencing is
eleven days away. Inner City Press's application cites Lee
v. Greenwood, 145 F.4th 248 (2d Cir. 2025), in which
the Second Circuit recognized ICP's First Amendment right
to be heard on sealing motions and confirmed the right of
access to court documents in criminal proceedings.
The public interest here is specific and
concrete. Rappaport is an attorney — an officer of the
court — who used his position, his trust account, and his
professional relationships to help a client deceive banks
about the true price of Baltimore real estate
transactions. The Baltimore housing market, already
stressed by vacancy and disinvestment - Fair Finance Watch
has analyzed disparities in Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
data there and elsewhere - was part of the landscape for
this scheme.
What arguments Rappaport's
defense makes for leniency — what medical circumstances,
what family circumstances, what character letters from the
legal community — are matters the public has a right to
know, particularly given that a fellow attorney found a
replacement lawyer willing to participate in the scheme
when the first refused.
Lee v. Greenwood was a Second Circuit case
about a trial in New York. That decision is being carried
now into the Fourth Circuit. Watch this site.
