The Advocate - May 2022 by Baltimore County Bar Association

Advocate

The

May 2022

Newsletter of the Baltimore County Bar Association

VOLUME XXXI, NO. 10

Special Thanks to the Annual Sponsors of the Baltimore County Bar Association Title Sponsor - Law Firm Albers & Associates

Title Sponsor - Corporate Growth Solutions Team

Signature Sponsors - Corporate

Partner Sponsor - Law Firm

CRC Salomon Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Multi-Specialty HealthCare Nota by M&T Vallit Advisors

May 2022

Rice, Murtha and Psoras

Partner Sponsor - Corporate Sandy Spring Bank

Supporters - Corporate AbacusNext Health Quest

The Advocate

The President’s Message I also want to thank the Law Day Committee under the leadership of its acting chair, Stuart Cherry, Esquire, for ensuring the success of both events. For the BCBA, it has been an amazing bar year thus far. The BCBA’s members have celebrated our association’s Centennial Year with many terrific in-person programs, events, and memorable moments. The festivities continue later this month with the Centennial Black-Tie Banquet (the “Prom”) on Tuesday, May 17th, at Martin’s Valley Mansion. We have many pleasant surprises in store for attendees at the Prom. We are also hosting our annual golf outing at The Woodholme Country Club on Monday, May 23. If you have not yet confirmed your tickets to these events, please do so soon, as time is running out.

As our cover reflects, we were fortunate to be able to celebrate this year’s Law Day ceremonies in person and in style. This year’s theme, “Toward a More Perfect Union: the Constitution in Times of Change,” is thoughtprovoking and reflects opportunities for improvement. I want to give a special thanks to our guest speakers, the Honorable Matthew J. Fader, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, and the Honorable Erek L. Barron, the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, for their inspiring remarks. It is incredibly heart-warming for me to see my friend, Erek, grace our cover this month.

Next month will finish my year as president of the BCBA. It has been my honor to lead this Association through our celebrations marking the past 100 years. Please join us on June 16 at the Stated Meeting as I turn over the gavel to President-Elect Jack Turnbull, III, and look forward to his tenure as we begin our next 100 years. For my part, I am pleased to report that the state of the Baltimore County Bar Association is strong and vibrant. Membership revenues are at an all-time high and our in-person events have been well attended, well-received, and fun. I cannot wait to see everyone at the Prom later this month when we honor the past and welcome the future. Stay well and safe! - Stanford G. Gann, Jr. Your 103rd President of the Baltimore County Bar Association

Calendar of Events Please go to www.bcba.org and click on Calendar for an up-to-date listing of programs, events, and to register for all programs and events. 2

The Advocate

May 2022

2021-22 Officers

President President-Elect Secretary Treasurer

Stanford G. Gann, Jr. John G. Turnbull III Lisa Y. Settles Sondra M. Douglas

Executive Council Richard Grason VI Robert K. Erdman, Jr. Tyler J. Nowicki Michelle Daugherty Siri Alaina L. Storie Mariela D’Alessio Jay D. Miller, Immediate Past President Adam E. Konstas, Young Lawyers Chair Rachel M. Ruocco, Executive Director

The Advocate

Tracee Orlove Fruman Committee Chair Tommy Tompsett Committee Vice-Chair Jill Blum Graphic Designer

Contributing Writers Cynthia A. Batchelder Leon W. Berg David Cole Debra B. Cruz Tracee Orlove Fruman Ari J. Kodeck Hon. Syeetah Hampton-EL Kristine Howanski Mike Jacko William R. Levasseur, Jr. Ceecee Paizs Hoss Parvizian Jennifer W. Ritter Stuart Schadt Sandy Steeves Erika C. Surock Valerie E. Taylor Tommy Tompsett Martha White The Advocate is a monthly publication of the Baltimore County Bar Association informing its members about current events relating to law. Articles do not necessarily reflect the official position of the BCBA and publication does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed. The contents of advertisements are the responsibility of the advertisers and are not recommendations or endorsements by The Advocate. Publication deadline: 20th of the month preceding publication.

May 2022

Inside This Edition 444th Session of the MD General Assembly Update.............. 7 BCBA Events Law Day............................................................................. 43 BCBA Spotlight Member Spotlight: Ari Kodeck.......................................... 46 Law Clerk Spotlight: Sandy Lamy..................................... 47 Civil Law Update................................................................... 16 Committee Reports Criminal Law Committee.................................................. 19 Diversity & Inclusion Committee....................................... 21 Estate & Trust Committee.................................................. 23 Family Law Committee...................................................... 25 Membership & Admissions Committee............................. 30 Professionalism Committee................................................ 31 Solo & Small Firm Committee........................................... 34 Young Lawyers Committee................................................ 35 Practice in Focus: Ghostwriting and Limited Scope Representation........................................... 36

The Advocate

Court Notices May District Court Schedule BALTIMORE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT JUDGES’ ASSIGNMENT FOR

MAY 2022 13

8-1 #1

KDP

8-1 #2

KYW

MWS

KYW

8-1 #3

KYW E

8-1 #4

MWS

KDP

MWS

KDP

MWS

8-1 #7

VJ*

KDP

MWS

KDP

MWS

KDP

8-1 #8

GJP

VJ*

GJP

KYW

GJP

KDP

GJP

8-4 #1 8-4 #2

KMD/ pm KJR

KJR

KMD/ pm KJR

KJR

KMD/ pm KJR

KJR

DJW

DJW/ pm VJ

GJP

8-4 #3

SCZ

KMD

VJ*

SCZ

LAP

MWS

SCZ

KMD

SCZ

KDP

SCZ

8-4 #4

MLR

GJP

KMD

8-4 #5

SCZ

KMD

GJP

KMD

SCZ

KMD

8-4 #6

GJP

8-5 #1

MTP

8-5 #2

LAP

VJ*

LAP

VJ*

8-5 #3

BEF

LAP

BEF

8-1 #5 8-1 #6

Chambers

GJP R

KMD/ pm KJR

SCZ MLR

VJ LR

MTP LAP

SCZ

Judges: KYW- Kevin Y. Wiggins, KDP- Keith D. Pion, KP-Karen Pilarski, MWS- Michael W. Siri, GJP-Guido J. Porcarelli, KMD-Kimberly M. Davis, LR- Leo Ryan, MLR-Marsha L. Russell, KJR-Krystin J. Richardson, SCZ-Susan C. Zellweger, DJW-Dorothy J. Wilson, MTP-Michael T. Pate, BEF-Bruce E. Friedman, LAP-Lisa A. Phelps *VJ Indicates Visiting Judge to be assigned Judges’ assignments are subject to change without further notice

Centennial Black Tie Banquet on May 17 TICKET SALES END ON May 6th! Updated ticket and table information can be found HERE. Please remember, the Black Tie Banquet is an attorney-only event. The Black Tie Banquet is also a vaccine-required event. Once you have purchased your ticket, please CLICK HERE to certify your vaccination status or go to www.bcba.org and click on the red ‘Certification of COVID-19 Vaccinations’ button.

The Advocate

May 2022

Court Notices May District Court State’s Attorney’s Schedule MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

Date: 2

Date: 3

Date: 4

Date: 5

TO3 MARTIN TO4 COHEN TO5 POTTS

TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5

CA2 COHEN CA7 ABELL

CA2 SPENCER CA5 DESTEFANO CA7 DICKSON

SMITH RIGER (PM ONLY) DESTEFANO DICKSON

EX1 SPENCER EX2 LEGALL

EX1 POTTS (PM ONLY) EX2 MARTIN EX3 GERRY

EX1 RIGER EX2 LACHMAN EX3 SWECKER

Date: 9

Date: 10

Date: 11

Date: 12

TO3 GERRY TO4 LEGALL TO5 DICKSON

TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5

CA2 LEGALL CA7 MARTIN

CA2 ABELL CA5 DESTEFANO CA7 COHEN

LACHMAN POTTS (PM ONLY) ABELL SMITH

EX1 DESTEFANO EX2 SPENCER

EX1 GERRY (PM ONLY) EX2 RIGER EX3 SWECKER

EX1 POTTS EX2 SMITH EX3 LACHMAN

Date: 16

Date: 17

Date: 18

Date: 19

TO3 SWECKER TO4 SPENCER TO5 MARTIN

TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5

CA2 MARTIN CA7 LACHMAN

CA2 RIGER CA5 GERRY CA7 SMITH

GERRY LEGALL (PM ONLY) RIGER COHEN

EX1 POTTS EX2 ABELL

EX1 SMITH (PM ONLY) EX2 SPENCER EX3 SWECKER

EX1 ABELL EX2 LEGALL EX3 COHEN

Date: 23

Date: 24

Date: 25

Date: 26

TO3 SMITH TO4 SWECKER TO5 RIGER

TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5

CA2 SPENCER CA7 ABELL

CA2 DICKSON CA5 POTTS CA7 LACHMAN

DICKSON DESTEFANO (PM ONLY) POTTS COHEN

EX1 LACHMAN EX2 GERRY Date: 30

Date: 31

MEMORIAL DAY

TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5

EX1 RIGER (PM ONLY) EX2 SWECKER EX3 LEGALL

EX1 DESTEFANO EX2 COHEN EX3 MARTIN

DICKSON LEGALL (PM ONLY) GERRY ABELL

EX1 SMITH EX2 RIGER

CELEBRATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE NEW SPOTLIGHT ON MEMBER NEWS! Let us know about any awards, promotions, moves and other news you want to include about yourself or others. Fill out the online form here, or email rruocco@bcba.org May 2022

The Advocate

Court Notices Family Law Update Dear Bar Colleagues:

has been docketed, counsel may file a Request to Be Excused from Pre-Hearing Contempt Conference and Request for Hearing. Requests must be in writing and should be filed as soon as possible once the alleged contemnor has been served. Requests will be granted only if there is an Affidavit of Service on file. Parties who wish to go to mediation in addition to, or instead of, a hearing should contact the Office of Family Mediation at (410) 887-6570.

Judges Cavanaugh and Jakubowski have asked us to send out the following information from the April 6, 2022, Family Division Meeting: 1. Settlement Conferences: Beginning May 2, 2022, all settlement conferences will be held in person. All parties, counsel, and insurance adjusters should appear in person at the time printed on the Scheduling Order or other notice. Attorneys will not receive new notices reflecting the conversion of virtual Settlement Conferences to in person conferences. Requests to appear remotely should be filed at least 10 business days before the conference and will be granted only for good cause. 2. Change to Docketing of Reports Generated by the Family Support Services Office: The Clerks’ Office will be docketing the following reports generated by the FSS Office as “Sealed” rather than “Confidential;” this will enable all Judges in our Court, including Magistrates and Settlement Court Judges, to access these documents: Child Access Evaluations, Reports of Home Studies, Specific Issue Evaluations, and Reports of Mental Health Evaluations. A member of the public, as well as the parties, seeking to review any such report will have to file a Motion to Inspect. 3. Pre-Filed Exhibits: Pursuant to Md. Rule 20106(f), proposed exhibits shall be indexed, prenumbered, and pre-filed with the clerk at least three days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing or trial and served on the other parties. Further, please ensure that the name of the prefiled exhibit includes the exhibit number, the filing party, and a description of the exhibit; for example: Pre-Filed#1_Plaintiff Smith_ Aug2020BankStatement. 4. Pre-hearing Contempt Conferences: The purpose of Pre-Hearing Contempt Conferences is to determine whether a case is ready to be set in for a hearing. In cases where both parties are represented by counsel and an Affidavit of Service

5. Keeping Client’s Address Current with Court: The DCM office is tasked with mailing invoices to parties for such services as mediation and co-parenting classes. As a result, attorneys need to ensure that the Court has their clients’ current address on file in the event a client changes their address after a case has been opened. 6. Family Complex Case Track: At the time of the Scheduling Conference, attorneys should let the Court know if they believe the Family Complex Case Track is applicable. Please refer to the Family Differentiated Case Management Plan for information on each Case Track available in Family Law Cases and case criteria for each Track. 7. Telephonic Scheduling Conferences and Remote Scheduling Conferences: As a reminder, in cases where no minor children are involved, parties and counsel are scheduled for a Telephonic Scheduling Conference and not a Remote Scheduling Conference conducted through Zoom. 8. Appearance at Scheduling Conference: The DCM office has been experiencing an increasing problem with attorneys not appearing, or not appearing on-time, for Scheduling Conferences. As with any other Court Proceeding, both attorneys and parties are to appear for Scheduling Conferences at the assigned dates and times.

The Advocate

– Martha K. White, Esq. and William R. Levasseur, Jr., Esq.

May 2022

444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly Legislative Update The 444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly (MGA) concluded on April 11, 2022. The MGA introduced 2,495 bills and 19 Joint Resolutions, two Senate Simple Resolutions, and one House Simple Resolution in 2022. The following synopsis is not an exhaustive report of the Session’s legislative, but rather, an overview of particular topics that may impact your law practice or how you approach your next case. Please note that the MGA has passed all the below bills and has presented them to the Governor for consideration. Thus, the Governor can codify the legislation with his signature, passively allow the bill to become law without his signature, or veto the legislation. Should a bill be vetoed, it cannot be overridden next session, as we will have a new legislative body, and so the bill would have to be reintroduced and passed through both chambers. Leadership Priorities and Veto Overrides

serious health condition, as defined in the bill; c. Serious health condition for the covered employee; and d. Care of a service member or a qualifying exigency arising from the deployment of a service member; 6.

Foreseeable leave requires a 30-day notice to the employer;

Generally, the program provides 12-weeks of total benefits. An additional 12-weeks may be taken in the event a covered employee experiences their own serious health condition in the same year that they have a child;

All other leave must be exhausted before program benefits are accessed;

Leave shall be taken concurrently with any corresponding federal leave benefits, including the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA);

Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program

After years of study and discussion, the Maryland General Assembly (MGA) passed Senate Bill 275, sponsored by Senator Antonio Hayes (D – Baltimore City) and championed in the House by Chair CT Wilson (D – Charles County) and Delegate Kris Valderrama (D – Prince George’s County), which establishes a paid family and medical leave insurance program in the State of Maryland. After significant debate between the Senate and the House about the specific parameters of the program and the timing of implementation, the final legislation passed with the following provisions: 1.

Applies to employers with 15 or more employees;

Contributions to the insurance fund begin October 1, 2023;

The Department of Labor (DLR), in consultation with other agencies and stakeholders, shall make determinations on the total rate of contributions and the percentages contributed by employers and employees;

Employees may access leave benefits under the program beginning January 1, 2025;

Leave may be taken for the following:

a. Care of a newborn child or a child placed for adoption, foster care, or kinship care within the first year of birth, adoption, or placement;

b. Care of a qualifying family member with a

May 2022

10. During the benefit period, an employee may only be terminated for cause; 11. An employer can only deny restoration of an employee’s position to prevent substantial and grievous economic injury to the operations of the employer; 12. Preempts local jurisdictions from implementing their own paid family and medical leave insurance programs; and 13. Requires regular actuarial studies to determine the solvency of the underlying fund. Based on concerns from employers about the potential economic impact of the program, particularly in light of the recent effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the bill passed substantially along party lines and was subsequently vetoed by the Governor. The MGA overrode that veto in the final days of the Session, and the bill’s implementation begins on its effective date of June 1, 2022. Comprehensive Climate Change Solutions

Another major priority for Democratic leadership in both the Senate and House for the 2022 Legislative Session was passing comprehensive legislation to mitigate the impact of climate change. Senate Bill 528, entitled the Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022 and sponsored by Chair Paul Pinsky (D – Prince George’s County), establishes substantial climate change goals and programs

The Advocate

444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly in the State, including broad greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals, modified building standards, a move away from fossil fuels and towards complete electrification, changes to the transportation sector, and several incentives and programs aimed at reducing Maryland’s climate impact. Statewide Emission Goals: The finalized bill calls for Maryland to reduce by 2031 GHG emissions by 60% (compared to a 2006 baseline) and reach net-zero emissions by 2045. To meet these goals, the bill requires the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to submit a draft plan for achieving the 2031 goal by June 30, 2023, and adopt a final plan by December 31, 2023. Similarly, MDE must adopt a final plan for the net zero goal by December 31, 2030. The legislation also includes the MGA’s strong intent to transition new and eventually existing buildings from fossil fuels (gas, propane, and oil) to 100% electricity for air temperature and water heating needs. Finally, the bill establishes a Climate Transition and Clean Energy Hub to serve as a clearinghouse for efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Building Standards: In keeping with the aforementioned State goal to move toward “broader electrification of both existing buildings and new construction,” the SB528 requires the Building Codes Administration and the Public Service Commission (PSC) to develop recommendations for a building code that would require most new buildings to rely solely on electricity for internal use. The recommendations will include a review of building technologies and the readiness of the electric grid for the transition. Additionally, the bill applies new requirements to existing commercial or multi-family residential buildings with a gross floor area of 8 35,000 square feet or more. Excluded from these requirements are historic buildings, schools, manufacturing buildings, agricultural buildings, and commercial kitchens. Transportation: Turning to transportation, SB528 establishes requirements within the State’s procurement policy requiring the purchase of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) for the state vehicle fleet. From 2023 to 2025, a quarter of the purchases of passenger cars must be ZEVs, and that percentage climbs to 100% by 2028. The bill sets similar targets for light-duty vehicles with a slightly extended deadline. The bill also adopts language from other legislation to establish an electric school bus incentive program for school systems throughout the 8

State. The Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, as it passed the MGA, represents the most aggressive climate change policy shift Maryland has ever pursued and will likely create a myriad of new environmentally focused programs and policies. Throughout the Session, the Governor repeatedly voiced concerns about SB528, primarily due to its potential cost to the State, businesses, ratepayers, and citizens. However, he ultimately decided not to veto the controversial legislation and allowed it to pass as a function of law in the final days of the Session. Generally, SB528 takes effect on June 1, 2022, but various elements and requirements are effective at different points in time and are subject to sunset provisions. Abortion Access

In the wake of anti-abortion legislation introduced in Texas and other states and legal activity relating to abortion access being raised in federal courts, Maryland’s Democratic leadership sought to pass legislation to clarify and strengthen women’s ability to access abortion services in the State. Senate Bill 890/House Bill 937, sponsored by Chair Delores Kelley (D-Baltimore County) and Delegate Ariana Kelly (D-Montgomery County), was introduced to ensure continued access to abortion services as an essential component of healthcare services in Maryland. As amended, the bill (1) establishes the Abortion Care Clinical Training Program, (2) expands the types of healthcare practitioners permitted to provide abortion services under Maryland law, and (3) mandates full coverage for abortion services under both Maryland Medicaid and private health insurance. After significant debate in both chambers, the legislation passed substantially along party lines in both the Senate and House and was presented to the Governor on March 29, 2022, who quickly vetoed the bill, citing concerns for the health and safety of Maryland’s women. The MGA’s Democratic supermajority summarily overrode the Governor’s veto while still in Session. The bill will take effect on July 1, 2022, and gives insurance plans until January 1, 2023, to update their policies to comply with the bill’s provisions. Additionally, $3.5 million for the established training program and a corresponding fund was also allocated in the FY2023 Operating Budget. A companion piece of legislation, House Bill 1171, sponsored by Speaker Adrienne Jones (D-Baltimore County), was introduced, and passed by the House. This bill would have amended the Maryland Constitution to explicitly include a right to reproductive liberty and put that amendment up for referendum in the upcoming gubernatorial election. While the legislation passed the House with stronger numbers than the corresponding

The Advocate

May 2022

444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly policy bill, the Senate failed to act on the bill beyond the initial public hearing and the bill failed to progress. Recreational Cannabis Use – Legalization

After significant debate in both the Senate and House, House Bill 1, sponsored by Chair Luke Clippinger (D – Baltimore City), passed to present a constitutional amendment referendum to voters in the 2022 Gubernatorial election on the legalization of the adult-use of cannabis. Assuming voter approval of the referendum, the MGA will work during the 2023 Legislative Session to establish a more comprehensive regulatory and taxing framework for the adult-use program. Additionally, Chair Clippinger introduced and passed companion legislation, House Bill 837, which set forth provisions relating to “Cannabis Reform.” The vast majority of HB837 is subject to the ratification of the constitutional amendment in House Bill 1. As passed, the bill does the following: 1.

Designates the Alcohol Tobacco Commission (ATC) as the regulator of both medical and recreational cannabis. The ATC will succeed the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission (MMCC) for oversight of the current medical cannabis program.

Requires a study to collect baseline data on Maryland cannabis use and its effects, as well as a study on:

a. a home grow program to authorize qualifying patients to grow cannabis for personal use; b. the establishment of on-site consumption facilities; and

cannabis

c. methods to reduce the use of cannabis by minors. 3.

Creates a Cannabis Business Assistance Fund to assist small, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses entering the adult-use cannabis industry.

Allows a person who is 21 or older to possess and cultivate a “personal-use” amount of cannabis, defined as up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis, up to 12 grams of concentrated cannabis, cannabis products containing up to 750 mg of delta-9 THC or, as of July 1, 2023, up to two cannabis plants. The bill also allows Marylanders to engage in “adult sharing” of cannabis.

Creates a Cannabis Public Health Advisory Council to advise the state on the proposed adult use program and a Cannabis Public Health Fund.

Establishes a Community Investment and Repair Fund to provide economic assistance to organizations that serve communities which have been the most adversely affected by the disproportionate enforcement of cannabis laws prior to July 22, 2022.

Includes a state-level 280e fix, allowing a subtraction modification against the State individual and corporate income tax for ordinary and necessary business expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year for MMCC licensees and future adult use licensees. This applies to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.

Legislation that would have completely legalized adultuse of cannabis, Senate Bill 692, sponsored by Senator Jill Carter (D – Baltimore City) and Senate Bill 833, sponsored by Senator Brian Feldman (D - Montgomery County) failed to pass. Both SB692 and SB833 proposed a regulatory and taxing structure, as well as specific criminal justice reforms Public Safety/Criminal Law Juvenile Interrogation

Senator Jill Carter (D – Baltimore City) and Delegate Sandy Bartlett (D – Anne Arundel County) reintroduced the Child Interrogation Protection Act to ensure safeguards against false confessions from children in police custody. Senate Bill 53/House Bill 269 specifies that if a law enforcement officer takes a child into custody, the officer must immediately notify, or cause to notify, the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice of the action. The notice must include the child’s location, provide the reason for the child being taken into custody, and instruct the parent, guardian, or custodian on how to make immediate in-person contact with the child. A law enforcement agency conducting an interrogation must maintain a record of the notification or attempted notification, including: 1.

A signed statement by a duly authorized law enforcement officer employed by the agency that an attempt to notify a parent, guardian, or custodian was made;

The Advocate

Requires a disparity study.

Allows for the expungement of all prior convictions for cases in which cannabis possession

May 2022

is the only charge in the case and the charge was issued before July 1, 2023.

444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly 2.

The name of the person sought to be notified; and

The method of attempted notification.

A law enforcement agency must also maintain a record of the name of the attorney contacted and the county or counties in which the attorney provided the consultation. The bill further specifies that regardless of the above requirements, a law enforcement officer may conduct an otherwise lawful custodial interrogation of a child if the law enforcement officer reasonably believes that the information sought is necessary to protect against a threat to public safety and the questions posed to the child by the law enforcement officer are limited to those questions reasonably necessary to obtain the information necessary to protect against the threat to public safety. Unless it is impossible, impracticable, or unsafe to do so, interrogations under these circumstances must be recorded. In a jurisdiction that has adopted the use of body-worn digital recording devices by law enforcement officers, the interrogation may be recorded using such a device in a manner consistent with applicable policies. In a jurisdiction that has not adopted the use of bodyworn digital recording devices, the interrogation may be recorded using other video and audio recording technology, consistent with any applicable policies. A child being interrogated under such circumstances must be informed that the interrogation is being recorded. Finally, the bill specifies that a law enforcement officer who charges a minor with a criminal offense must make a reasonable attempt to provide actual notice to the parent or guardian of the minor. The bill was vetoed by the Governor, but summarily overridden by the legislature along the same party lines as it was passed in the MGA. The bill takes effect October 1, 2022. Ghost Guns

Legislation introduced by request of Attorney General Brian Frosh (D – Montgomery County) passed this Session to address the loophole concerning “ghost guns” or untraceable firearms. Advocates for the legislation cited a surge in ghost guns causing a dangerous public threat. In Montgomery County, for example, ghost gun seizures increased fivefold in two years, from 16 in 2019, to 70 in 2021. In November 2020, the Baltimore Sun reported that between 2016 and 2019, more than 12,000 build kits for untraceable firearms were shipped to Maryland. The Baltimore City Police Department recovered 126 privately made firearms in 2020 compared to 29 recovered in 2019, and that nearly one-quarter of 10

such firearms recovered were from individuals under the age of 21. The guns do not have serial numbers making them untraceable and they do not require background checks to purchase. In a statement made by Attorney General Frosh, ghost guns are purchased easily over the internet, making them accessible to children, violent felons, domestic abusers, and others who are ineligible to own a firearm. The final legislation will require the Secretary of the Maryland State Police to maintain a system to register firearms imprinted with serial numbers. The bill also prohibits a person from purchasing, receiving, selling, offering to sell, or transferring an “unfinished frame or receiver” or a firearm unless imprinted with a specified serial number. “Unfinished frame or receiver” means a forged, cast, printed, extruded, or machined body that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm. The bill also requires the Secretary to suspend or revoke a dealer’s license relating to untraceable firearms; establishes penalties for violations of the bill; and expands a firearm’s definition to include an unfinished frame or receiver. The legislation was passed in both chambers and will take effect on June 1, 2022. Beginning March 1, 2023, a person may not possess a firearm unless the firearm has been registered with the Secretary; and the firearm is required by federal law to be, and has been, imprinted by a federally licensed firearms manufacturer or federally licensed firearms importer, or other federal licensee authorized to provide marking services, with a serial number in compliance with all federal laws and regulations applicable to the manufacture and import of firearms or the firearm has been imprinted by a federally licensed firearms dealer, federal firearms manufacturer, or other federal licensees authorized to provide marking services with specified information. The bill was presented to the Governor while the legislature was still in session. After deliberation, the Governor allowed the bill to become law without his signature. The effective date of this legislation is June 1, 2022. Definition of Stalking

Maryland’s original stalking statute was passed at a time before the existence of electronic methods of communication and tracking a person. As such, the stalking statute in its current form only addresses physical forms of following a victim. Today, most stalking is committed using electronic means of communication

The Advocate

May 2022

444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly or tracking, instead of physically pursuing a victim. Senate Bill 328/House Bill 148, proposed by Senator Jeff Waldstreicher (D - Montgomery County) and Delegate Sandy Bartlett (D - Anne Arundel County) modernizes Maryland’s stalking statute. The bill alters the definition of stalking to include conduct that occurs by electronic communication or through the use of a device that can pinpoint or track the location of another without the person’s knowledge or consent. Section 3-805 of the Criminal Law Article defines “electronic communication” as the act of transmitting any information, data, writing, image, or communication by the use of a computer or any other electronic means, including any communication that involves the use of email, an instant messaging service, an Internet website, a social media application, a network call, a facsimile machine, or any other Internetbased communication tool. The bill passed the full MGA and takes effect October 1, 2022. Out of Court Statements by Child Victims and Witnesses

Senate Bill 20/House Bill 284 was introduced by Senator Susan Lee and Delegate Charlotte Crutchfield (both Ds – Montgomery County), to expand Maryland’s existing Tender Years Doctrine, which governs hearsay admissions of children who are the victims of crime. Generally, out-of-court statements made to prove the truth of the matter asserted are not admissible in a trial. However, the Tender Years Doctrine currently authorizes the admission of an out-of-court statement in a juvenile court or criminal proceeding made by a child victim of a violent crime. Under the new expansion, a court will be allowed to admit into evidence an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement made by a child victim or a witness who is younger than age 13 and is the alleged victim or the child alleged to need assistance in the case before the court concerning: 1.

Child abuse or sexual abuse of a minor;

First- or second-degree rape or a third-degree sexual offense;

Attempted rape in the first or second degree; or

Abuse or neglect in a juvenile court proceeding.

Proponents of the bill successfully argued that the expansion would reduce the need for that child to have to come to court and testify about traumatizing events. All existing indicia of reliability under current law and procedural safeguards would remain the same. The bill takes effect October 1, 2022.

May 2022

Spousal Privilege

House Bill 210, introduced by Delegate Robin Grammar (R – Baltimore County) establishes that the spouse of a person on trial for a crime may be compelled to testify as an adverse witness if the person on trial and the spouse married after the date on which the alleged crime for which the person is on trial occurred. This is a significant change to the current law where the spouse of a person on trial for a crime may not be compelled to testify against that person unless the charge involves the abuse of a child younger than age 18. The spousal testimony privilege is also unavailable under current law when the charge is assault in any degree in which the spouse is a victim under the following circumstances: the person on trial was previously charged with assault in any degree or assault and battery of the spouse; the spouse was sworn to testify at the previous trial; and the spouse refused to testify at the previous trial by asserting the spousal testimony privilege. The bill becomes effective October 1, 2022. Breath Tests

The Maryland Department of Health introduced a bill to transfer the authority to approve testing procedures, equipment, and training programs for the administration of the blood and breath testing program from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) to the Maryland Department of State Police (DSP). OCME’s oversight of the program is a legacy from 1962 when its toxicologist was the only state position that required expertise in toxicology testing and therefore was designated as the State Toxicologist by proxy. The State Toxicologist, under the Postmortem Examiner’s Commission, approves and certifies blood and breath testing, as well as all equipment and procedures used for it. This bill, which becomes effective October 1, 2022, will transfer the approval from the post-mortem State Toxicologist to a newly created and fully funded, ante-mortem toxicologist within DSP. Civil Law CINA Hearings

Under current law, statutory provisions outline numerous requirements for child in need of assistance (CINA) proceedings, including those related to mandatory hearings. A juvenile court may grant custody and guardianship of a CINA to a relative or non-relative, which terminates the child’s case unless the court finds good cause not to terminate. If the court finds good cause not to terminate a case after granting custody and guardianship to a relative or other individual, the court

The Advocate

444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly must conduct a review hearing every 12 months until the case is terminated. The court may not conclude a review hearing unless the court has seen the child in person.

contempt for failure to appear in court for an examination in aid of enforcement of a money judgment entered in a small claim action in the District Court.

Under current law, the court must generally conduct a hearing at least every 6 months to review the permanency plan of a CINA in out-of-home placement until commitment is rescinded or a voluntary placement is terminated. The court must conduct a review hearing every 12 months after the court determines that the child continue in an out-of-home placement with a specific caregiver who agrees to care for the child on a permanent basis. At the review hearing, the court must take specified actions, including determining the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the commitment and determining and documenting in its order whether reasonable efforts have been made to finalize the permanency plan that is in effect.

The Maryland Judiciary protested the bill noting, “The method contemplated in [this bill] effectively eliminates the ability of the court to enforce its orders. By not allowing the arrest of an individual for failure to respond to a court order, that individual is essentially free to disregard the orders of the court, with no repercussions.” As a result, the bill was amended to prohibit the District Court from ordering the appearance of an individual for an examination in aid of enforcement of a money judgment in a small claims action or ordering an individual to answer interrogatories in aid of execution of a money judgment.

Senate Bill 203, made at the request of the Department of Human Services, repeals the exception for a review hearing every 12 months if the child is continued in an outof-home placement with a specific caregiver, as specified above. The bill also requires the court at review hearings to determine the appropriateness of and the extent of compliance with the case plan for the child. When the permanency plan is another planned permanent living arrangement, the bill also requires the review hearing to include 1.

a determination on the adequacy of the steps the local department is taking to ensure that the child’s foster family home or child care institution is following the reasonable and prudent parent standard;

a determination of whether the child has regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in ageor developmentally appropriate activities; and

a consultation with the child in an age-appropriate manner regarding the opportunities for the child to participate in such activities.

The bill takes effect October 1, 2022. Small Claims Actions

Senator William C. Smith, Jr. (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate David Moon (D – Montgomery County) introduced Senate Bill 452/House Bill 349 to prohibit an individual from being arrested or incarcerated for failure to respond to an order to appear in court (1) for an examination in aid of enforcement of a money judgment entered in a small claim action in the District Court or (2) to show cause why the individual should not be found in 12

The amended bill becomes effective October 1, 2022. Marriage License - Name Change

Senate Bill 377/House Bill 369 requires the clerk of the circuit court for the county that issued an original marriage license must issue, on written request made under penalty of perjury of both parties to a marriage, a new marriage record if the clerk receives satisfactory proof that a court of competent jurisdiction, regardless of location, has issued an order for a change of name for a party to the marriage. The clerk must also accept a request for a new marriage record on the presentation of a death certificate for a party to a marriage. In addition, the bill requires the clerk to accept a request without the written request of both parties if a court order instructing a marriage record to be changed is presented. A new marriage record issued under the bill’s provisions must designate the parties using gender-neutral language and, if the name of a party to the marriage has been changed at any time, reflect the name that was most recently established and for which a certified order of change of name or other appropriate evidence has been submitted. The new marriage record may not be marked as “amended” or otherwise show that changes have been made to a name of a party or, if applicable, a gender designation. If a new marriage record is issued, the clerk must (1) substitute the new electronic record for the existing record on file and (2) report and transmit a copy to the Secretary of Health, in accordance with existing statutory requirements. After the issuance of a new marriage record, any certified copy of the record that is issued must be a copy of the new marriage record, unless a court of competent jurisdiction orders the issuance of a copy of the original marriage record.

The Advocate

May 2022

444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly The bill, introduced by Senator Susan Lee (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Lisa Belcastro (D – Baltimore County) becomes effective October 1, 2022. Rental Licensing Requirements – Failure to Pay Rent Proceedings

In McDaniel v. Baranowski, 419 Md. 560 (2011), the Maryland Court of Appeals held that a landlord is not entitled to use specified statutory remedies upon a tenant’s failure to pay rent if the landlord has not complied with applicable residential licensing requirements. However, in Velicky v. The Copycat Building LLC, 474 Md. 201 (2021) the Court of Appeals held that a landlord could avail itself of the summary procedures of the tenant holding over statute to evict two residential tenants who did not vacate their apartments after receiving a 60-day notice to quit despite the fact that the landlord did not have a rental license as required by Baltimore City law. The Court also noted that a license for the rental of residential property deals with leasing property to a tenant, and the condition that the property must be in, but the subject case pertained to a landlord getting the property back from tenants after their tenancies expired. With that background, House Bill 174, introduced by Delegate Mary Lehman (D – Prince George’s County), will require a landlord, or a landlord’s agent, who files a written complaint to repossess property due to a tenant’s failure to pay rent to plead and demonstrate that the rental property is in compliance with, or exempt from, any applicable local licensing requirements. At a trial for repossession for failure to pay rent, a landlord has the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the court that the property is in compliance with, or exempt from, any applicable local licensing requirements and may present an electronic copy of the license to satisfy this burden. If the landlord fails to provide proof of compliance or exemption, the court may not enter a judgment in favor of the landlord. The bill takes effect January 1, 2023. Calculation of Damages - Loss of Earnings

Senate Bill 313/House Bill 244 will prohibit a calculation of damages for loss of earnings resulting from personal injury or wrongful death from being reduced based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Currently, no provisions in statute address the use of race, ethnicity, or gender in the calculation of damages. The bill applies prospectively to causes of action arising on or after its October 1, 2022 effective date.

May 2022

Court Procedure Mandatory Judicial Training for Child Custody Cases

Under Senate Bill 17/House Bill 561, introduced by Senator Chris West (R – Baltimore County) and Delegate Wanika Fisher (D – Prince George’s County), within a judge’s first year of presiding over child custody cases involving child abuse or domestic violence, the judge must receive at least 20 hours of initial training which covers the following: •

the typical brain development of infants and children;

•

the process for investigating a report of suspected child abuse or child sexual abuse, as specified;

•

the dynamics and effects of child sexual abuse, physical and emotional child abuse, and domestic violence;

•

the impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and the importance of considering this impact when making child custody and visitation decisions;

•

the potential impacts of explicit and implicit bias on child custody decisions; and

•

standards for the knowledge, experience, and qualifications of child sexual abuse evaluators and treatment providers.

The bill generally takes effect July 1, 2022; however, the mandated training requirements are subject to a delayed effective date of July 1, 2024. Jury Duty Per Diem

Senator Jill Carter (D – Baltimore City) and Delegate David Moon (D – Montgomery County) passed Senate Bill 775/House Bill 208 to increase, from $15 to $30, the basic State per diem for jury service and the per diem for trial jurors for the first five days of jury service. The bill takes effect October 1, 2022. Court Service of Process Fees

House Bill 176 will increase, from $40 to $60, the fees that a sheriff must generally collect (1) for service of a paper not including an execution or attachment and (2) for service of process papers arising out of administrative agency proceedings where the party requesting the service is a nongovernmental entity. However, the bill specifies that, consistent with current law, a sheriff must collect $40 for service of a paper for (1) a breach of lease; (2) a tenant holdover; (3) a warrant of restitution; (4) a wrongful entry and detainer; or (5) an order of levy in distress. The bill

The Advocate

444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly does not alter other existing exceptions to these general fee requirements. Introduced by Delegate Jon Cardin (D – Baltimore County), the bill becomes effective October 1, 2022. District Court Jurisdiction

In Angel Enterprises Limited Partnership v. Talbot County, Maryland, 474 Md. 236 (2021), the Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit, and invalidated penalties that had been imposed, on the basis that the adjudication of civil penalties by a charter county is within the original jurisdiction of the courts, and not a local board of appeals established by a charter county under the Express Powers Act. The court also noted that the jurisdiction conferred upon a local board of appeals by § 10-305 of the Local Government Article does not include original jurisdiction or administrative adjudicatory review of civil fines or penalties or other civil assessments. Beginning June 1, 2022, House Bill 1448 will change that holding. Introduced by Delegate Luke Clippinger (D – Baltimore City), HB 1448 will provide the District Court with concurrent civil jurisdiction with a governing body of a county or the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore over a proceeding for adjudication of a violation of an ordinance enacted (1) by a charter county for which a civil penalty is provided under § 10-202 of the Local Government Article; (2) by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore for which a civil penalty is provided by ordinance; or (3) by a code county for which a civil citation is issued under Title 11, Subtitle 3 of the Local Government Article.

The governing body of a county or the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore may delegate the authority (described above) to a board, commission, agency, or officer under its jurisdiction and control. Correspondingly, the bill amends § 10-305 of the Local Government Article to specify that a county board of appeals may have original jurisdiction or jurisdiction to review the action of an administrative officer or unit of county government over matters arising under any law, ordinance, or regulation of the county council that concerns the adjudication of a violation of an ordinance that has been delegated in the manner authorized under the bill. Wills and Trust Instruments – Electronic Execution

Senate Bill 36/House Bill 576, which became law with the Governor’s signature, authorizes the execution of an electronic will or remotely witnessed will without a notary public if: 1.

the will is signed, acknowledged, and sworn to before a supervising attorney;

the supervising attorney attaches a specified form to the will; and

The Advocate

May 2022

444th Session of the Maryland General Assembly 3.

the supervising attorney does not serve as a witness to the will.

Under the bill, a notary public can perform a notarial act using communication technology for a remotely located individual with respect to a trust instrument, as defined under § 14.5-103 of the Estates and Trusts Article, if specified requirements under the State Government Article are met. The bill further makes a clarifying change to remove a will as an exception to the authorization for a notary public to perform a notarial act using communication technology for a remotely located individual. The bill was introduced by Senator Chris West (R – Baltimore County) and Delegate Wanika Fisher (D – Prince George’s County) Estates and Trusts - Supported Decision Making

The stated purpose of Title 18 (Supported Decision Making) of the Estates and Trusts Article, established by the bill, is to assist adults by (1) obtaining support for the adult to make, communicate, or effectuate decisions that correspond to the adult’s will, preferences, and choices and (2) preventing the need for the appointment of a substitute decision-maker, including a guardian of the person or property. Senate Bill559/House Bill 529, introduced by Senator Jeff Waldstreicher (D – Montgomery County) and Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D – Prince George’s County), does the following:

authorizes the use of supported decision making;

establishes a process for entering a supported decision-making agreement, and the effect of an agreement;

define the role of a supporter;

establish specified immunity for third parties; and

make a related change to the definition of “incapable of making an informed decision” under the Health Care Decisions Act.

The bill becomes effective October 1, 2022. Temporary Protective Order Electronic Filing

Under Senate Bill 280/House Bill 296, a petitioner may file electronically a petition for a temporary protective order with a court from: •

a domestic violence prevention or assistance program;

•

a sexual assault prevention or assistance program;

•

a human trafficking prevention or assistance program;

•

a child advocacy center;

•

a vulnerable adult program;

•

a hospital where the petitioner is receiving medical treatment, while the petitioner is at the hospital; or • another approved by the court.

Experts in Elder Law, Estate and Special Needs Planning

Medical Assistance Eligibility Planning and Asset Protection Disability Planning / Special Needs Trusts / Veterans Benefits Healthcare Directives / Living Wills Trusts / Estate Planning and Administration Wills / Powers of Attorney / Guardianship 410.337.8900 | www.frankelderlaw.com | 1.888.338.0400 Towson, Columbia, Easton

May 2022

The Advocate

location

A court that receives a petition filed electronically in accordance with the bill’s provisions must hold a hearing on the petition through the use of video conferencing on (1) the same business day if the petition is filed during regular court hours and the court is open or (2) the next business day the court is open if the petition is not filed during regular court hours The bill becomes effective October 1, 2022. Senator Shelly Hettleman (D – Baltimore County) and Delegate Charlotte Crutchfield (D – Montgomery County) sponsored the bill. – Tommy Tompsett, Esq.

Civil Law Update A Review of the Amicus Curiarum for March 2022 revealed the following civil cases of interest: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Jason Mercer v. Thomas B. Finan Center, No. 9, September Term 2021, Filed December 2021. Opinion by Watts, Shirley M. Judge, (McDonald and Booth, JJ, concur and dissent) In July 2019, Mr. Mercer, a patient at a psychiatric institution, refused to take prescribed psychotropic medication. Mercer requested a hearing within the 48hour deadline but indicated on a form that he declined legal representation and would appear at the hearing on his own behalf. He received a notice of hearing date advising that he had a right to request representation or the assistance of a lawyer or other advocate of his choice for the administrative hearing. On the day of the hearing, Mercer requested counsel, which the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) treated as a request for a postponement. The ALJ determined that Mercer had been given the opportunity for legal representation at no cost to himself, which he declined, and that there was no basis for a postponement. The ALJ upheld the Center’s determination that Mercer should be medicated. Mercer filed a petition for judicial review and appeared with counsel. The circuit court affirmed the findings of the ALJ related to his opportunity for counsel. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plain language of Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen Section 10-708 provides that an individual possesses the right to counsel upon request and that the statute does not impose a time limit or deadline by which an individual must make a request for counsel. In order to waive such a right, it must be verified on the record at the time of the hearing that an individual has knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to counsel and elected to proceed without legal representation. Therefore, the ALJ erred in declining Mercer’s request to be represented by counsel at the administrative hearing. Further, the Court of Appeals held that after a careful balancing of the factors that the Supreme Court outlined in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976) for evaluating procedural due process questions, given the significant constitutionally protected liberty interest at stake, the apparent inadequacy of the current procedures to avoid erroneous deprivation of the interest, and the center’s unexplained delay in takin action in furtherance of the State’s interest, the ALJ deprived Mercer of procedural due process in declining his request for counsel at the administrative hearing. 16

Ceecee Paizs IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS:

Prince George’s County Department of Social Services v. Akeem Taharaka, no. 786, September Term 202, filed February 25, 2022. Opinion by Friedman, Dan, Judge Prince George’s County DSS received notice from a mandated reporter that A.B., then 16, had disclosed that her grandmother’s boyfriend, Mr. Taharaka, had raped her approximately five years earlier when she was living with her grandmother. After an investigation, DSS found Taharaka “indicated” for child sexual abuse. Taharaka appealed and requested an administrative hearing. Taharaka, his sister, and a DSS social worker testified during the hearing. A.B. did not testify, but her prior out-of-court statements, as recorded by the mandated reporter and as told to the DSS during her two interviews, were admitted into evidence. The ALJ applied the factors under the tender years exception to determine whether A.B.’s statements were sufficiently reliable to be considered credible evidence of child sexual abuse. Based on a finding that A.B.’s statements were not sufficiently credible and that Taharaka’s testimony was credible, DSS had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Taharaka was a regular presence in the home and thus could not have committed child sexual abuse as defined by statute. The ALJ ordered DSS to modify its disposition from “indicated” to “ruled out”. DSS appealed to the circuit court which affirmed the ALJ’s decision.

The Advocate

May 2022

Civil Law Update The Court of Special Appeals reversed and remanded, with instructions to the circuit court to vacate the decision of the ALJ and remand the matter to the Office of Administrative hearings for further proceedings. The Court held that the ALJ’s determination that A.B.’s statements were not credible was arbitrary and capricious, and that the ALJ based his determination that Taharaka was credible on incomplete information. The ALJ used factors in a manner that was not consistent with current understandings of child sexual abuse and traumainformed credibility assessment but rather on an outdated perspective not supported by social science. Second, the ALJ’s determination that Taharaka was credible was based solely on Taharaka’s employment history and therefore based on incomplete information. Further, the Court instructed the Office of Administrative hearings to enter an order that Taharaka was a regular presence in the home and to take whether evidence it determined necessary to reconsider the credibility of the witnesses and their statements and weigh whether to affirm or modify DSS’ disposit. Finally, the Court held that the undisputed record revealed that Taharaka was a regular presence in A.B.’s home and was involved in A.B.’s life at the time of the alleged abuse.

stating that it was the lawful owner of the Note and detailing its transfer history. The circuit court issued an order in February 2020 denying Jones’ motion, and Jones appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s holding that Substitute Trustees had standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings pursuant to CL Section 3-309. After considering other jurisdictions’ interpretations of the 1990 revision to UCC Section 3-309, the Court held that Substitute Trustees were entitled to enforce the Note because the terms of the Note were uncontroverted, the original entity, World Savings Bank, was in possession of the Note and had the right to enforce the Note at the time loss occurred, and Truman II established that it had validly been assigned the note.

Phyllis M. Jones, v. Carrie M. Ward, et. al., No. 1071, September Term 2020, filed February 24, 2022. Opinion by Ripken, Laura S., Judge In June 2004, Ms. Jones obtained a loan from World Savings Bank in the form of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust for her residence. In August 2002, World Savings Bank executed a lost note affidavit stating that it was the lawful owner of the Noted and that the Note was lost. Subsequently, Wells Fargo became the owner of the note and in July 2016 and Jones entered into a loan modification agreement with Wells Fargo. In September 2016 and May 2017, Wells Fargo filed lost note affidavits affirming that it was the lawful owner of the note and that the Note was lost. Subsequently, the ownership of the Note was transferred to a trust who transferred ownership to a second trust (Truman II). Jones defaulted on her mortgage payments due under the note in February 2016. Substitute trustees, the appellees, initiated a foreclosure action and included were a copy of the Note and an affidavit certifying that the copy was true and accurate and that Truman II owned the Note. Jones moved to dismiss the foreclosure action asserting that the Substitute Trustees could not demonstrate that Truman II owned the Note and therefore lacked standing to bring the action. Prior to the hearing on Jones’ motion, in January 2020, Turman II executed a lost note affidavit May 2022

The Advocate

– Ceecee Paizs, Esq.

Shine the Spotlight on you or a BCBA Member you know!

Click Here or email rruocco@bcba.org 17

A Debt-Relief Agency Serving all of Baltimore County for over 25 years, we represent business and personal bankruptcy— we can help you get back to normal.

CALL 1-800-BANKRUPT The Law Offices of Nicholas J. Del Pizzo, III Baltimore, Maryland • 410-288-5788 18

The Advocate

May 2022

Committee Reports Criminal Law Committee: District Court Problem-Solving Courts On Thursday, April 21, 2022, the Criminal Law Committee of the BCBA hosted a program entitled, “District Court Problem-Solving Courts.” The program featured the Honorable Kimberly Davis (formerly Thomas), who has been an Associate Judge of the District Court for Baltimore County since January 2013, along with Richard “Gray” Barton, the program director for the Problem-Solving Courts for the Administrative Office of the Courts for the State of Maryland. Mr. Barton began the program by discussing the problem-solving courts in general. Problem-solving courts include, among others, Mental Health Courts, Drug Courts, Truancy Courts, and Veterans Courts. When he assumed the position of program director in 2002, there were only nine such courts in the State of Maryland. With the implementation of the Baltimore County District Court Problem-Solving Courts, including the Adult Recovery Court (previously referred to as the Adult Drug Court) and the Mental Health Court, there are currently 60 problem-solving courts in all but two of the 24 counties in Maryland. These problem-solving courts take a collaborative approach whereby the court, prosecutor, defense counsel, parole and probation, and the counseling services work together toward a common goal to provide a support system upon which the defendant works toward graduating from the program in lieu of being incarcerated. Judge Davis advised that Baltimore County’s District Court Adult Recovery Court was approved in June of 2021, and the Mental Health Court was approved in January of 2022, and they are now both up and running. Referrals to either court can be made in various ways, including through defense counsel, the prosecution or the court; however, participation in the program must be voluntary on the part of the defendant. Referrals can be made either pre-trial, post-plea, or post-sentencing. Once a referral is made, a two-stage evaluation process occurs during which there is an initial “risks and needs” assessment performed by the problem-solving court’s coordinator, followed by an eligibility determination by the Office of the State’s Attorney based upon the criteria established by the problem-solving courts’ policies and procedures. Once accepted into either program, there are four phases that the defendant must complete before graduation. Each phase requires participation for a minimum of three months, and the defendant is monitored at least twice per week. The problem-solving May 2022

courts currently convene on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month, during which there is an hour of team meetings, followed by the court proceedings. The progress of the defendant is monitored by the use of incentives and sanctions. Thus, as long as the defendant abides by the terms, conditions, and parameters of the program, they progress through each stage of the program towards graduation. On the other hand, if there are deviations from what is expected of the defendant, sanctions are imposed to help assist them to be compliant with the treatment plan. Judge Davis then introduced the Problem-Solving Courts team: Maria Fields, Administrative Clerk Ethan Stansberry, Program Coordinator Casey Staubs (Adult Recovery) and Samia Bennett (Mental Health), Case Managers Jessica Borits (Adult Recovery) and Michelle Fuller (Mental Health), Office of the State’s Attorney Elizabeth Crow (Adult Recovery) and Jessica Bancroft (Mental Health), Office of the Public Defender Judge Karen Pilarski and Judge Bruce Friedman, Presiding Judges over the Adult Recovery Court Judge Kimberly Davis and Judge Guido Porcarelli, Presiding Judges over the Mental Health Court There were brochures, outlines, flow charts, eligibility criteria lists, and referral forms provided as handouts. The referral forms and eligibility lists will be available on the BCBA’s website. The Criminal Law Committee is grateful to Judge Davis and Mr. Barton for presenting such an informative program introducing us to the newly implemented problem-solving courts. Keep your eyes peeled to the Advocate for other upcoming events!

The Advocate

– Stuart Schadt, Esq. 19

The Advocate

May 2022

Committee Reports Diversity & Inclusion Committee: Ketanji Brown Jackson set to be first African American woman on the United States Supreme Court The Diversity and Inclusion Committee of the Baltimore County Bar Association is pleased to celebrate another step forward in the diversity of our great profession. On April 7, 2022, Ketanji Brown Jackson received United States Senate confirmation to be the first African American woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Fulfilling a campaign promise of nominating an African American woman to the Supreme Court, President Joe Biden nominated Judge Jackson on February 25, 2022. Judge Jackson was nominated following the announcement of the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer. Judge Jackson was born in Washington D.C. on September 14, 1970. She studied government at Harvard University and graduated in 1992 with an A.B. magna cum laude. She then attended Harvard Law School where she was the supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review. She graduated in 1996 with a Juris Doctor cum laude. After law school, Judge Jackson served several judicial clerkships. First, she clerked in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and then the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. After a year in private practice, Judge Jackson clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1999 to 2000. From 2005 to 2007, Jackson served as an assistant federal public defender in Washington D.C. On July 23, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Jackson to be the vice chair of the United States Sentencing Commission. She was confirmed by unanimous consent by the U.S. Senate.

May 2022

On September 20, 2012, President Obama nominated Jackson to serve as a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On March 30, 2021, President Joe Biden nominated Judge Brown to serve as a circuit judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, replacing Merrick Garland who stepped down to become the attorney general. This was not the first time that Judge Jackson’s name was associated with an opening on the Supreme Court. In early 2016, the Obama administration vetted Judge Jackson as a potential nominee to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. She was one of five candidates interviewed as a potential nominee. Judge Jackson will be sworn in as associate justice in late June or early July when Justice Breyer’s retirement goes into effect. Judge Jackson will be only the third African American to serve as a justice on the Supreme Court, following Justice Thurgood Marshall and joining Justice Clarence Thomas. She is only the sixth woman to serve on the US. Supreme Court following Justices Sandra Day and Ruth Bader Ginsberg and joining Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagen and Amy Coney Barrett. The nomination of an African American woman to the United State Supreme Court is certainly worth celebrating as our judicial system moves in a direction of diversity and inclusiveness, reflecting the diversity of the United States.

The Advocate

– Hoss Parvizian, Esq.

Committee Reports Diversity & Inclusion Committee:

What Diversity Means to Me - Gary C. Norman, Esquire On April 7, 2022, the Diversity and Inclusion Committee of the Baltimore County Bar Association hosted Gary C. Norman, Esquire as our latest speaker in the “What Diversity Means to Me” series. Mr. Norman, a native of Ohio, graduated from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and received his L.L.M. in Law and Government at American University Washington College of Law. As a blind practitioner, Mr. Norman is best known for his achievements as an attorney with a gift for resolving conflict. Although blindness is classified as a disability, Mr. Norman insists that blindness has enhanced his ability to understand and read people. Mr. Norman works at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as a Senior Assistant Attorney Advisor. He provides legal counsel and writes administrative decisions on a variety of healthcare reimbursement appeals. In addition, he is a mediator for Health and Human Services and the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. In his spare time, he maintains an active law

practice and pro bono practice advancing the rights of disabled people. By overcoming obstacles and barriers to practicing as a visually impaired attorney, Mr. Norman made a career out of coordinating public policy and creating forums to address healthcare disparities for people with disabilities. His achievements are too numerous to limit to only one article. Suffice it to say, Mr. Norman is an accomplished lawyer, not only in spite of his disability, but because of his disability. When asked what diversity and inclusion mean to him, Mr. Norman responded by saying that diversity is not just limited to the traditional classifications, i.e., sex, race, ethnicity, and religion, but includes disabilities as well. As such, Mr. Norman seeks to raise and expand the concept of diversity within the legal community. He consistently strives to expand opportunities for law students and new attorneys with disabilities to enjoy equal access to the legal profession. While acknowledging disabilities as part of diversity is the first step to achieving this goal, equal access to the legal field and leading others in the legal field takes the second step of inclusion. Mr. Norman acknowledged that barriers are falling, but work remains to achieve this noble goal. – Ari J. Kodeck, Esq.

Be Treated Right. Be Treated Well. Really. W Baltimore CATONSVILLE

NW Baltimore OWINGS MILLS

N Central Baltimore TOWSON

Midtown Baltimore CHARLES VILLAGE/REMINGTON

410.356.9939

www.HQChiro.com

NE Baltimore WHITE MARSH

Downtown Baltimore FEDERAL HILL

ContactUs@HQChiro.com

Attorney Portal • Central Scheduling/Billing • Same-Day Appts • Transportation

Don’t forget to update your information on our website! Click here to access or go to www.bcba.org. 22

The Advocate

May 2022

Committee Reports Estates & Trusts Committee:

Presentation of the Register of Wills for Baltimore County On March 30, 2022, the Honorable Alexis Burrell-Rohde, Register of Wills for Baltimore County, and Michael Franco, Chief Deputy to the Register of Wills, presented a highly informative seminar to the Baltimore County Bar Association (BCBA).

• The Register of Wills office has an ongoing partnership with Maryland Legal Aid and practitioners could help that program and the people it serves in the execution ceremony for Wills and Powers of Attorney prepared by pro bono attorneys.

During her presentation, the Register offered several helpful practice pointers and information worth noting to the BCBA, which included the following:

For the remainder of the seminar, Michael Franco, deputy chief, discussed inheritance tax examples and how practitioners can benefit from not only early planning but also an open dialogue with the Register’s office. To that end, Mr. Franco welcomed the opportunity to discuss, review, and pre-approve inheritance tax calculations for pending Baltimore County estate administrations.

• The Register of Wills has returned to allowing inperson filings and visits, though visitors are still strongly encouraged to call ahead and schedule appointments for those visits; • The dropbox will also continue to be available in the courthouse lobby for filings with the Register of Wills; • The appeal of a recent Howard County estate in which the Circuit Court confirmed that a personal representative may pay commissions or attorneys’ fees without separate court approval under Estates & Trusts Article Section 7-604(a); and

May 2022

The Register of Wills office should be applauded for its willingness to help Baltimore County practitioners with the many nuances of the probate and non-probate process, from the simple to the complex. Special thanks to the Hon. Alexis Burrell-Rohde and Chief Deputy Michael Franco for this excellent program.

The Advocate

– David Cole, Esq.

Get Back on Track with the Vision You Once Had for Your Business Now is the time to regain perspective and become strategic to make your vision a reality. Become the CEO of your firm, your career and your life. Now is the time to face reality, identify exactly where you want to take your practice and map out a course of action to make it happen. Our Small Business Advisory is a coaching and accountability program delivered quarterly in which we provide the structure and tools necessary for you take a step back and see the “big picture.”

Growth Solutions Team’s Small Business Advisory Program provides you: Structure to map out your vision, goals and a plan to achieve them

Real world, “Boots on the Ground” help from our Team to get your practice where you want to go

Content designed to further your knowledge and apply it immediately in your role as the leader in your organization

Private, individual coaching sessions to hold you accountable

Interact with colleagues to share ideas and gain insight from their experiences

Direction on how to leverage your resources Strategies to seize opportunities and reach your potential

Accountability is your KEY to success! Growth Solutions Team offers a wide variety of coaching solutions and tools for your practice to establish goals and help you meet them. Contact us today to determine the right solution for your practice. Because your practice is a BIG deal.

Phone: 443-501-2201 | Email: oﬃce@GSTeammail.com | GrowthSolutionsTeam.com

The Advocate

May 2022

Committee Reports Family Law Committee: Custody Evaluations “Lite” Presentation; Introduction to the Conflict Resolution Center of Baltimore County On March 29, 2022, the Family Law Committee hosted a two-part program. The first portion of the program was named “Custody Evaluations ‘Lite’” followed by an informational presentation from the director of the Conflict Resolution Center of Baltimore County. The presentation was via Zoom video conference and was well-attended by 33 guests. The first portion of the program regarding Custody Evaluations “Lite” featured Dr. John Lefkowits, Ph.D. ABPP, a clinical and forensic psychologist. Ilene Glickman, Esquire, chaired the program and moderated questions. Dr. Lefkowits is a board-certified clinical psychologist specializing in forensic psychology and was kind enough to carefully explain the distinctions between a traditional custody evaluation versus a “lite” custody evaluation, which is also known as a “parenting plan consultation.” In addition to being very informative, Dr. Lefkowits’s PowerPoint presentation included various humorous cartoons, bringing wit to a heavy topic in a way that only true family law practitioners can appreciate. Ms. Glickman introduced Dr. Lefkowits and highlighted that his career in forensic psychology has included psychological evaluations, substance evaluations, custody evaluations (full and “lite”), and serving as an expert witness in court for a total of eighty-six times. Before describing the “lite” version of a custody evaluation, Dr. Lefkowits highlighted that the most critical piece of information to consider when deciding whether a lite custody evaluation is appropriate in a particular custody case is that it is only used in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) models. A lite custody evaluation does not meet the criteria for litigated custody matters and cannot be introduced into evidence as an expert report at trial. The primary purpose of using a lite custody evaluation is to assist parents, and their counsel, in reaching an agreement about custody in an alternative dispute resolution process, such as mediation or Collaborative Divorce. As practitioners considering whether to retain a psychologist to conduct a full custody evaluation, a lite one, or none at all, we will need to consider the tone of the overall case. For example, some reasons why an attorney would want a full custody evaluation include the following factors: (a) high conflict custody dispute, (b) failed mediation and other forms of ADR, (c) accusations of serious mental health, substance abuse and/or domestic May 2022

violence, and (d) the opportunity to settle custody issues and avoid costly litigation. Before explaining the “lite” custody evaluation, Dr. Lefkowits reviewed the full traditional custody evaluation. Private evaluations are comprehensive, including psychological testing and extensive interviews. Dr. Lefkowits advised that he will typically conduct at least 12-15 collateral interviews as a part of a private full custody evaluation, in addition to spending significant time with all family members and in different settings. A summary of best practices in full custody evaluations was provided to attendees as follows: (a) Comprehensive, systematic evaluation of all family members in order to provide clear recommendations to the court, (b) Psychological Testing (objective and projective) of parents and children, (c) Extensive clinical, social and mental status interviews, (d) Review of reports, legal documents, relevant documentation such as emails, texts, social media, and (e) Collateral interviews, objective, structured observations, and home visits. In addition, a practitioner must evaluate the costs and time of retaining a full custody evaluation. Financial costs routinely exceed twenty thousand dollars for a private custody evaluation. The full evaluation can also take three months or more to complete, plus the time for the expert to complete a written report. The full evaluation requires an extensive investment of time from all family members participating in the evaluation. Lastly, a full evaluation provides a pivotal set of recommendations which may not support the wishes of your client. If a full custody evaluation is not appropriate, a settlement-focused parenting plan consultation may be a useful alternative. This alternative to a full evaluation was originally developed by Daniel Pickar and Jeffery Kahn in a 2011 article in Family Court Review. The basic concept was that it is an “Evaluative Mediation Alternative to Child Custody Evaluations.” “The Settlement-Focused Parenting Plan Consultation is a form of evaluativemediation that combines traditional facilitative and interest based mediation, with its emphasis on selfdetermination and confidentiality, with an evaluative process that provides parents with expertly gathered information to be utilized in devising a parenting plan that meets their children’s best interest” (Pickar and Kahn, 2011).

The Advocate

Committee Reports When considering retaining a professional to conduct a settlement focused parenting plan consultation, one must consider the skills of the said practitioner, including whether he or she is a competent child custody evaluator who is able to utilize psychological testing for adults and children and has experience with structured, objective observations and integrating empirical research. In addition, the professional should have training as a mediator, co-parent counselor, parent coordinator, and/ or a Child Specialist in Collaborative Divorce. The types of cases in which practitioners may want to consider the use of a “lite” custody evaluation would include clients exhibiting some flexibility and willingness to negotiate, but are some concerns about the ability of a parent to care for the children still exist. Dr. Lefkowits advised that he has conducted approximately six or seven of these parenting plan consultations, and that most have settled and worked out well. The following work is involved in a “lite” custody evaluation: (a) joint conference call with attorneys, (b) joint meeting with both parents, (c) individual interviews

with both parents, (d) individual interviews with each child, (e) structured observations of parent and child (at the office and home), (f) collateral contact interviews and review of documents, and (g) to the extent needed, psychological testing and/or substance abuse evaluation, home visits, collateral interviews, etc. There are fewer meetings than in a traditional evaluation, and not as many documents to consider. There are fewer collateral interviews, and testing is dependent upon the actual issues in the case as opposed to conducting testing as a matter of course. At the joint meeting with the parents and attorneys, the evaluator would go through the evaluation findings and then discuss how specific areas of social science literature might relate to their family’s needs. During the meeting, the evaluator will discuss the specific concerns that relate to the family and address broad options for consideration during settlement discussions. In addition, the evaluator may provide feedback to parents and counsel regarding the children and an empirical understanding of the impact of divorce on children, provide parenting plan options

The Advocate

May 2022

Committee Reports along with advantages and disadvantages of options, and assist counsel and parents in mediating a tentative agreement and/or a formal written parenting plan. Dr. Lefkowits reviewed the pros and cons of using a “lite” evaluation: • Pros: about half the cost and half the time of traditional custody evaluation; less stressful; parents still control the outcome; a kinder and gentler evaluation; less time is involved; can lead to better results with less chance of re-litigating in the future. • Cons: occurs under mediation statute, not admissible in Court; could remain in an impasse and not settle. Dr. Lefkowits referred us to Dr. Pickar’s follow-up to his original article (Journal of Child Custody, 2011), in which Dr. Pickar described the role a parenting plan consultation can play with a family over time, postdivorce, as parenting plans may require modification given the life cycle of a family. It works best in low and moderate conflicted families. This type of process can assist families as their children experience developmental changes (starting preschool, kindergarten, junior high school, high school) or changes in family structures (new step-parent and/or step-siblings; significant job/financial change; physical or mental health issues for child or parent; divorce; relocation; death of family member; illness, and so on. When concluding his presentation, Dr. Lefkowits was kind enough to offer to share with the attendees any of the articles he referenced during the presentation and his PowerPoint presentation. Ilene Glickman thanked Dr. Lefkowits for his informative presentation.

Thereafter, Christine Malanga introduced the presenters of the second portion of the family law program, Jill Eisner, Esquire, and Karen Wilson, from the Conflict Resolution Center of Baltimore County (CRCBC). Ms. Eisner explained that CRCBC mediation services are grant-funded, so there is no charge to mediation clients. Ms. Eisner pointed out that anyone who lives, works, or attends school in Baltimore County may utilize the mediation services offered by CRCBC. At the present time, CRCBC is conducting mediations remotely. About half of their mediations involve family law cases and the other half include conflicts between neighbors, coworkers, extended family members, MHIC home contract disputes, and district court cases, including landlord/ tenant disputes, replevin actions, small claims, thefts, and other miscellaneous district court conflicts. Ms. Eisner offered that this is an excellent opportunity to narrow the scope of issues in dispute or for cases where you want to try mediation before starting litigation. Their mediation program handles all levels of conflict and is a confidential process. The participants are allowed to have attorneys review their agreements before signing them. Attorneys are welcome to participate in the mediation meetings if all other participants consent to the attorneys’ presence. They offer scheduling opportunities within about two weeks of completing intake interviews of all participants. If anyone has questions or would like to refer a case to CRCBC, the best way to reach them is via e-mail at: mediation@crcbaltimorecounty.org. Their phone number is 443-297-7897 and their website is: crcbaltimorecounty.org. – Cynthia A. Batchelder, Esq.

Centennial Memory Book Have you picked up your FREE copy of the BCBA Centennial Memory Book? Stop by the bar office to pick yours up!

May 2022

The Advocate

Committee Reports Family Law Committee: Multi-Jurisdictional Family Law Meeting:

Contempt after Breona C. v. Rodney D. and Emergency vs. Expedited Hearings On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, guests from Baltimore City and County, Carroll County, Frederick County, Harford County, and Howard County made the trek to Woodholme Country Club for presentations by representative judges from each jurisdiction to discuss the viability, or lack thereof, of proceeding with contempt as a potential remedy in access cases as well as the treatment of various emergencies and/or matters of urgency in their jurisdiction. Rachel Ruocco and Amber Gaines, resplendent in their matching blazers, took to the task of ushering people in as if they were riding the proverbial bike after the COVID19-induced hiatus. The Honorable Judges Colleen Cavanaugh, Baltimore County, Michael J. DiPietro, Baltimore City, Angela Eaves, Harford County (although newly ensconced in the appellate world, she graciously appeared on behalf of her county), Fred Hecker, Carroll County, and Mary Kramer, Howard County, graced the dais and provided viewpoints that differed notwithstanding that there are no local rules, often reflective of the relative size of their jurisdiction and the types of responses they could and/or could not offer in light thereof. While most of the judges echoed Judge Hecker’s sentiment that Breona rendered contempt “mostly dead” in access cases, Judge DiPietro modestly disagreed inasmuch as he believed the impetus for Breona was more a matter of it being a relatively small wrong not worthy of contempt rather than a death knell to the utility of contempt for withholding of access infractions. It would have been helpful had Breona articulated such a limitation in the body of the opinion, and it may be that a subsequent opinion will make that distinction. Absent that occurring in the future, however, the mostly dead, if not fully dead, assessment may be more accurate. All judges, however, agreed on a few points. First, read the differentiated case management plans (DCM) for their jurisdiction. As one who used to tell my kids that, other than faith in God, the key to life was reading and following directions, I received validation from each judge who encouraged reading their DCM. Second, plead clearly and creatively with specific potential sanctions and potential purges, including how you believe the proposed purge will resolve or apply to the underlying issue. Judge Cavanaugh articulated the general preference of judges for learning and having an opportunity to digest 28

attorneys’ proposals in advance with proper and specific pleading rather than hearing about it “on the fly” at the end of a hearing. A practice point that could be derived from this is to take the time when drafting the pleading to think the whole thing through and get it on paper. This not only gives the judge or magistrate a heads up but also serves to help you later when you are preparing for the hearing and can see your train of thought clearly in the context of the pleadings. All of the judges seemed receptive to the concept of memorializing a system whereby you identify what constitutes doing the right thing and then identifying what penalty will ensue if the good behavior of accommodating access did not persist. There must be a distinction between what constitutes a purge and a punishment. This writer believes that the judges were telegraphing the following: filing a contempt coupled with a motion pursuant to an alleged violation of Section 9-105 of the Family Law Code if not filing a motion per Section 9-105 alone may be the more viable mechanism for dealing with denials and/or interference with access. While still discretionary, judges are permitted under that statute to order a reschedule or make up visit, to modify an order to require additional terms or conditions designed to ensure future compliance or to assess costs or counsel fees. This writer believes that may have been the impetus for Judge DiPietro when he described his efforts to issue orders recasting or clarifying prior orders in the context of a contempt hearing, adding details for a protocol and identifying the consequences for violations. Some of the

The Advocate

May 2022

Committee Reports judges observed that this could include potential fines for violators as an additional term or condition designed to ensure future compliance. That is, in addition to the potential for attorney fees, having a specific dollar fine for non-compliance could constitute an additional term or condition designed to ensure future compliance under the second prong of Section 9-105. With respect to emergency or expedited hearings, judges were uniform in asking counsel to read their respective DCM, but they did diverge somewhat on what constituted an emergency or matter deserving of expedition in large part on the size of their jurisdiction and the difference in resources available for the same. Judge Kramer indicated that magistrates in Howard County have been fairly liberal in granting emergency and expedited hearings, and were somewhat flexible as wellin being open to moving forward with them as an either/or proposition. Judge Hecker indicated that Carroll County had a stricter standard for emergency hearings to go more along the Baltimore County lines of requiring “blood under the door,” but for expedited hearings, it may depend. He explained that judges are specifically assigned to cases in his jurisdiction and if ex parte relief is granted, the prejudiced party usually has recourse to be heard within 48 hours. If not specifically sought by counsel, to accommodate the need for neither side to be unduly prejudiced, he also routinely grants or even initiates orders to shorten time, thus ensuring both sides are considered. Finally, he also offered a hybrid of sorts that he called an eyeball hearing, i.e., a brief hearing that is set more so the judges can get some eyeballs on the parties and obtain a sense of what is actually going on. Judge Eaves indicated that Harford County’s notion of what constitutes an emergency could be broader than blood under the door to include dissipation of assets or school choice, for example, in certain situations. She often sets in cases for a quick hearing rather than offer ex parte relief in order to finesse failures such as inadequate notice. The groundwork for being viewed favorably for such treatment in Harford County included filing proper pleadings, a track record of attempting to communicate with the client and opposing counsel, and offering a solution to the problem so the other side is on notice of how the issue may be cured. Judge DiPietro on behalf of Baltimore City explained that requests in the City were reviewed by a Special Magistrate for eligibility for ex parte relief. In order to better accommodate the need for expedited hearings, since the Baltimore City dockets are so full, there has been an effort to leave Fridays with May 2022

a little leeway to accommodate expedited hearings as well as cases that run over the estimated time frame. Their general protocol, he believed, made them fairly responsive in any event since he indicated that Baltimore City is trying to set cases in for trials within 4 months after a scheduling conference for judge hearings and within 2 months after a scheduling conference for magistrate hearings. In Baltimore County, Judge Cavanaugh stated that even ex parte requests will not be granted without a hearing. If one is granted, the County will afford the other side an opportunity to be heard within ten days of an order. Also, whereas Howard County might be less of a stickler with the emergency/expedited distinction, Baltimore County will not. She therefore stressed being very careful with how you caption your pleadings. There must be two separate requests for emergency versus expedited hearings, and there will not be any emergency ruling without the case being at issue. Further, emergency hearings will not take a full day. Aside from blood on the street, they may accept flight to another country as constituting an emergency. Overall, the night was festive with people happy to be back together, as well as informative with judges eager to offer insights to attorneys in attendance. Kudos to Kerri Cohen and Christine Malanga for spearheading this task and to Alice Pinderhughes and Barbara Green of Baltimore City, Tracey Perrick and Karen Amos of Howard County, Krystle Howard of Harford County and Samantha Smith of Carroll County for herding the proverbial cats to speak and attend.

The Advocate

– Kristine Howanski, Esq. 29

Committee Reports Membership and Admissions Committee:

Everything I Ever Wanted to Know About Being a Lawyer But Was Afraid to Ask On April 12, 2022, the BCBA Young Lawyers Committee and the Membership Committee teamed up to sponsor the program “Everything I Ever Wanted to Know About Being a Lawyer But Was Afraid to Ask” at the CVP in Towson. Thank you to the Law Office of Laurie M. Wasserman, LLC, who sponsored the event. The program featured the following all-star panel: • Sondra Douglas, Esq. - Stein Sperling Bennett De Jong Driscoll PC; • Kumudha Kumarachandran, Esq. - Cordell & Cordell; • Michael Jacko, Esq. - Baltimore County Office of the Public Defender; • Singleton Mathews, Esq. - Client First Legal Services; and • Rachel Mech, Esq. - Offit Kurman, P.A. Alex Walsh, Esq. Baltimore County State’s Attorney’s Office and Young Lawyers Committee Vice Chair, moderated the discussion. The program covered topics such as establishing and maintaining your reputation, getting hired and changing jobs, and establishing boundaries and managing expectations professionally and personally. For the next hour, the panelists shared their experiences as they moved from life as a new lawyer to a more seasoned attorney. Beginning with developing a reputation, Sondra Douglas recalled Judge Ballou-Watts saying a reputation “takes years to establish and seconds to ruin.” Sondra and the other panelists indicated this advice has served them well as they navigate the practice of law. The panelists agreed credibility and integrity are also essential traits to maintain, regardless of the practice area or the expectation of clients. The panelists reinforced the importance of not allowing a client’s expectations to ruin your reputation due to an unreasonable request. Finally, the panelists noted they return to the same courtrooms time and time again, long after that one client and case has ended. Next, the panelists expressed the importance of being flexible when looking to select the first job or when changing jobs. They all agreed that the fear of failure can be crippling. Regardless of years of experience, the panelists agreed that setting boundaries with clients is key. While a few panelists agreed they do not divulge their cell phone numbers to clients, Singleton Matthews shared 30

that his business requires his lawyer clients to have his cell number. He explained that he must be accessible to his clients to provide coverage as needed, often at a moment’s notice. Other panelists were much more careful in giving clients access to cell phone numbers. Another important boundary is developing an appropriate work/life balance. The panelists, whether in government practice or private practice, all agreed that there are only so many hours in the day. Further, burnout and fatigue are real and can creep into any practice when one lacks a proper work/ life balance. Regardless of the practice area, sometimes a lawyer loses a case. The panelists agreed that managing expectations from the beginning is key. Without proper client communication from the outset, clients may develop unreasonable expectations that can cause confusion or other issues. Another panelist noted the importance of documentation of client calls or contact, especially when discussing case expectations. But they each agreed that losing a case can serve as a teacher of many lessons and even create lasting friendships or mentorship. Finally, the panelists affirmed that bar association involvement is vital! It is never too early or too late to get involved, especially if you want to meet other lawyers. Law students, law clerks, young lawyers, and more seasoned practitioners all attended this event. The panel discussion was lively, and we look forward to doing this program again in the future.

The Advocate

– Hon. Syeetah Hampton-EL May 2022

Committee Reports Professionalism Committee: What is Civility? President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural remarks, “So let us begin anew; remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.” Civil behavior is a core element of attorney professionalism. As guardians of the Rule of Law that defines the American social and political fabric, attorneys should embody civility in all they do. Not only do attorneys serve as representatives of their clients, they also serve as officers of the legal system and citizens having special responsibility for the quality of justice. To fulfill these overarching roles, attorneys must make civility their professional ideal. As The Institute for Civility In Government proclaims, civility is about more than just politeness, although politeness is a necessary first step. It is about disagreeing without disrespect, seeking common ground as a starting point for dialogue about differences, listening past one’s preconceptions, and teaching others to do the same. Civility is the hard work of staying present even with those with whom we have deep-rooted and fierce disagreements. Common misconceptions about civility conflate it with agreement or lack of criticism. Civility does not equate to the absence of disagreement. In fact, underlying the code of civility is the assumption that people will disagree. The democratic process thrives on dialogue and dialogue involves disagreement. Civility is not the absence of criticism. Respect for another may in fact require criticism. For example, a law firm partner who fails to point out an error in a young attorney’s brief isn’t being civil – that partner simply isn’t doing their job. Although impoliteness is almost always uncivil, good manners alone do not make civility. As Professor Stephen Carter of Yale University explained in Civility: Manners Morals and the Etiquette of Democracy, politely refusing to serve someone in a restaurant based on their skin color is not civil behavior. Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“MARPC”) 1.3 (Diligence) compels an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. Comment 1 to the Rule defines the need to do so without offensive

tactics but instead with courtesy and respect, stating an attorney should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience … and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor. An attorney must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf. An attorney is not bound, however, to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client... The attorney’s duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or permit treating any person involved in the legal process without courtesy and respect. (Rule 1.3, Comment 1, emphasis added.) The tension lies in the fact that precise limits to the attorney’s duty to act with zeal in advocacy is not always easy to discern. Appropriate zeal, however, never extends to offensive tactics or treating people with discourtesy or disrespect. Clients not understanding these limits may be under the misconception that because they hired you, they have the power to dictate your conduct. The attorney must manage that expectation and let the client know the attorney is more than a “hired gun,” even if that means refusing a client’s demand to act uncivilly and especially, if it means engaging in sharp or unethical practices. The MARPC indeed makes clear that an attorney is NOT just a hired gun. MARPC Rule 1.16(b)(4) (Declining or Terminating Representation) provides that an attorney may withdraw if the client insists upon taking action that the attorney considers repugnant or with which the attorney has fundamental disagreement, and Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims/Contentions) provides that an attorney cannot abuse legal procedure by frivolously bringing or defending a proceeding or asserting or defending an issue. Egregious forms of uncivil behavior in a court proceeding also may constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, within the meaning of Rule 8.4(d) (Misconduct). – Debra B. Cruz, Esq.

Shine the Spotlight on you or a BCBA Member you know! Click Here or email rruocco@bcba.org May 2022

The Advocate

Committee Reports Professionalism Committee: Professionalism in the Time of COVID On April 13, the professionalism committee hosted a lively discussion on “Professionalism in the Time of COVID.” The program featured a distinguished panel consisting of Hon. Robert McDonald, Court of Appeals (Ret.); Hon. Michael Reed, Court of Special Appeals; Hon. Vicki Ballou Watts, Circuit Court for Baltimore County; Hon. Lawrence Daniels, Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Ret.); Hon. Dorothy Wilson, District Court of Maryland for Baltimore County; Hon. Syeetah Hampton-EL, Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings; and Ms. Jennifer Ritter, Assistant State’s Attorney for Howard County. Participants began with a general acceptance that, for better or for worse, video conferencing is likely to remain a part of the legal profession in some form or another. With that in mind, most of the conversation focused on the panelists’ observations concerning the habits and procedures that have—and have not— worked well for conducting proceedings by video. Noteworthy tips included…

1. Requesting a Remote Hearing. Protocols vary by venue, but moving forward, there are likely to be categories of hearings where remotely appearing is discretionary. When exercising this option, it is important to learn and follow local norms (e.g., OAH provides a Webex number and instructions for submitting exhibits on the notice of hearing.) 2. Knowing the Platform. The variety of video conferencing platforms available each has its own quirks and hiccups. Taking the time before a proceeding to become familiar with the platform to be used can make all the difference when attempting to make a professional presentation. 3. Preparing Clients. People seem willing to behave in virtual court in ways they would never attempt if they were physically present. Remind clients that the proceeding will be recorded. By discussing proper behavior and etiquette with clients prior to a hearing, counsel can hope to avoid the most

The Advocate

May 2022

Committee Reports egregious faux pas (e.g., having an inappropriate background, speaking out of turn, moving around during the hearing, demonstrating dramatic reactions to the judge’s ruling.) One way to help ensure clients present themselves well is to invite them to participate in virtual hearings from the counsel’s office.

6. Have a Backup Plan. Expect that something will go wrong, and consider ways to recover (e.g., having a backup device on hand for joining a call). One panelist mentioned that it is helpful to make sure parties and court staff share phone numbers at which they can be reached in order to communicate, for example, that one is having difficulty logging on.

4. Formality. Even for practitioners, it can be difficult to be as attentive to a virtual proceeding as one would in person, but it is imperative that we do so. Because lawyers are used to standing up to address the court, maintaining that habit while remotely appearing can help to maintain a formal tone. (Just make sure your attire below the waist is as formal as that above!) Also, be aware that when counsel joins a video conference without activating the camera, it may send an unintended message about the seriousness with which they are taking the matter.

7. Patience. However much practice we accrue and preparation we put in, chance can present any of us with a bad day, and reliance on technology only exacerbates this truth. So when fate strikes against an opposing party, show patience—odds are that you will one day find yourself in a similar position.

5. Pre-Filing Exhibits is Crucial. Everything goes smoothest when litigants file exhibits as early as possible so as to allow time for them to post to MDEC. If late filing is unavoidable, check that the documents have posted prior to the hearing. If they have not, contact the clerk’s office to inquire about expediting the turnaround (but try not to presume their goodwill in making such accommodations.)

8. The Benefits and Limitations of Video. Remote hearings have opened new possibilities (e.g., expanding the Court of Appeals’ ability to solicit broad input in proposed changes to the Rules), and in other cases, they simply increase efficiency (e.g., scheduling and status conferences). There are, however, other situations where the shortcomings of video are readily apparent (e.g., weighing witness credibility or determining whether testimony is being coached or coerced). As we move past COVID, the legal community will no doubt continue to discern when video works best and when it ought to be avoided.1 – Mike Jacko, Esq.

1 As panelists pointed out, the Judicial Council has already adopted the recommendations made in a recent report published by its Joint Subcommittee on Post-COVID Judicial Operations, and the Office of Administrative Hearings has its own guidelines about requesting remote hearings on its website.

May 2022

The Advocate

Committee Reports Solo & Small Firm Committee: Networking Lunch with Judge Robinson The Baltimore County Bar Association’s Solo and Small Firm Committee met on Tuesday, April 5, 2022, at the Rec Room in Towson to re-establish a long-standing tradition of solo and small firm quarterly lunches. The Honorable Dennis M. Robinson, Jr. joined the committee and led a discussion about issues that he has seen facing solo and small firm practitioners.

insight into how they can become better attorneys. Judge Robinson also reminded those in attendance that the Court appreciates the collegiality that many members of the bar show toward one another and that it is apparent from the bench when attorneys have treated one another with professionalism and courtesy during the entire litigation process.

Committee members and Judge Robinson discussed everything from picking juries at the American Legion to scheduling complex, multi-day civil trials. Judge Robinson spoke to the group about effective trial presentation, and even shared a few examples of great lawyering that he has witnessed in his courtroom.

The Solo and Small Firm Committee was very appreciative that Judge Robinson took time out of his schedule to join us. We will be looking forward to seeing more members at our next lunch event. It is our hope that we can continue these informal gatherings on a quarterly basis so lawyers who have their own practice or work in a small firm can regularly meet and discuss the common issues that face their practice.

The informal nature of the event proved to be an excellent opportunity for local practitioners to spend time with a circuit court judge and gain some valuable

The Advocate

– Sandy Steeves, Esq.

May 2022

Committee Reports Young Lawyers Committee: “Chambers Chat” with The Honorable Judy C. Ensor & The Honorable Sherrie R. Bailey” On Monday, March 28, 2022, the BCBA Young Lawyers Committee hosted a virtual lunchtime “Chambers Chat” graciously attended by The Honorable Judith C. Ensor and The Honorable Sherrie R. Bailey of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Adam Konstas, Esq. from Pessin Katz Law, P.A.led and moderated the conversation.

still need to be done, and approximately how long those outstanding items are expected to take. Additionally, if opposing counsel or the opposing party opposes the request for modification, ensure that the opposition is attached to or included with the request for modification before it goes to the Judge.

Judge Ensor and Judge Bailey presented a lot of valuable and practical information and tips to attendees about the following topics: (1) jury selection and jury trials; (2) successfully requesting scheduling modifications/ postponements; and (3) motions practice. Each of these will be discussed in turn below.

Motions & Motions Hearings

Jury Selection Updates

Judge Ensor began by informing the attendees that the Court will continue to conduct jury selection at the American Legion by choice. In the Court’s opinion, this format has been very efficient and will continue for the foreseeable future. Practically speaking, capacity restrictions require jury selection for criminal trials to occur upstairs, while jury selection for civil trials occurs downstairs. Once empaneled, the jurors report to the courthouse to begin their service. Requests for Modification

Judge Ensor and Judge Bailey shared practical tips for attorneys filing to request a scheduling modification/ postponement. All requests for modification are reviewed and considered by Judge Ensor. The main takeaway points and tips for success from the Judges are as follows: • Confer with opposing counsel or the opposing party before filing for a modification to see if they will join in or consent. • Add specific details about why the postponement is necessary. Vague requests are not likely to be granted because an unnecessary delay equals prejudice in the Court’s view. • Consider the settlement conference date in the proposition of new dates. • Be cognizant of the Court’s time and schedule when setting new deadlines to ensure enough lead time between discovery/motions deadlines and hearings exists. Judge Bailey also mentioned that, with respect to adding detail as to the necessity of the requested postponement, tell the Court what has been done in the case, what items May 2022

Judge Bailey and Judge Ensor shared many effective strategies to employ to be successful in motions practice. This includes drafting motions as well as oral arguments. First, with respect to motions drafting, Judge Ensor highlighted that most motions are decided on the papers, so do not save all the brilliance for oral argument. Judge Bailey also indicated that it is best to omit extraneous language and to keep the motion organized and succinct for a quicker ruling. Both judges agreed that it is best practice to confer with opposing counsel and send all the motions materials, including oppositions, replies, and exhibits, in one packet to the judge. Second, concerning motions hearings, both Judge Ensor and Judge Bailey stressed the importance of knowing the judge conducting the motions hearing. Additionally, it was recommended for counsel to have two arguments ready – one to fully brief the Court on the pending issues and an abbreviated argument to utilize if the judge has indicated that he or she has fully read the file and is familiar with the pending issues. In this same vein, do not be afraid to stray from one’s “script” when appropriate and take cues from the Court when the judge asks certain questions or tells you they understand a certain point being made. Finally, Judge Bailey and Judge Ensor offered some practical tips for lawyers during motions hearings or any type of hearing for that matter. Be on time and professional with opposing counsel or the opposing party. The Judges stressed that professionalism is a sign of good lawyering even though it may not seem like you are putting up a fight with opposing counsel. Further, for young lawyers who are still getting comfortable in the courtroom setting, Judge Ensor and Judge Bailey stressed that they want to know this ahead of time and understand that everyone gets nervous. On behalf of the BCBA Young Lawyers Committee, we appreciate Judge Ensor and Judge Bailey’s attendance and invaluable advice and guidance!

The Advocate

– Valerie E. Taylor, Esq. 35

Practice in Focus Ghost Writing and Limited Scope Representation The Maryland Attorneys Rules of Professional Conduct1 regarding “Limited Scope Representation” permit ghost writing, so long as certain prerequisites are met. However, an attorney who ghost writes is still “…obligated to conduct his or her own due diligence to ensure there is a reasonable, good faith basis for any facts alleged so as not to assist a client in perpetrating a fraud on the court.”2 (Emphasis added). Ghost writing is prohibited by United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Local Rule 102(1)(a)(ii). LIMITED SCOPE REPRESENTATION MD Rule 19-301.2(c) “Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Attorney”, provides that an attorney may limit the scope of representation if: (1) the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances; (2) the client gives informed consent; and (3) the scope and limitations of any representation, beyond an initial consultation or brief advice provided without a fee, are clearly set forth in a writing (including any duty on the part of the attorney under Rule 1-324 to forward notices to the client.)3 (Emphasis added). MD Rule 19-301.2, Comment 8, added in June, 2016, distinguishes between limited-scope representation in which the attorney participates in a judicial or administrative proceeding, and representation in which there is no such participation. Comment 8 gives five examples of the types of tasks/objectives that can be limited in scope provided that the attorney does not enter his/ her appearance, file papers or otherwise participate in any judicial or administrative proceeding. They are: (i) giving legal advice to the client regarding the client’s rights, responsibilities, or obligations, with respect to particular matters; (ii) conducting factual investigations for the client; (iii) representing the client in settlement negotiations or in private alternative dispute resolution proceedings; (iv) evaluating and advising the client with regard to settlement options or proposed agreements; or (v) drafting documents, performing legal research, and providing advice that the client or another attorney appearing for the client may use in a judicial or administrative proceeding[.] (Emphasis added).

Comment 8 allows for the drafting of documents that a client may use in a judicial proceeding, provided that the attorney does not file the papers, or otherwise appear at a judicial proceeding. This would be a form of ghost writing. The second type of limited-scope representation described in Comment 8 involves representing a client in a discrete judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a settlement conference, arguing a motion, a pendente lite hearing). To do so requires the attorney to file an Entry of Limited Appearance, and an Acknowledgement (by the client) of the Scope of Limited Representation (MD Rule 2-131(b)). Notably, the other type of limited-scope representation (i.e., not participating in a proceeding) also requires a writing setting forth the scope and limitations of representation. CAN MD RULE 19-301.2 BE RECONCILED WITH MD RULE 1-311(a)? As noted above, MD Rule 19-301.2 permits an attorney to limit his or her representation, as for example allowing the attorney to draft documents, perform legal research and provide advice to a pro se party, implicitly without signing a pleading, so long as the attorney does not enter his or her appearance or file the papers with the court,. Can this be reconciled with MD Rule 1-311(a)? MD Rule 1-311(a) states, in part: Every pleading and paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney who has been admitted to practice law in this State and who complies with Rule 1-312 [concerning requirements of signing attorney]. Every pleading and paper of a party who is not represented by an attorney shall be signed by the party. (Emphasis added). As stated in Maryland Rules Commentary, Neimeyer, Paul V. (4th Ed.), at 49: The purpose of this rule [MD Rule 1-311] is to impose on attorneys who sign pleadings and papers responsibilities consistent with their role as officers of the court…. When an attorney signs a pleading or paper, the signature is a certification to the court and to the other parties in the litigation that (1) the attorney has read the pleading or paper, (2) there is

1 MD Rules, Title 19, Chapter 300. 2 “Unbundling ‘Unbundling’”, Lydia E. Lawless, Esq., The Maryland Litigator (February, 2015), citing MD Rule 19-304.1(a). 3 Md. Rule 19-301.2(c). Note that the 4th Circuit has not addressed ghost writing in a reported opinion. See In Re Dreamplay @ fn. 18.

The Advocate

May 2022

Practice in Focus good ground to support it; and (3) it is not filed for an improper purpose or delay. MD Rule 1-311 was not amended, though other Maryland Rules were amended for the purpose of allowing limited scope representation.4 If an attorney is “representing a party” by preparing a pleading (and by implication, giving legal advice or perhaps doing research in preparing that pleading) then it would seem that MD Rule 1-311(a) would require that attorney to sign the pleading. The Rule does not say: Every pleading…of a party represented by an attorney who participates in a judicial or administrative proceeding shall be signed by at least one attorney. As noted in the Zhang case discussed below, preparing a pleading, giving legal advice, doing research, etc. are all regarded as practicing law. If these activities are done on behalf of a pro se litigant, is the attorney “representing a party” regardless of whether there is a contract of employment and regardless of whether the attorney participates in a judicial or administrative proceeding?5 THE ZHANG CASE “Ghost writing” was addressed in a Maryland Court of Appeals decision before the rule change which provided for limited scope representation. In Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Zhang 6, the respondent attorney filed with the INS, on behalf of husband (H), a Petition for Alien Relative, to permit wife (W) permanent resident status in the U.S. While still representing H, W asked the respondent to represent her in obtaining an annulment from H. Disregarding the obvious conflict of interest, respondent drafted the complaint for annulment which W filed pro se in the Virginia court. The conflict was exacerbated by the fact that the complaint for annulment alleged H’s perpetrating immigration fraud as to both the marriage and the petition with the INS. Respondent, a Rockville attorney, was not admitted to practice in Va., so she asked a suite-mate, attorney Metcalf who was barred in Virginia, to act as “co-counsel” in jointly representing W. Respondent informed Metcalf that W (who was Chinese) was unable to adequately understand

English and that respondent would have to handle all communications with W. Metcalf never spoke to W directly. At some point in the VA litigation, respondent also conducted legal research and prepared an amended complaint. Respondent signed Metcalf ’s name to the amended complaint which was filed in the VA court. Respondent negotiated a settlement on behalf of W, and informed Metcalf that based on her discussions with W and W’s authority, Metcalf was authorized to enter into an agreement and sign a Consent Order, which Metcalf did in reliance upon respondent’s representations.7 Among other exceptions, respondent challenged the hearing judge’s conclusion that she violated MLRPC 3.7(a), currently designated as MD Rule 19-303.7(a) by failing to strike herself as a witness or resign as W’s attorney. Respondent, who prepared W’s answers to interrogatories, identified herself as a potential witness. Respondent took the position that she was not W’s “advocate” because she never entered her appearance in the VA court proceeding. Therefore, she was not obliged to strike herself as a witness in the case. In overruling that exception, the Court of Appeals stated: Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Zhang violated MLRPC 3.7(a). Zhang was Wife’s counsel. Zhang’s contention that a lawyer does not act as an advocate where he or she does not enter his or her appearance in a particular court lacks merit. MLRPC 3.7 does not state that the “advocate at a trial” must have entered his or her appearance in a court to be considered an “advocate.” And the term “advocate” is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “[a] person who assists, defends, pleads, or prosecutes for another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 60 (8th ed. 2004). Thus, that Zhang did not enter her appearance does not relieve her of the responsibility of complying with MLRPC 3.7(a). Indeed, the very matter at issue demonstrates that Zhang violated MLRPC 3.7(a). In the answers to interrogatories that Zhang provided to Metcalf, Zhang is identified

4 The following MD Rules were amended to effectuate limited scope representation: Rules 1-321, 1-324, 2-131, 3-131, 2-132 and 3-132. 5 It is well settled that in forming an attorney-client relationship, a formal contract or retainer agreement is not necessary. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Shoup, 410 Md. 462, 489, 979 A.2d 120, 136 (2009). (“[A]n explicit agreement or payment arrangement is not a prerequisite to the formation of an attorney-client relationship.”). Thus, “the determination of whether an attorney-client relationship exists can, and often must, be implied from facts and circumstances of a given case.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Shaw, 354 Md. 636, 650-51, 732 A.2d 876, 883 (1999). See also Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Brooke, 374 Md. 155, 175, 821 A.2d 414, 425 (2003) (“The [attorney-client] relationship may arise by implication from a client’s reasonable expectation of legal representation and the attorney’s failure to dispel those expectations.”).Atty. Griev. Comm’n v. White, 448 Md. 33, 53. 6 440 Md. 128, 100 A. 3d 1112 (2014). 7 The H filed the grievance and the matter was referred to the Circuit Court for fact-finding. The fact-finding judge found, among other things, that respondent misrepresented to Metcalf that respondent had discussed settlement with W, or that respondent had been given authority to settle. In fact, W spoke English fluently. Other misrepresentations were made to H’s attorney and to the court, the details of which are not necessary for purpose of this article. The VA court rescinded the Consent Order.

May 2022

The Advocate

Practice in Focus as a potential witness. This demonstrates that Zhang, while acting as an advocate for Wife by preparing answers to interrogatories, identified herself (the advocate) as a potential witness. (Emphasis added). Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Zhang, 440 Md. 128, 165, 100 A.3d 1112, 1133–34 (2014), reconsideration denied (Aug. 27, 2014). As evident from Zhang, an attorney drafting a pleading to be filed by a pro se litigant in a judicial proceeding without entering an appearance is nevertheless acting as “an advocate”, i.e., is representing the party on whose behalf the pleading is prepared and is responsible for conforming to the relevant rules of professional responsibility. Not signing the pleadings and not entering her appearance did not protect the attorney from violating MD Rule 19305.5(a) prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law in another jurisdiction. As stated by the Court of Appeals: Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing judge’s conclusion that Zhang violated MLRPC 5.5(a). It is readily apparent that Zhang represented Wife in the annulment/divorce matter. Although Zhang did not sign any pleadings submitted to the Virginia Court, it is undisputed that Zhang drafted and prepared pleadings to be filed, participated in settlement negotiations, and prepared for hearings. Drafting pleadings, engaging in negotiations, conducting research, and preparing for hearings are actions routinely taken by lawyers in the practice of law. To engage in the practice of law does not require that one enter an appearance, or even initiate a lawsuit. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Brisbon, 422 Md. 625, 641, 31 A.3d 110, 120 (2011) (“Where trial work is not involved but the preparation of legal documents, their interpretation, the giving of legal advice, or the application of legal principles to problems of any complexity, is involved, these activities are still the practice of law.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). In short, Zhang represented Wife in the Virginia Court although she was not licensed to practice law in Virginia and did not enter her appearance in the annulment/divorce

matter. (Emphasis added). Id., 440 Md. 128, 167, 100 A.3d 1112, 1134–35. The fact-finding judge also regarded the respondent’s ghostwriting as an attempt “to conceal from the Virginia Court Zhang’s conflict of interest and role as Wife’s counsel.”8 The presumed anonymity associated with ghost writing does not insulate the attorney from the responsibilities associated with representation. In order that the allegations in a pleading fulfill the requirement of having a reasonable, good faith basis, so as not to assist a client in perpetrating a fraud on the court, the attorney must obviously exercise due diligence in ascertaining all facts that may have a bearing on the content of the pleadings. If pleadings drafted by an attorney on behalf of a pro se litigant are found to be without substantial basis, or in bad faith, the court will presumably require the disclosure of the ghost writer in order to hold that attorney responsible for the misconduct.9 As evidenced by Zhang, ghost writing does not insulate the attorney from being in a conflict situation.10 Ghost writing does not allow the attorney to deny that he or she represents the client. Ghost writing may raise concerns about the motive for the ghost-writing arrangement. Ghost writing does not insulate the attorney from the prohibited practice of law in another jurisdiction. An attorney ghost writing in another state, preparing a pleading to be filed in a Maryland proceeding, would violate MD Rule 19-305.5(a), as preparing a pleading constitutes practicing law: Under Maryland Code, § 10-601(a) of the Business Occupations & Professions Article (“BOP”), “a person may not practice, attempt to practice, or offer to practice law in the State unless admitted to the Bar.”[footnote omitted] And practicing law is defined to include “giving legal advice,” “representing another person before a unit of the state government,” “preparing ... [a] document that is filed in a court or affects a case that is or may be filed in a court,” and “giving advice about a case that is or may be filed in a court[.]” BOP § 10-101(h). (Emphasis

8 Id. at 440 Md. 140. 9 The underlying assumption is that a judge will be able to discern that a pleading was prepared by an attorney, rather than the pro se client. 10 In Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Lawson, 401 Md. 536, 933 A.2d 842 (2007), “ghostwriting” is mentioned tangentially. In that case, Dean was sued by Wallace, Dean’s partner in a restaurant business, for breach of contract. Dean retained Lawson. Lawson formerly clerked for Bell, and indicated in his bio that he was an associate of Bell. Dean had previously hired Bell but Bell would not work for Dean as he would be conflicted due to his earlier association with Wallace and Dean. Consequently, Bell referred the matter to Lawson. Despite Bell believing there might have been a conflict, Bell drafted pleadings (to assist Lawson) that would be filed in the litigation between Dean and Wallace. While the focus of the grievance was Lawson’s unreasonable claim for attorney’s fees, the appellate court admonished Bell for his failure to appreciate that ‘ghost writing’ pleadings in litigation where the lawyer is in a conflict is a violation of Rule 1.7, proscribing conflicts of interest.

The Advocate

May 2022

Practice in Focus added). Ross v. Chakrabarti, 194 Md. App. 526, 53334, 5 A.3d 135, 139-40 (2010). THE FEDERAL VIEW

As noted in the article Ghosting: The Courts’ Views on Ghostwriting Ethics Are Widely Divergent. It’s Time to Find Uniformity and Enhance Access to Justice”, Goldschmidt, Jona, JUDICATURE (Duke Law School), Fall/Winter 2018: “[F]ederal courts have handed down numerous decisions holding that the ghostwriting lawyer breaches a number of ethical duties contained in the current ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) (or its earlier iterations) or state rules of professional responsibility. These include arguments that a lawyer ghostwriter breaches the duty of candor to the tribunal by making false statements to the court. Some courts go beyond the violation of the candor requirement, holding that to ghostwrite pleadings is an act of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.” 11 On the other hand, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility” in Formal Opinion 07-446, “Undisclosed Legal Assistance in Pro Se Litigants”, May 5, 2007 supported ghostwriting. In that opinion the committee stated: ...the fact that a litigant submitting papers to a tribunal on a pro se basis has received legal assistance behind the scenes is not material to the merits of the litigation. Litigants ordinarily have the right to proceed without representation and may do so without revealing that they have received legal assistance in the absence of a law or rule requiring disclosure. In that same opinion, the committee concluded with regard to FRCP Rule 1112: ...we reject the contention that a lawyer who does not appear in the actions circumvents court rules requiring the assumption of responsibility for their pleadings [citing FRCP Rule 11]. Such rules apply only if a lawyer signs the pleading and thereby makes an affirmative

statement to the tribunal concerning the matter. Where a pro se litigant is assisted, no such duty is assumed. (Emphasis added). The purpose of ghostwriting, or unbundling legal services, is to permit litigants to save money by hiring an attorney for a limited purpose. The ABA supports a rule modification that would allow an attorney who assists a litigant in preparing pleadings to rely on the litigant’s representations, unless the attorney has reason to believe that the representations are false or materially insufficient, in which case the attorney should make an independent inquiry into the facts.13 Federal court decisions have not been consistent in their approach to the issue of whether ghost writing is unethical.14 Compare the ABA’s perspective to that described in “Unbundling ‘Unbundling’ “, Lawless, Lydia, Esq. 15, The Maryland Litigator (February, 2015), wherein the author states that an attorney who is ghost writing is still responsible for the content of the pleading.16 If a pleading is filed without a reasonable, good faith basis or to assist in a fraud, the attorney may be in violation of MD Rule 19-303.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), or Rule 19-308.4 (misconduct). See also MD Rule 19-308.4(a) providing that an attorney may not do, through the acts of another person, that which he or she cannot do his or her self. FEDERAL PRACTICE IN MARYLAND Ghost writing is prohibited by United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Local Rule 102(1)(a)(ii) which provides, in part: “Attorneys who have prepared any documents which are submitted for filing by a self-represented litigant must be members of the Bar of this Court and must sign the document, state their name, address, telephone number and their bar number assigned by this Court. Upon inquiry, all parties appearing without counsel must disclose the identity of any individual who has prepared, or assisted in preparing, any documents filed in this Court.”

11 See “Ghosting: The Courts’ Views on Ghostwriting Ethics Are Widely Divergent. It’s Time to Find Uniformity and Enhance Access to Justice”, Goldschmidt, Jona, JUDICATURE (Duke Law School), Fall/Winter 2018. 12 FRCP, Rule 11(a) states, in part: Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name-or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented…. 13 ABA Handbook on Limited Scope Legal Assistance (2003), p. 144. 14 See The Volokh Conspiracy [Per Wikipedia, The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog co-founded in 2002 by law professor Eugene Volokh covering legal and political issues from an ideological orientation it describes as generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these.”] “Is Lawyer Ghost-Writing of Self-Represented Clients’ Briefs Unethical?” August 5, 2021. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/08/05/is-lawyer-ghost-writing-of-selfrepresented-litigants-briefs-unethical/. 15 Lydia Lawless, Esq. is currently Bar Counsel for the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission. She was the attorney of record in the Zhang case, discussed below, as assistant bar counsel. 16 See footnote 2, supra.

May 2022

The Advocate

Practice in Focus See also, In re Dreamplay, Inc., United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland, 534 B.R. 106 (2015). Although In Re Dreamplay, Inc. was decided under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy, those rules were nearly identical to the Md. Rules already discussed. As stated in that opinion: “Rule 9011 provides that every paper filed in a bankruptcy case, «shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney›s individual name. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign all papers. Each paper shall state the signer›s address and telephone number . . . .” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(a). The Rule’s express language underscores its primary purpose: to insure that a paper’s author take responsibility for what the paper says and to hold the author accountable for statements made within the paper’s four corners. See Rule 9011(b) and (c); In re Mungo, 305 B.R. 762, 768 (Bankr. D. S.C. 2003). Mr. Raynor admitted (as did Mr. DeLuca) that he assisted in the preparation of legal papers filed in this case on Mr. DeLuca’s behalf. Accordingly, and while he was not the attorney «of record» solely because he declined to formally seek pro hac vice status or otherwise expressly enter his appearance, his decision to try and maintain an ambiguous posture,

by giving advice and preparing documents but intentionally not signing them, constitutes a violation of Rule 9011. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Raynor violated Rule 9011. The phrase “practice of law” is given a broad construction so that it includes, “[t]he preparation of legal documents, their interpretation, the giving of legal advice, and the application of legal principles to problems of any complexity . . . .” In re Final Analysis, Inc., 389 B.R. 449, 460 (Bankr. D. Md. 2008) (quoting In re Lucas, 312 B.R. 559, 575 (Bankr. D. Md. 2004)). At 534 B.R. 119-120. The opinion then directs itself specifically to “ghost-writing”: As for the question of “ghostwriting” and whether Mr. Raynor engaged in it, as stated in Mungo: Ghost-writing is best described as when a member of the bar represents a pro se litigant informally or otherwise, and prepares pleadings, motions, or briefs for the pro se litigant which the assisting lawyer does not sign, and thus escapes the professional, ethical, and substantive obligations imposed on members of the bar. In re Mungo, 305 B.R. 762, 767 (Bankr. D. S.C. 2003).

If You Expect the Best in Court Reporting, Demand... Fast, Reliable, and Accurate...

CRC Salomon has more than 123 years of specialization at your service. One of the Nation’s oldest and most reliable court reporting firms in the country. We provide experienced Reporters, Realtime Specialists, LiveNote, Videoconferencing, Video Depositions, Hearings, Online Scheduling, Transcription services, and Conference Rooms. Mobile access to your documents and scheduling 24/7. Local and National scheduling.

Our portfolio of services include: • Depositions

• Conferences

• Arbitrations • Notaries

• LiveNote™ • Large conferencing facilities

• Hearings • CART Services

Nationwide and Global Coverage

• Realtime

• Video Service by Certified Legal Videographers

• Videoconferencing

• Remote WebDeposition Latest Technologies via Laptop, iPad, and Smart Phone

• All Industry Standard Platforms (Zoom, WebEx, GoToMeeting, MS Teams, Blue Jeans, Etc..) • Remote Counsel

Headquartered in Maryland with Conference Rooms throughout MD, DC, VA, DE, PA, NC, and Nationwide If you expect the best in Court Reporting and Litigation Support, call CRC Salomon and let us show you how we can help! Phone 888-821-4888 • 410-821-4888 | Fax 410-821-4889 | www.crcsalomon.com | info@crcsalomon.com 40

The Advocate

May 2022

Practice in Focus The practice is “inconsistent with the intent of certain procedural, ethical, and substantive rules of the Court.” Laremont-Lopez v. Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Center, 968 F. Supp. 1075, 1077 (E.D. Va. 1997). To do so violates an attorney’s duty of candor and circumvents Rule 9011 which ensures that submissions of court documents are made in good faith with the responsible party’s signature. Attorneys who engage in ghostwriting for pro se litigants may be subject to sanctions, suspension or disbarment. Mungo, 305 B.R. at 767. *** Moreover, whether “ghostwriting” may ever be deemed permissible in this Circuit, that would not excuse an out of state, unadmitted attorney from practicing law without either a license or pro hac vice approval. Id. At 120. CONCLUSION Ghost writing is permitted in matters governed by the MD Rules so long as the requirements of MD Rule 19-301.2 are met, including a writing setting forth the scope and limitations of the limited representation, and provided that the attorney does not file or otherwise engage in any legal or administrative proceedings. Ghost writing is not permitted in matters governed by the US District Court for the District of Maryland

May 2022

Local Rules. An attorney, whether ghost writing or entering a limited scope appearance, should have a written agreement spelling out specifically the attorney’s responsibilities, and more importantly, that for which the attorney is not responsible. (See attached). The court form entitled “Acknowledgement of Scope of Limited Representation: (Md. Rules 2-131 and 3-131)” is for filing with the court. (See attached). The attorney must also file an Entry of Limited Appearance. Whether ghost writing a pleading for a pro se litigant, or entering a limited scope appearance, the attorney must exercise due diligence in making factual representations, whether directly to the court and opposing counsel, or via a pro se litigant. These representations may have been made without the benefit of adequate discovery, or with only an attorney’s limited inquiry into the facts of the case, consistent with the client’s transcendent purpose of saving money. Therefore, it is suggested that engaging in ghost writing requires the exercise of utmost caution, as on the one hand, the client’s goal is to save money thereby limiting the amount of time that the client expects to be charged. On the other hand, the failure to exercise due diligence may result in the preparation of a pleading that makes significant misrepresentations of fact, or which might otherwise be viewed as perpetrating a fraud on the court.

The Advocate

– Leon W. Berg

Stuart Axilbund Mary Chalawsky Marissa Joelson William Kerr Richard Lynas Jay Miller Gary Miles

saxilbund@axulbund.com chalawsky@gmail.com MJoelson@lawpga.com wlawkerr@verizon.net lynas.richard@yahoo.com JMiller@lawpga.com gary@lawhjm.com

Jose Molina Sam Moxley Joseph Murtha Karen Pilarski Bill Saltysiak Thomas Tompsett, Jr.

The Advocate

jamolinalaw@gmail.com smoxley@baltimorecountymd.gov jmurtha@mpllawyers.com karenapilarski@gmail.com wsaltysiak@gmail.com tommy.tompsett@mdlobbyist.com

May 2022

BCBA Events Law Day Breakfast On May 2, 2022, the Baltimore County Bar Association held its annual Law Day Breakfast Program at the Sheraton Baltimore North. The first in-person Law Day celebration since 2019 was well-attended by judges, both retired and sitting, as well as BCBA members. The Honorable Judith C. Ensor opened the festivities with the invocation, followed by a welcome message from BCBA President Stanford G. Gann, Jr. Stuart A. Cherry, Vice-Chair of the Law Day Committee, had the honor of introducing our esteemed Keynote Speaker, the Honorable Matthew J. Fader, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals of Maryland. Chief Judge Fader spoke eloquently on this year’s Law Day theme, “Toward a More Perfect Union: The Constitution in Times of Change.” Specifically, Chief Judge Fader spoke of the changes in the judiciary in the past two years as the world struggled to adapt to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chief Judge Fader discussed the importance of increasing convenience, efficacy, and access to the judiciary without sacrificing the rule of law. He also pointed out that although the Law Day theme references the U.S. Constitution, as Maryland attorneys, we should not forget the Maryland Constitution and the protections it affords its citizens. At the conclusion of the program, Mr. Cherry presented Chief Judge Fader with a plaque commemorating his keynote speech and thanked everyone for their attendance. After two long years of virtual gatherings, it was a wonderful and welcomed change to see familiar faces in person. – Tracee Orlove Fruman, Esq.

May 2022

The Advocate

Leaders in Dispute Resolution Retired Judges and Lawyers Serving as Neutrals in Maryland, DC, Virginia and beyond since 1995.

Hon. Sally D. Adkins (Ret.) Retired Judge, Court of Appeals of Maryland

Hon. Toni E. Clarke (Ret.) Retired Judge, Prince George’s County Circuit Court

Morton A. Faller, Esq. Past President, Bankruptcy Bar Assoc. for the District of Maryland

Hon. Eric M. Johnson (Ret.) Retired Judge, Montgomery County Circuit Court

Hon. Daniel M. Long (Ret.) Retired Judge, Somerset County Circuit Court

Hon. Thomas G. Ross (Ret.) Retired Judge, Queen Anne’s County Circuit Court

Hon. Nelson W. Rupp, Jr. (Ret.) Retired Judge, Montgomery County Circuit Court

Hon. J. Frederick Sharer (Ret.) Retired Judge, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Hon. William G. Simmons (Ret.) Retired Judge, Montgomery County District Court

Hon. Ann N. Sundt (Ret.) Retired Judge, Montgomery County Circuit Court

Kenneth L. Thompson, Esq. Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers

Hon. John H. Tisdale (Ret.) Retired Judge, Frederick County Circuit Court

Daniel E. Toomey, Esq. Construction, Surety and General Commercial Neutral

Hon. Martin P. Welch (Ret.) Retired Chief Judge, Baltimore City Circuit Court

Hon. Alexander Williams, Jr. (Ret.) Retired Judge, United States District Court

Hon. Patrick L. Woodward (Ret.) Retired Chief Judge, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

www.McCammonGroup.com 888.343.0922

Hon. Alexander Wright, Jr. (Ret.) Retired Judge, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Remote or In Person – We’re Ready to Serve 44

The Advocate

May 2022

BCBA Events Law Day Noon Ceremony On Monday, May 2, 2022, members of the Baltimore County Bar Association gathered in Patriot Plaza at the Baltimore County Circuit Court to celebrate Law Day with a noon ceremony. Law Day is typically held on May 1 of each year and is a celebration of the role of law in our society. This year’s theme was “Toward a More Perfect Union: The Constitution in Times of Change.” Although spring weather in Baltimore can be fickle, the mid-day sun was bright as attendees took their seats. BCBA President Stanford G. Gann, Jr. welcomed everyone and the Honorable Garret P. Glennon gave the invocation. Stuart A. Cherry, Esq. Vice-Chair of the Law Day Committee introduced our Keynote Speaker, the Honorable Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. Following Mr. Barron’s inspiring speech, President Gann presented the Judith P. Ritchey Award to both Marc DeSimone, Esq. and Matthew Nelson, Esq. The Judith P. Ritchey Award honors Bar Association member(s) who have made a significant constructive impact on Bar Association activities during the past year and are largely unrecognized for these efforts, which add to the proficiency, respect, and reputation of the Bar Association. Next, Suzanne K. Farace, Esq. presented the Law Day Award to Christine Malanga, Esq. The Law Day Award is given to a Bar Association Member, who has made an impact on the status or administration of the law, has participated in bar related activities, and served the Bar Association

May 2022

over the course of several years. The BCBA congratulates Mr. DeSimone, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Malanga for their well-deserved recognition. The BCBA also recognized Coach Tony Asdourian and The Park School Mock Trial Team for its first place finish in the Third Judicial Circuit. The Honorable Stacy Mayer presented this year’s Law Day essay awards. As in previous years, Towson High School swept the essay contest. The first-place winner was Hable Fitsum (11th grade). The second-place winner was Isaac Dover (10th grade). The third-place winner was Madeleine Mackenzie (9th grade). The Honorable Wendy Epstein presented the Law Day Art Awards. The kindergarten/1st grade winner was Sammy Redwinski (Rockburn Elementary School). The 2nd/3rd grade winner was Christian Ludden (Hampton Elementary School). The 4th/5th grade winner was Abigail Ludden (Hampton Elementary School). Judge Epstein also presented the middle school awards, both to students from Concordia Preparatory School. The 6th grade winner was Layla Wilhelm. The 7th grade winner was Reid Preis. The teacher award was presented to Marci Barth, also from Concordia Preparatory School. Congratulations to all of our essay and art contest winners! At the end of the program, Mr. Cherry gave closing remarks. BCBA thanks its Law Day sponsors for making today’s program a success.

The Advocate

– Tracee Orlove Fruman, Esq.

BCBA Spotlight Member Spotlight: Ari Kodeck Likely one of the most active members of the Baltimore County Bar Association, Ari Kodeck has been a member since 2004. He is currently an active member of the Advocate, Family Law, Professionalism, and Young Lawyers committees. He is also the Chair of the Constitution/By-Laws Committee and Vice Chair of the CLE Committee. In fact, it’s hard to attend a County Bar function or Zoom meeting and not see him! When asked what he finds so enjoyable about the Bar he said the comradery and the ability to utilize the expertise of other members as a resource, both as the person sharing experience and benefiting from that of others. “The ability to connect with friends, ask questions, and share knowledge with others is a critical function of the Bar Association,” shared Ari. Mentoring younger lawyers is also an important role and one Ari takes seriously. Volunteering is a core value for Ari, as demonstrated by his participation in so many Association committees but also in his “other” job as a Baltimore County volunteer firefighter. As a young man, Ari spent time at the Pikesville fire station. Although his responsibilities at the time included a lot of the grunt work of cleaning and organizing equipment, he was hooked. He joined as a volunteer in 1998 and received his paramedic license in 1999. It was the fulfillment of a childhood dream to be a firefighter. When asked what drew him to the work he said, “There is something about treating people at their worst, being able to help them on such a visceral level. I do it now because it fulfills my soul.” Ari noted that there is also a significant amount of crossover between his work as a paramedic and the practice of law. Both jobs require the practitioner to connect with people, often while they are at the lowest moment of their lives, and provide them assistance. Both jobs also require significant preparation, confidence in your abilities, and the ability to execute the job successfully. When he isn’t helping to save lives, Ari is an Assistant Attorney General. He currently works in the unit associated with the Department of Public Safety and

Ari Kodeck Correctional Services, litigating civil claims filed by inmates. Prior to his current appointment, he worked for the Central Collections Unit from 2011-2017. He began his legal career with his father’s practice, Ned S. Kodeck Chartered, before starting his own general practice in 2005. He handled “everything but heavy criminal as we didn’t have the resources to be in a two-week murder trial.” One of the more exciting aspects of private practice for Ari was that at one point he had appeared in every courthouse in the State. A natural extrovert, Ari found it rewarding to interact with so many people from all over the State. When not practicing law, volunteering with the Bar Association, or serving as a paramedic, Ari is the proud father of two and husband to his wife of 21 years. He encourages all to come to the next Bar function and say, “hi!”

The Advocate

– Jennifer W. Ritter, Esq.

May 2022

BCBA Spotlight Law Clerk Spotlight – Sandy Lamy Sandy Lamy is the current judicial law clerk to the Honorable Vicki Ballou-Watts in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Sandy grew up in Miami, Florida and came to the Washington, D.C. area to attend college at Georgetown University. She then came to Baltimore to obtain her juris doctor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Sandy realized her passion for government and the law at a young age. In high school, she participated in the YMCA Youth in Government Program. She was also part of the YMCA Mock Trial Team during her junior and senior years, leading her team to victory in her senior year. She also founded and led the Social Studies Club, which was her favorite subject, at her high school. Sandy graduated cum laude from Georgetown University in 2005 with a Bachelor of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies and a minor in Spanish. She also had the opportunity to study abroad at University of Cape Town in South Africa for a spring semester. Sandy went on to pursue a Master of Arts in Public Administration, with concentration in Public Financial Management, from American University in Washington, D.C. While at American University, Sandy was inducted into Pi Alpha Alpha, National Honors Society for Public Affairs and Administration. After earning her Master of Arts, Sandy began working at the United States Department of Commerce as a Program Analyst in the Office of Financial Management Systems from June 2008 to June 2020. As a program analyst, Sandy provided critical support for the migration of IT systems and Office of the Secretary business systems to a new federal data center including developing and managing Service Level Agreements and Letters of Agreement. She also served as Audit Liaison for annual Financial Statement Information Technology Audit and coordinated annual and quarterly account recertifications for several application systems.

Sandy Lamy While still working at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Sandy attended law school at the University of Maryland, where she graduated last year. She concentrated on business law, was a founding member of the Bankruptcy Moot Court Team, and served as a Rule 16 Student Attorney for the Consumer Bankruptcy Clinic. As a student attorney, Sandy had the opportunity to file notices of bankruptcy with the state court and assist and represent pro se debtors in regards to their reaffirmation hearings. Before starting her clerkship, Sandy also had the opportunity to intern on the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland with the Honorable Douglas R.M. Nazarian. Sandy is looking forward to gaining knowledge of the inner workings of the state trial court system through her clerkship. In her free time, Sandy enjoys attending church services, watching Miami sports, spending time with her family, and watching documentaries. – Erika C. Surock, Esq.

May 2022

The Advocate

Banking built for law firms Nota is a business banking platform designed specifically for solo and small law firms. And it won’t cost you a thing — just open a business checking or IOLTA at M&T.¹

Are you ready to make your life easier? Law Tech Integrations Connect your bank account with with Clio, QuickBooks and LawPay Minimize time spent in multiple systems

Premier Service Support from real humans who know law firms Branchless account opening saves you time

Best-in-class Pricing No monthly maintenance fees No wire or ACH fees Higher mobile check deposit limits

Visit trustnota.com today 1 There is no charge for the use of Nota. M&T Bank’s standard deposit account and service fees may apply if not enrolled in Nota. Banking services powered by M&T Bank, Member FDIC. Nota is a product/service offered by M&T Bank and is available to attorneys whose offices and practices are in NY, NJ, MD, PA, DE, CT, VA, DC, FL, or WV. IOLTA accounts held by lawyers in these states must be subject to applicable state rules and regulations. The advertised product/services and their features and availability are subject to change without notice at any time. Use of the product/service is subject to and governed by certain terms, conditions, and agreements required by M&T Bank. © 2021 M&T Bank. All Rights Reserved.

The Advocate

May 2022

BALTIMORE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION Family Law Committee Legislative and Case Law Update and Happy Hour

Thursday, May 26, 2022 4:30 p.m.

SPEAKERS

Ilene Glickman, Esquire Richard B. Jacobs, Esquire

PROGRAM CHAIR

Christine Malanga, Esquire Wendy Meadows, Esquire

PROGRAM LOCATION HAPPY HOUR LOCATION

Grand Jury Room, County Courts Building Towson Tavern, 516 York Road, Towson

COST

BCBA Members, FREE: Non-Members, $15

This event has become a tradition and will provide attendees with summaries of reported Family Law cases decided between May 2021 - May 2022, as well as the legislation that impacts Family Law cases passed during the 2022 Maryland General Assembly session. We will also hear from Chelsea Ortega, Esq. and Wendy Meadows, Esq. about ways to volunteer with MVLS, the benefits of volunteering, and the ability to shadow and learn from a mentor (or be a mentor!).

Happy Hour at Towson Tavern to follow

Happy Hour is generously sponsored by:

Family Law Committee – May 26, 2022 Name(s) Address Email

Telephone City, State, Zip

Program Registration Fee YES, I would like to make a donation: Baltimore County Bar Foundation Total Amount Enclosed

$ $ $ $

Click HERE to register and pay online or return this form, with a check to the Baltimore County Bar Association, 100 County Courts Building, 401 Bosley Avenue, Towson, MD 21204.

May 2022

The Advocate

BALTIMORE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ANNUAL GOLF TOURNAMENT AND SILENT AUCTION

MONDAY, MAY 23 • 11:30AM

WOODHOLME COUNTRY CLUB 300 WOODHOLME AVENUE, PIKESVILLE, MD 21208

Registration & lunch starts at 11:30am, Shotgun start at 1:00pm Dinner & awards immediately following play $175 per Golfer; $700 per Foursome 18-Hole Tournament Format: Four-person Captain's Choice Young Lawyers' Committee silent auction, course contests, raffles, giveaways, mulligans available for purchase and beverage stations throughout the course.

All Proceeds benefit The Education Foundation of Baltimore County Public Schools

Name of Golfer Name of Golfer Name of Golfer Name of Golfer Click HERE to register and pay online To register and pay by mail, return this form to the Baltimore County Bar Association, 100 County Courts Building, 401 Bosley Ave, Towson, MD 21204 with either cash, check or credit card information. Name on Credit Card_____________________________Billing Zip________ Card No._________________________________________Exp._________ Phone number________________Email______________________________ le! lab at i a v s A uocco e p i h s el R or mor sor h n c o Ra Sp gf act cba.or . t n b Co ion co@ ormat c o rru inf

The Advocate

May 2022

Baltimore County Bar Association

SAVE the DATE

Stated Meetings: 10/21/21 2/17/22 6/16/22

      

Aberdeen Ironbirds Game and Crab Feast August 21 6pm

Ravens Tailgate October 17

Holiday Party December 9

Law Day Breakfast & Noon Ceremonies May 2

May 2022

Party in the Plaza: Celebrating 100 Years of the BCBA September 23

Memorial Service Zoom November 18 3:30p.m.

BCBA Chopped

Law Clerk Orientation & BCBA Happy Hour The Pointe, Towson September 30

Young Lawyers Holiday Lunch December 2 12-2pm

Mystery Ingredient Reveal February 23; 6pm Live Results Show March 9; 6pm

Bar Wars Team Trivia Barley’s Backyard in Towson April 5

Black Tie Banquet Martin's Valley Mansion

Golf Tournament

Woodholme Country Club

May 23

May 17

The Advocate

Baltimore County Bar Association

Presort Standard U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1262 Baltimore, MD

100 County Courts Building 401 Bosley Avenue Towson, MD 21204-4491 (T) 410-337-9103 (F) 410-823-3418 www.bcba.org

Member Advertisements OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE CATONSVILLE

Office Space Available; 1007 Frederick Road; one to four rooms. Prime location along Frederick Road with signage. Call 410-744-3256. Office Space for Rent. 1002 Frederick Road, 2nd floor office. Private entrance, semi-private restroom, use of conference room and kitchen on first floor. Free parking. Would be a great satellite office. Please contact Lou Weinkam, Jr. at 410-744-3256, ext 103.

OWINGS MILLS Offices to rent: Share space with two solo Family Law practitioners. One or two offices available in a convenient office park off Red Run Boulevard. Includes use of conference room, kitchen, and in suite bathroom. Call Steven at 410979-8250

TOWSON Two offices to rent. We are a block from the courthouse. Use of office, telephone, copier, and fax, plus secretarial space are included. Call Frank at 410-296-6820. Nicely furnished office space with parking, half block from circuit court. Pete McDowell 410-9602536. Two to three offices within existing office space, just below 695, free parking, furnished if desired, use of telephone, copier, fax, conference room, Internet, paralegal/secretarial help available. Anne 410-337-8577 303 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Towson across Bosley Avenue from the Circuit Court Building, three offices with bathroom on the second floor, 3rd floor four offices available, conference room, bathroom, and kitchen on first floor, free parking space available, rent negotiable $50$100 less than comparable spaces. $400-$500 per office, great satellite office with possibility of overflow work. Contact Joe Glass at 410-8234214 or

HIRING Small firm in Towson looking for an experienced, part-time legal assistant/secretary two to three days a week. Any experienced candidates should contact Robert Jacobson at 410-583-8883. Full time associate. Licensed in Federal and Maryland State court. Law Offices of Nick Del Pizzo Njdelpizzo@aol.com

Don’t forget to update your information on our website! Click here to access or go to www.bcba.org