BCBA Advocate January 2015

THE ADVOCATE Newsletter of The Baltimore County Bar Association VOLUME XXVIV, No. 7

January 2015

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

by T. Wray McCurdy The holidays are upon us. The holidays come so fast and leave us all too soon. Families reunite, we travel to visit, family and friends come to visit us. After New Years the courts start opening regularly again, bills must be paid, its cold and we are more solitary once again. How can we make our holidays more lasting? Calendar alteration turning New Years into a week as opposed to a day would seem the most obvious, but it is also the most unrealistic. Enlarging the amount of time spent with our loved ones will enrich the holiday season, but if your loved one is an adolescent or millennial (see message of two months previous for full discussion of millennial) the enlargement of time may not be welcome on their part and their busy schedule may preclude it. All you can do is offer and make yourself available, you can’t force yourself upon them and expect the advance to be always well received.

So what can you do personally in your own space and time to make the holidays more enriched for yourself and others as well?

The holidays are a season of giving, give of yourself to those in need, even if they are strangers to you and even if the recipient doesn’t expect it. To facilitate this giving, you must identify what you care about and where the need is it local or global, and match that with a group in need. If you care about animals for example, the local SPCA or BARCS would be a great place for you to give your time or money or both as an ongoing commitment that would lift both your spirit and help this in need in an area you care about. When January comes with its stifling cold and moments of reflection about the holiday just past, you would be still involved in the spirit of giving as you have decided to make an ongoing commitment to a cause important to you. The logic applies to homeless persons, people who are hungry and or displaced through no fault of their own. Pick a subset within the greater category and match it with a charity that addresses those needs and act upon it. Send money donate time or both. If you have children, figure out a safe way to involve them in the endeavor, it is never too early to learn the spirit of giving.

Annual Black Tie Banquet

Go to the charities’ websites to check them out before you commit, and there are other resources locally that are efficient indicies of charities in the Baltimore area. Maryland Office of the Secretary of State has a searchable database here; http://www.sos.state.md.us/charity/searchcharity.aspx

Tickets on Sale NOW at the Bar Office

Locally Superpages.com lists 26 nonprofits and their contact information here; http:// www.superpages.com/yellowpages/C-Charitable+%26+Nonprofit+Organizations/S-MD/TBaltimore/

January 29, 2015

Baltimore County Government has compiled a list here; http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/ baltimore_county_assistance_pr.html Please do not feel compelled to use any of the information in the article if you have knowledge of a specific need or person who needs help in your life, help them directly. The lists attached here are simply ideas to start the thought process and hopefully motivate you to do more and feel better about the true meaning or the holiday season.

Hunt Valley Inn 245 Shawan Road Hunt Valley, MD 21031

On behalf of everyone on the Executive Council and BCBA staff we wish you and your families and loved ones a safe and joyous holiday. May this holiday give you something heart warming that carries you into the coming year with a renewed sense of place and purpose and give you true joy both inward and outward.

The Advocate

Page 1

January 2015

COURT NOTICES Case Resolved?

The Settlement Court requests that members of the bar notify the Settlement Court Office (410-887-2920) if a case is resolved or dismissed less than 30 days prior to a scheduled settlement conference. This allows the Settlement Court to plan their dockets more accurately, and to add additional cases when time slots free up.

The same issue arises in family law cases that are settled just prior to a pendente lite hearing. Please notify Civil Assignment (410-887-2660) if the hearing before the Master is no longer needed.

Thank you.

Judge Kathleen Gallogly Cox Circuit Court Administrative Judge

Maryland Judiciary NEW Circuit Court Mailing Address For faster receipt by the Clerk’s Office, it is suggested that the following address be used for mailing via USPS: Circuit Court for Baltimore County Clerk’s Office P.O. Box 6754 Towson, MD 21285-6754

Land Records E-recording Pilot to Launch in Baltimore County The Maryland Judiciary is working with its government partners to provide a more convenient system for land record customers to record documents. The Baltimore County Circuit Court is planning a pilot project that will start next spring that will allow customers to electronically record, or e-record, land record documents.

The complete press release can be found in the Committee Report of the Real Property Committee on our website.

NOTICE TO THE FAMILY LAW BAR FINALIZING DIVORCES PRIOR TO YEAR END The Circuit Court has set aside docket time on December 22nd and December 30th to set in hearings on divorces in uncontested matters where parties or counsel seek to have the matter finalized within the 2014 tax year. In order to have the case set for hearing, all matters must be resolved, the grounds for divorce must be ripe, and the case must be at issue (i.e. an answer filed or an order of default entered with the 30 days to move to vacate having run). If you wish to have a case set in for hearing on one of these days, please contact Civil Assignment at 410-887-2660. Cases are being set for hearing at 9:30 a.m., 11:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. (no afternoon time slots on December 30th). In order to ensure the case can be heard and the final Judgment can be docketed, please have the following when you appear:   

Proposed Final Judgment of Divorce “Blue Sheet” Payment for any open Court Costs

While we are scheduling cases on December 30th, we have reduced staff available that day in the Clerk’s Office to docket Judgments. Therefore we encourage parties and counsel to set the case on the earlier date.

The Advocate

Page 2

January 2015

C ALENDAR

Executive Council

OF

E VENTS

2014-15 President T. Wray McCurdy

The complete calendar, flyers and online registration can be found on the website: www.bcba.org

President-Elect Vicki Ballou-Watts Secretary Robert J. Thompson Treasurer Adam T. Sampson At-Large Members Keith R. Truffer Rebecca A. Fleming Michael W. Siri Jay D. Miller Stanford G. Gann, Jr. Jack G. Turnbull, III Philip N. Tirabassi, Immediate Past President Catherine Dickinson, YL Chair

The Advocate Laurie Wasserman Editor Doris D. Barnes Thomas S. Basham Associate Editors 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: 5th of the month preceding publication.

The Advocate

January 2015 1 2 7 8 8 9 13 13 13 14 14 15 19 20 20 21 22 22 27 28 29

Courts & Bar Office Closed Courts & Bar Office Closed Family Law Evening Series: Family Law Litigation 101: Trying A Child Support Case, A-Z. 5-6:30 p.m., Mezzanine 08, County Cts Building Bench/Bar Committee Meeting, 8 a.m., 4th Floor Judicial Conference Room Estates & Trusts: Succession Planning, 5 p.m., Grand Jury Room Solo & Small Firm Lunch: East Side, Noon, Uncle Eddie’s Executive Council Meeting, 8 a.m., Judicial Conference Room 363 Family Law Brown Bag Lunch, Noon, Mezzanine 08, County Cts Building Professionalism Committee Meeting, 5:15 p.m., Proctor & McKee Real Property Committee: Commercial Real Estate Contracts, Noon Lawyer in the Lobby, Pro Bono Clinic, 4:30-6:30 p.m.

Negligence, Insurance & WC: How to Organize & Evaluate Your Tort/WC Case, Noon, Mezzanine 08, County Courts Building Courts & Bar Office Closed Solo & Small Firm Lunch: Towson, Noon, 7 West Bistro Grille Pro Bono Committee Meeting, 4:30 p.m., Levin & Gann Young Lawyers’ Lunch & Learn w/Judge Darryl Fletcher, 12:30 p.m.

CLE: Magical Mystery Tour, Pt. 1 of 3: County Courts Building, Noon ADR Committee: Program TBA, 5 p.m., Mezzanine 08, County Cts. Bldg.

Family Law Committee Brown Bag Lunch, Noon, Mezzanine 08 Solo & Small Firm Lunch: Northwest, Noon, Harryman House Annual Black Tie Banquet, Hunt Valley Inn, Hunt Valley

EVENTS 2014 -2015 January 29 March 1 April 9 May 1

Annual Black Tie Banquet, Hunt Valley Inn Young Lawyers Bull & Oyster Roast, Towson American Legion Wines Around The World, Charity Fundraiser Event Law Day Breakfast, 7:30 a.m., Martin’s Valley Mansion

Flyers can be printed from the website calendar.

R E G I S T R AT I O N F O R M O N P A G E 7 . . .

Page 3

January 2015

E XC L U S I V E O N L I N E C O N T E N T WWW.BCBA.ORG Advertisers Index Advocate Archive - past issues Calendar of Events 2014-2015 & Online Registration Civil Law Update, by CeeCee Paizs Attorney Grievance v. McDowell & Burson, filed June 19, 2014 Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Doe, filed June 30, 2014 UBS Financial Servs v. Thompson, filed June 25, 2014 Robinette v. Hunsecker, filed July 18, 2014 Committee Reports, Chair Information & Program Handouts Court Notices & Court Notices Archive Criminal Law Update, by Robert C. Lidston State v. Johnson, filed October 22, 2014 Sibug v. State, filed October 2, 2014 Williams v. State, filed October 1, 2014 Estates & Trusts, Ethics for PRs, by Carole Demilio Family Law Dinner: VIPs of the Courthouse, by Catherine Woods

Family Law Marital Property Workshop, by Sondra Douglas Historical Perspectives: Phil Tirabassi Playing for Pizza, by G. Darrell Russell Jr. In Chambers with Judge Ruth Ann Jakubowski, by Christopher Vasiliades In Chambers with Judge Daniel A. Friedman, by Aidan Smith Judicial Law Clerk Matthew Bosak, by Whitney E. Wilder Law Library News Lawyers Assistance LRIS News & Information Member News Photographs of Events & Programs President’s (complete) Message Pro Bono Award & Reception, by Jerry Blake

Signature Sponsors

NEWS

ATTORNEY RESOURCES Circuit Court for Baltimore County Contact Information Circuit Court for Baltimore County – Daily Docket Court Holidays Courthouse ID Badges Lawyer Referral & Information Service Program Information … Grow your practice!

Legal Links & Links to Select Legal Providers Lawyer Assistance Program Membership Benefits Online Membership Renewal Process Veterans’ Services Video Equipment Rental (for courtroom presentations) Volunteer Opportunities The Advocate

The Week Ahead …

Court Notices The Advocate Annual Black-Tie Banquet 2015 Committee Reports Employment Opportunities Advertisers Index Advocate Information

Executive Council At-Large Vacancy MSBA Board of Governors—Nominations & Elections Baltimore City District Court—Bail Review Hearings Land Records E-recording Pilot to Launch in Baltimore County

Page 4

January 2015

The Advocate

Page 5

January 2015

H ISTORICAL P ERSPECTIVES

by G. Darrell Russell, Jr. “I knew at the age of fourteen, not to be afraid of whatever might come.” Pele In a real sense, the life and career of Judge Philip N. Tirabassi has been defined by futebol or football in English. Football, which is soccer in America, is the leading sport on the globe. The World Cup extravaganza, which occurs in four year cycles, dwarfs the Super Bowl. Phil started about the age of four kicking any and all round balls, in the backyard, in the nearby vacant lots, in the narrow alleys of East Baltimore, bouncing balls off walls, garage doors, fences, and trash cans with multiple dents. Soon he had the glorious uniform of the Little Flower tyker team, where he was a prolific forward striker, playing with official soccer balls. When the dinner bell rang in the Tirabassi household, Phil’s two sisters were easily located in their shared room doing their homework. Mom would open the back door and listen for the thud of the soccer ball, to begin the search for Phil’s whereabouts. After Mom’s beckoning call, he trudged home with the precious ball rolling off his feet, leading the way. The same ritual ensued Sunday mornings at Mass time. The girls were prettily dressed and ready and Phil was outside chasing his soccer ball, before arriving home with grass stained khakis. He continued playing in the CYO youth leagues until high school, where he was a solid player for the Archbishop Curley Friars. He had moved up from forward to midfield.

Upon high school graduation, like many Italians from the old neighborhood, Phil headed for Loyola College.

His teammates had symphonic sounding names which rolled off the tongue in metered rhyme. There was Portera, Caltibiano, Scilipoti, and Notaro. Palmere, Mangione, and so on. When he wasn’t studying his major of Political Science, and taking the necessary core courses, including the theology courses required of Catholic students, he was on the soccer pitch with his goombas. He had again moved further down the soccer field towards his goalkeeper. Now he was a staunch defender, fullback. His stocky stature and strong legs were anathema to dribbling forwards. He became an integral part of the Loyola team which won the National Championship in Division II of the NCAA in 1976. He continued playing for Pompei, a stellar club team, for a few post graduate years. Pompei has a national club championship in its history.

“I have seen the player who will inherit my place. His name is Messi.” Maradona Soccer would continue to be a lifetime passion. His soccer smarts, his Political Science studies as well as his keen, perceptive mind, gave him an acumen for life beyond the field, including politics, business and law. When he made his inaugural speech as Baltimore County Bar Association President in 2013, he said he would look beyond the box. He knows how things work and what transpires beyond the naked eye. It’s like watching a fast break on the soccer pitch as he eyes all the players and not just the man with the ball. He senses where the ball is going and moves to thwart the attack. In an election he doesn’t count the votes, but studies where they came from. In business, he reads the players before the balance sheet. When presiding in court, he hears more than mere words. He calculates the intent of the words.

Phil had a keen eye when he married Cathy, a fellow Loyola Greyhound. They were married in the Loyola College Alumni Chapel, with the President of Loyola, Father Joe Sellinger, presiding. Cathy has been on his team for thirty six years. She has had a successful career in her own right as an account executive with Mattie Corporation. Two great boys came from this union, Joe and Jim, both of whom went to Loyola Blakefield high school, where they excelled in Soccer. Predictably, they were coached by Dad. When the boys graduated, Dad

The Advocate

Page 6

January 2015

P H I L T I R A B A S S I P L AY I N G F O R P I Z Z A stayed around as a coach at Loyola for a while, until his judicial appointment foreclosed his afternoons. He had been a coach ever since he finished playing. Meanwhile Joe and Jim went off to St. Josephs and NYU respectively. They then did semesters overseas at Oldenburg in Germany for Jim and the University of London for Joe. As their parents, both sons have embarked on successful careers. They have eschewed the law for now and are in advertising and IT work. Dad didn’t become a member of the Maryland Bar until 10 years after graduation from Loyola so the boys could still pass the ball onto the field of law. Soccer continues as a family affair. Phil is the president of the Bohemians, which plays in a development league, and is the only area outdoor professional soccer team. Jim is the GM and Joe is the Director of media operations of the Bohemians. Phil also took time to be a driving force behind the building of the Cedar Park soccer fields in Harford County.

“My relationship with Messi is like the one between Ireland and the UK.” Ronaldo While studying law school in evening classes at the University of Maryland, he spent his daytime as a supervisor of claims with MAIF and Maryland Casualty. And, of course, he was also coaching soccer at Harford Kicks, Pompei, Catholic High (yes, he coached the girls there), Curley, before following his sons to Loyola. Along the way he was the Maryland State Youth Soccer Coach of the year in 1999. Many of his players have gone on to successful careers in the community, for which Phil is quite proud. These recreational and professional distractions caused an elongated time frame for law school. 1988 saw him finally admitted to the Maryland Bar. A long association was begun with John Nowicki, with offices in Edgemere, Towson and Bel Air. Meanwhile, his two sisters have pursued careers in a catering business and as a Social Security claims examiner. Their mom lives in a retirement community. None of the Tirabassi family followed their dad’s career as a Baltimore City Policeman. Tragically Dad died of a heart attack shortly before Phil’s graduation from Loyola. Understandably, Phil carries a strong affinity for the blue line.

Judge T is quick to point out the importance of his ethnicity. He is a proud American but cherishes both his Italian heritage of his dad as well as the Irish heritage of his mom. He has been a longtime member of the Justinians, a prominent Italian law club. It is a very influential organization, whose support is sought by candidates for office, especially judicial candidates. Phil was the Justinian of the Year in 1997. The Justinians were ecstatic when their favorite son, Philip N. Tirabassi, was appointed by Governor Ehrlich to the Baltimore County District Court. Phil has dual citizenship, with the United States and Italy. He acquired the latter six years ago. He speaks passable Italian. As a regular at the annual Irish Hibernians Dinner, he speaks no Gaelic!

Although, soccer is a driving passion, family and faith are paramount.

And being a judge fulfills a longtime ambition. The soccer background has taught him patience, and teamwork. He survives and flourishes on a bench of many strong wills. His words are measured among his colleagues as well as on the bench. When day is done he will go the soccer channel and watch his favorite team, Juventus, which plays in the Italian Serie A league. Manchester United is his favorite English Premier League team. Phil, Joe and Jim actually traveled to New York to see a “friendly” exhibition match

The Advocate

Page 7

January 2015

H ISTORICAL P ERSPECTIVES, CONT’D. between Man U and Juventus.

“Pele is the greatest player of all time. All the others, Maradona, Ronaldo, Messi, Johan Cruyff rank beneath him.” Franz Beckenbauer Judge Tirabassi took over as President of a Bar Association in financial distress. With a dwindling bank account, he looked past the box, and surveyed the whole field. Dribbling the ball past discordant voices, he made tough decisions. Through fund raisers and cuts, a deficit turned into a surplus. He made wise, well thought committee appointments, which revitalized the Bar. A vibrant Association was handed over to T. Wray McCurdy, his successor. Judge T is the first judge to arrive at the courthouse. Always accessible, and totally without pretense, he proudly wears his Highlandtown heritage like a chevron. He won’t soon be riding with the hounds in the valley. Although his present Catholic parish is St. Stephens, he will frequently return to his old neighborhood to attend historic St. Leo’s. It’s a parish of miracles, which boasts of a progeny of famous figures, to wit, Tommy Dalesandro, Nancy Pelosi, Mimi DiPietro, and Phil Tirabassi for starters.

Judge T listens attentively, although lawyers may be deceived that he is bored and perhaps dreaming of a Juventus victory. But if the lawyer is faring poorly in his presentation, it becomes akin to the soccer player listlessly playing offense. Judge T will act decisively and strip him of the ball. On the converse, if a lawyer appears well prepared, and clear and precise in his presentation, Judge T will sit back and let a smile suddenly appear. He won’t stand with arms outstretched and shout “Gooooaaal!” But he will generously say, ”Good

The Advocate

Page 8

January 2015

J U D I C I A L L AW C L E R K : M AT T H E W B O S A K

by Whitney E. Wilder Matthew Bosak is Judge Colleen Cavanaugh’s law clerk for the 2014--– 2015 term. Matthew set the bar extremely high for Judge Cavanaugh’s future clerks, surviving chambers his very first month on the job! However, if you know Mr. Bosak this feat would hardly surprise you, as he approaches everything with a strong work ethic and the utmost professionalism.

Matthew grew up in Perry Hall with two younger sisters and an older brother. Growing up, Matthew enjoyed playing sports and worked as a referee for intramural soccer in college. In his spare time, Matthew enjoys playing pool, running, and spending time with his Welsh Corgi named Jameson. When not busy cheering for the Ravens, Matthew cheers on his fantasy football team, hoping to reprise his league’s championship title again this year. Matthew recently moved to Canton and loves exploring his new neighborhood.

Mr. Bosak’s pursuit of a legal career began at an early age, attending Towson High School’s Law and Public Policy magnet program. After high school, Mr. Bosak attended the University of Maryland, College Park, earning a double major in government and politics and criminology and criminal justice. Immediately following college, Matthew attended the University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law where he was named Notes and Comments Editors for the Maryland Journal of Business & Technology Law. Aspiring to practice corporate law, Mr. Bosak focused his course of study and job experience in that area.

During his final semester of law school, Mr. Bosak worked as a corporate law clerk and investor relations manager for Bayshore Mortgage Funding, LLC. For Bayshore, Mr. Bosak revised a private placement memorandum for a ten million dollar business venture and spearheaded contract formation between mortgage originators and corresponding investors. In addition, Matt interned at the University of Maryland Center for Clinical Trials and Corporate Contracts, where he drafted contracts between the University and leading pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Bosak also served as a civil litigation law clerk for the Lawyers Trust Title Company, LLC, where he answered discovery requests, drafted pleadings, and maintained case files for complex financial litigation.

Before working for Judge Cavanaugh, Mr. Bosak interned for the Hon. Paul Grimm, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, where he researched and drafted memoranda and analyzed the federal rules governing electronically-stored evidence for every district.

Given Mr. Bosak’s naturally friendly and helpful personality, it is not surprising his resume reveals a common theme—a strong commitment to public service. In college, Mr. Bosak was an active member of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, raising over $50,000 for Autism awareness and research over just two years. Mr. Bosak organized a weeklong service trip to New Orleans where he, along with fifteen of his aternity brothers, rebuilt home destroyed by hurricane Katrina. Through University of Maryland’s Landlord Tenant Clinic, Mr. Bosak provided legal assistance to Baltimore city residents with rent and housing issues who could not afford an attorney.

Mr. Bosak, who recently passed the Maryland Bar Exam, really enjoys working for Judge Cavanaugh and looks forward to his career, in which Matthew is sure to make a positive impact on the legal field and the greater Baltimore community.

The Advocate

Page 9

January 2015

U PCOMING P ROGRAMS Family Law & Young Lawyers’ Committees Evening Series 2015: Family Law Litigation 101 Session 1 of 5: Trying a Child Support Case, A-Z Wednesday, January 7, 2015, 5 – 6:30 p.m., Mezzanine 08 SPEAKERS

Judge Colleen A. Cavanaugh, Master Phyllis W. Brown & Fred Allentoff, Esquire

Program Coordinator

Mary R. Sanders, Esquire, Turnbull, Nicholson & Sanders Estates & Trusts and Solo & Small Firm Committees Succession Planning Thursday, January 8, 2015, 5 – 6 p.m., Grand Jury Room

SPEAKER

Chester H. Hobbs, IV, Esquire Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, P.C.

Program Coordinator

John C. Heisler, Esquire, Heisler, Williams & Lazzaro, L.L.C. Brittany L. Stouffer, Esquire, Stouffer Legal, L.L.C.

COST

BCBA Members, FREE; Non-Members, $20

Attorneys counsel clients daily regarding personal estate planning, but usually neglect to do so for themselves and their practice.

This is especially important if you are a solo or small firm practitioner. Mr. Hobbs will help demystify the process and provide tips to help you assess your practice and the documents you should have in place should the unforeseen happen to you. This is the best gift you can give your surviving spouse or family members, and your clients.

Family Law Committee January Brown Bag Lunches 12 – 1:30 p.m., Mezzanine 08 Program Coordinator

Mary R. Sanders, Esquire, Turnbull, Nicholson & Sanders

Tuesday, January 13, 2015 SPEAKER

Program Title Name

Tuesday, January 27, 2015 SPEAKER

Program Title Name

COST:

BCBA Members – FREE; Non-Members, $20 Real Property Committee Commercial Real Estate Contracts: Basic to Intermediate Wednesday, January 14, 2015, 12 – 1:30 p.m., Mezzanine 08, County Courts Building

SPEAKERS Program Coordinator

Robert Aumiller, Mackenzie Commercial Real Estate Services F. Joseph Bradley, III, SIOR, Vice-President, Mackenzie Jonathan M. Herbst, Esquire, Royston, Mueller, McLean & Reid

COST

BCBA Members, FREE; Non-Members, $20

We will discuss the typical Baltimore area commercial real estate contract, provisions and issues. The program’s purpose is to spot issues and suggest solutions as a starting point to negotiating and documenting a commercial real estate transaction.

The Advocate

Page 10

January 2015

U PCOMING P ROGRAMS Negligence, Insurance & Workers’ Compensation Committee Nuts & Bolts: How to Organize & Evaluate Your Tort/WC Case Thursday, January 15, 2015, 12 – 1:30 p.m., Mezzanine 08, County Courts Building SPEAKERS

Andrew M. Battista, Esquire Jared Silberzahn, Esquire, H. Barritt Peterson, Jr., & Associates

Program Chair:

Cliff A. Robinson, Esquire, H. Barritt Peterson, Jr., & Associates

COST

BCBA Members, FREE; Non-Members, $20 Young Lawyers Committee Lunch & Learn with Judge Darryl Fletcher Wednesday, January 21, 2015, 12:30 p.m., Mt. Washington Tavern

Program Chair:

Catherine A. B. Dickinson, Esquire, Rollins, Smalkin, Richards & Mackie Alexander “Sandy” C. Steeves, Esquire, Alperstein & Diener

COST

BCBA Members, $18; Non-Members, $25

Rare opportunity for a one-on-one, small group discussion with retired Baltimore County District Court Judge Fletcher – question and answer session throughout the lunch. This is a wonderful opportunity for young lawyers to receive practice tips directly from the bench! Limited seating available. See full-version flyer (online) for menu choices.

Continuing Legal Education Committee Magical Mystery Tour Pt. 1 of 3: The County Courts Building Thursday, January 22, 2015, 12 – 1:30 p.m., Mezzanine 08, County Courts Building SPEAKERS

Name, Firm/Department

Program Chair:

Judge Julie L. Glass, Circuit Court for Baltimore County

COST

BCBA Members, $10; Non-Members, $20

Insert description here ...

Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee Conversation with the DCM: Surveys and More Thursday, January 22, 2015, 5 – 6:30 p.m., Mezzanine 08, County Courts Building SPEAKERS

Anamarie Jimenez & Abigal Cohen, Baltimore County Nick White, PhD, Evaluations Director, MACRO Ronna Jablow, Baltimore City

Program Chair:

Wallace Kleid, Esquire & William Levasseur, Sr., Esquire

COST

BCBA Members, $10; Non-Members, $20

An opportunity for mediators to hear from Court ADR Coordinators and MACRO to provide background information and advice regarding the Maryland Statewide research surveys, offering to solve problems and then allowing mediators to ask questions and voice concerns about instructions, scheduling, effect of motions to strike, fees and costs, making final disposition of forms. CLE Credit for 1.5 hours.

The Advocate

Page 11

January 2015

J A N UA RY R E G I S T R AT I O N F O R M Please return this form to the Baltimore County Bar Association, 100 County Courts Building, 401 Bosley Avenue, Towson, MD 21204 with a check or credit card info; or fax to 410-823-3418, or REGISTER ONLINE at www.bcba.org.

PLEASE register me for the following programs/events: Registration Fee: January 7, 2015, Family Law, 5 pm January 8, 2015, Estates & Trusts, 5 pm January 13, 2015, Family Law, 12 pm January 14, 2015, Real Property, 12 pm January 15, 2015, Negligence, Ins & WC, 12 pm January 21, 2015, Young Lawyers, 12:30 pm January 22, 2015, CLE, 12 pm January 22, 2015, ADR, 5 pm January 27, 2015, Family Law, 12 pm Name(s) Telephone City Email

Address State

Member

Non-Member

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18 $10 $0 $0

$20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $25 $20 $20 $20

Zip Amount Enclosed

Menu Choice (if applicable) Name on C/C Today’s Date Billing Address City State Zip Email Amount authorized MC/Visa/Discover/American Express Card No. Expiration SEC# (on back of card) Signature____________________________________________________________________

For current, up-to-date information on specific committee programs and contact information, please visit our website www.bcba.org, Committee Reports … Find out what is scheduled, and download or print handouts from programs previously held.

The Advocate

Page 12

January 2015

E T H I C S F O R P R S , A T T O R N E YS

by Carole S. Demilio The Estates & Trusts program on Ethics for Personal Representations, attorneys held audience spellbound.

Lydia Lawless, Associate Bar Counsel for the Attorney Grievance Commission, captivated the nearly 20 attendees on November 13th with the facts from recent cases involving dismissal or reprimand of lawyers practicing in the area of estates and trusts. Despite the wintry weather developing late afternoon, Ms. Lawless graciously stayed beyond the designated hour to answer many questions. She explained some of the provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct by sharing the “do’s and don’ts” based on actual cases.

Ms. Lawless indicated that although her office cannot give legal advice, they welcome inquiries from attorneys and will assist by discussing relevant hypothetical legal situations. She also pointed out that a significant role of the Attorney Grievance Commission is to protect lawyers from frivolous complaints.

She briefly explained the procedure when a complaint is filed with the Commission. Bar Counsel and staff investigate potential misconduct, and have the authority to issue investigative subpoenas for records, documents and witnesses. After an investigation is complete, the complaint can be dismissed with or without a warning, a Commission reprimand (with the consent of the attorney respondent) can be issued or a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action may be filed in the Court of Appeals. Alternatively, Bar Counsel and the attorney respondent may enter into a Conditional Diversion Agreement. If a Petition is filed by Bar Counsel in the Court of Appeals, which has exclusive jurisdiction over attorney licensing in Maryland. The matter is then referred for a hearing in any Circuit Court, which must make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties may file exceptions to the factual findings.

Based on the Circuit Court’s decision, Bar Counsel then makes a recommendation of the appropriate sanction to the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals hears oral arguments before issuing a written Opinion. Under the standard of review, the Court of Appeals will not disturb the Circuit Court’s findings of fact unless the Court determines them to be clearly erroneous; the conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. Michael C. Hodes, the Court of Appeals issued a rare Per Curium Order disbarring Mr. Hodes the day of oral argument.

A written opinion will follow. As Assistant Bar Counsel, Ms. Lawless second-chaired the Hodes case and shared with the audience the facts in the case.

A special thank you to Ms. Lawless for a very interesting presentation and to Tucker & Meltzer, Valuation Advisors, for their sponsorship and delicious refreshments.

The Advocate

Page 13

January 2015

C I V I L L AW U P DAT E

by Ceecee Paizs COURT OF APPEALS: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Matthew John McDowell,& John Stephen Burson, Misc Docket AG No. 50, September Term 2012, file June 19, 2014, Opinion by Shirley M. Watts , Judge The AGC filed a Petition against charging McDowell with Violating Maryland Lawyers’ Rule of Professional Conduct (“MLRPC”) 5.2(a) (Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyers) and John Stephen Burson with violating MLRPC 5.1 (Responsibilities of Partners, Managers and Supervisory Lawyers) and 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Non-Lawyer Assistants) and charged both with violating MLRPC 1.1 (Competence and 8.4 (Misconduct). The hearing judge found that Burson was the managing partner of a law firm at which McDowell, an associate, signed trustee’s deeds and affidavits on behalf of another lawyer at the firm. IN addition, paralegals at the firm who were also notaries public would notarize theses documents stating that the documents were signed in their presence. Burson made no efforts to ensure that the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that lawyers did not robo-sign documents and that paralegals did not falsely notarize documents. The hearing judge concluded that McDowell had not violated any MLRPC and that Burson had violated MLRPC 5.1(a) and 5.3(a), had not violated MLRPC 1.1, 5.3(b) or 8.4, was not vicariously responsible for McDowell’s conduct nor responsible for the paralegals conduct under the cited MLRPC. The Commission excepted to the hearing judge and sought suspension of Burson for 30 days and reprimand for McDowell. Both men agreed with the recommendation of reprimand.

The Court of Appeals held that McDowell had violated MLRPC 8.4(d) and 8.4(a) and that Burson had violated MLRPC 5.1(a), 5.3(a) and 8.4(a). The Court reprimanded both lawyers, finding that McDowell’s misconduct was mitigated by the absence of prior attorney discipline, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive , a cooperative attitude toward the attorney discipline proceeding and remorse. They further found that Burson’s misconduct was negligent rather than knowing or intentional, did not cause any tangible injury, was aggravated only by substantial experience in the practice of law and was mitigated by a myriad of significant, persuasive and impressive factors.

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services v. John Doe, Misc. No. 1, September Term 2013, and Gregg Hershberger v.

John Roe, No. 103, September terms 2013, filed June 30, 2014. Opinion

by Clayton Greene, Jr., Judge In Doe v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, 430 Md. 535, 62 A. 3d 123 (2013), (“Doe 1″) the Court of Appeals held

The Advocate

Page 14

January 2015

C I V I L L AW U P DAT E

by Ceecee Paizs that retroactive application of Maryland’ sex offender registration statute is unconstitutional. The federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 42 U.S.C. §16901 et. seq, provides for resolution of conflicts between the federal law and state constitutions “as determined by a ruling of the jurisdictions highest court”. Therefore, notwithstanding the registration obligations placed directly on individuals by SORNA, an individual to whom the registration requirement would be applied retroactively cannot be required to register involuntarily as a sex offender in Maryland when to do so would be unconstitutional as articulated in Doe 1.

THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS: UBS Financial Services, Inc. et al. v. Nancy Lee Kathryn Thomson, et al,. No. 352, September Term, 2013, filed June 25, 2014. Opinion by Michele D. Hotten, Judge Nancy Lee Kathryn Thompson and Barbara Clements (“the Sisters”) were the named beneficiaries and owners of a second to die life insurance policy taken out by their parents. The policy was set up to have premiums for the policy paid through “gifts” from the parents. The Sisters discovered that, in fact, the premiums had not been paid for a number of years and sued the parents’ financial advisor, Gordon Witherspoon and his employer, UBS Financial Services. A jury found for the Sisters, finding Mr. Witherspoon and UBS liable under claims of conversion, constructive fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and deceit. They awarded the Sisters $150,000 in punitive damages and over a million dollars in compensatory damages.

The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in (1) failing to correctly instruct the jury regarding the scope of Mr. Witherspoon and UBS’ duty towards the Sisters and (2) in failing to correct an erroneously calculated jury award. The Court held that the jury was not properly instructed on the narrow and defined duty owed to the Sisters by Mr. Witherspoon and UBS. Further, while the Sisters claimed that, had they known that the premiums were not being paid, they would have paid the premiums themselves, but failed to present evidence that they had the ability to have made those payments timely. The claims for conversion and constructive fraud were dismissed due to lack of a legally cognizable claim for either tort. The claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligent supervision and deceit were remanded for a new trial.

Review of the August 2014 Amicus Curiarum reveals the following decisions of interest in the civil law area: COURT OF APPEALS: Lori A. Robinette v. Luann Hunsecker, No. 90, September Term, 2013, filed July 18, 2014. Opinion byRobert M. McDonald, Judge Ms. Hunsecker was married to Roger Robinette, an employee of the Montgomery County Public Schools.

(MCPS). The parties executed an agreement under which Ms. Hunsecker was to receive 50% of the marital portion of the MCPS pension if, as and when Mr. Robinette received the same. The agreement stated that the parties intended for the agreement itself to act as any qualifying order that might be necessary to have her share of Mr. Robinette’s pension paid to her, including any death benefit. No qualifying order was ever prepared, presented to the court or presented to the plan administrator. No

The Advocate

Page 15

January 2015

C I V I L L AW U P DAT E

by Ceecee Paizs separate notice of Ms. Hunsecker’s interest was ever communicated to the plan administrator. After the divorce, Mr. Robinette remarried and designated his wife, Lori Robinette, as the sole beneficiary on his MCPS pension plan. After his death, Ms. Hunsecker filed suit against Lori Robinette based on her being unjustly enriched in receiving the entire pension and death benefits and asking for a constructive trust for Ms. Hunsecker’s share of the pension plan and death benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Hunsecker, ordering Ms. Robinette to account for the pension and death benefits that she had already received and indicating that it would approve a posthumous qualified domestic relations order to be presented to the plan with respect to future benefits. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court noted that Ms. Robinette’s arguments under ERISA did not apply, as the MCPS retirement plan was not covered under ERISA. The Court held that the trial court’s issuance of a posthumous QDRO in order to allocate Mr. Robinette’s retirement benefits in accordance with the agreement was appropriate under Maryland law. After consideration of other state appellate courts’ decisions in this area, the Court concluded that a circuit court has the authority to impose a constructive trust on retirement benefits received by a surviving spouse with the decedent promised a portion of those benefits to a former spouse in circumstances which give the former spouse a “higher equitable call” to the promised benefits. In the present case, the Court held that it was clear from the parties’ agreement that there was a mutual understanding that Ms. Hunsecker had a 50% interest in the portion of Mr. Robinette’s benefits that constituted marital property and the agreement purported to be self-executing and did not make Ms. Hunseckers’ entitlement contingent on her contacting the retirement plan or obtaining a separate

The Advocate

Page 16

January 2015

F A M I LY L AW : M A R I T A L P R O P E R T Y

by Sondra Douglas It was Columbus Day, October 13, 2014 when the family laws bar met at 8:30 AM on a holiday morning to wrestle with a fact pattern that swirled with marital property issues. There were flying pet monkeys, mansions, novels and vacation homes that were the subject of debate. The layout: the event was held at the American Legion and the room held large circle tables where a Judge and seasoned family law practitioner would steer the direction of the conversation. Each attendee was given a binder which consisted of the fact pattern and a dozen or so cases to assist you in supporting your position for either the wife or husband.

Each table was assigned which spouse they would represent. After each table completed a 9-207 form (Marital Property Joint Statement of the Parties) according to the facts provided we discussed the weaknesses and strengths of our case. Once your table’s strategy and argument was developed, the Judges would rotate on a panel to hear the issues and render a decision and explanation for their decision. Questions were asked, feedback from the Judges, moderator and attorneys were given. Each attendee left feeling more confident to tackle cases that involve self employed spouses, spouses that develop intellectual property ides prior to marriage and earn profits after marriage and how to utilize the footnote section on the Joint Statement. Stay tuned for more upcoming Marital Property workshops. Thank you to all our participants: Judges Jakowbowski, Cox, Hecker, King, Stringer and Attorneys: Sondra M. Douglas, Rebecca Fleming, Sally B. Gold, Richard B. Jacob, Stacy L. Siegel and our moderator Mary R. Sanders.

P R O B O N O A WA R D S

by Jerome Blake

On October 22, 2014, the Pro Bono Committee had its annual Awards Ceremony at Pessin Katz Law office. The main speaker of the night was the Honorable John P. Morrissey, Chief Judge District Court of Maryland, who spoke on pro bono efforts statewide. Maryland Bar Association President, Debra Schubert, also addressed those gathered for the ceremony. The Pro Bono Committee gave its annual award to Michael J. Lawlor. Michael Lawlor was recognized for his countless hours of pro bono services to veterans. All together fifty-seven attendees were present to honor Michael Lawlor for his efforts on behalf of veterans. All those present had a wonderful time. The Committee wants to thank Pessin Katz for graciously hosting the event, and to thank Stan Gann and Jack Turnbull for their invaluable help in arranging the event.

The Advocate

Page 17

January 2015

C R I M I N A L L AW U P DAT E

by Bob Lidston The November Amicus features a Court of Appeals and two Court of Special Appeals decisions which may be useful to practitioners.

State v. Johnson, No. 3, September Term 2014, filed October 22, 2014 (opinion by Greene, J.). Johnson was charged with the sexual abuse of a minor and a second degree sexual offense. Prior to trial, his counsel issued a subpoena for the minor victim’s mental health records. The facility where the youth had been treated filed a Motion for Protective Order. At a hearing on the motion, a representative of the counseling center argued that the records sought were privileged and confidential because they contained communications between the victim and mental health providers, as well as notes from psychiatrists and a licensed clinical social worker. The judge asked defense counsel why the records were being sought.

Counsel answered: “I’d like to see the records, one, to know what is this young man’s mental health diagnosis. Is he, is he bipolar? Is he paranoid schizophrenic? Is he delusional? Does he have hallucinations?” because “if he’s delusional, and if he has hallucinations, I believe that’s exculpatory.”

When asked if he had a more specific reason, counsel added, “Not without even having a slightest idea of what may be in the records. Your Honor, not without even knowing his diagnosis, no. So, if you wish to call it a fishing expedition, it may be because I have no idea what these records may contain.” The hearing judge cited Goldsmith v. State, 337 Md. 112 (1995), and Fisher v. State, 128 Md. App. 79 (1999), in deciding that counsel’s proffer to the court was insufficient to permit disclosure of the victim’s privileged mental health records. A protective order was issued.

Johnson was convicted and appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. COSA reversed his conviction, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by granting the counseling center’s motion. COSA wrote: “While we cannot expect counsel to have precise information as to the content of the records, he did suggest that it would be appropriate to know of the victim’s propensity for veracity…. Those suggestions alone were sufficient, at the very least, to call for an in camerareview of the records to determine their relevance, vis a vis Johnson’s constitutional rights, before ruling on the motion.” The Court of Appeals granted the State’s petition for cert.

The Court of Appeals reversed COSA. It noted that Courts and Judicial Proceedings subsection 9-109 and 9 -121 give a patient the privilege to prevent the disclosure of his or her communications to a licensed psychiatrist or a licensed clinical social worker. The Goldsmith case held that in a criminal trial, a defendant’s constitutional rights at trial may outweigh the victim’s right to assert a privilege. A victim does not have an absolute privilege against disclosure, however, a defendant does not have an absolute right to obtain those records. Goldsmith described striking a balance between the competing interests of a witness’s privilege and a defendant’s constitutional right to obtain and present evidence necessary to a defense. A trial court has to apply a balancing test, under which a defendant must meet a minimum threshold to be entitled to an in camera review of the records. A defendant must establish a reasonable likelihood that the privileged records contain exculpatory information needed for a proper defense. This must be more than the fact that the records may contain evidence useful for impeachment on cross-examination.

In the Johnson matter, COSA opined that defense counsel’s suggestion of a need to know the victim’s propensity for veracity was enough to at least warrant an in camera review. The Court of Appeals disagreed.

A “fishing expedition” alone does not satisfy the Goldsmith standard. The mere argument that it would be appropriate to know the victim’s propensity veracity is not enough to overcome the privilege. A defendant must be able to point to some facts outside those records that make it reasonably likely that the records

The Advocate

Page 18

January 2015

C R I M I N A L L AW U P DAT E

by Bob Lidston contain exculpatory information.

Sibug v. State, No. 2211, September Term 2012, filed October 2, 2014 (opinion by Krauser, C.J.). In 1999, Sibug was charged with multiple counts of assault and related handgun offenses. He was found not competent to stand trial and committed to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for inpatient treatment. Three years later, the circuit court received a letter from the hospital where Sibug had been committed stating that he had regained his competence to stand trial. In 2004, he appeared before the circuit court and, without any competency hearing having been held, he entered a plea of not guilty to an agreed statement of facts to one count of second degree assault. He was imprisoned, but a year later, his conviction was vacated based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He was then granted a new trial.

In 2008, Sibug was retried and a jury found him guilty of multiple counts of assault and handgun use.

Neither before nor during trial did Sibug allege that he was incompetent to stand trial. After the jury found him guilty, his counsel filed a motion for a new trial, asserting that Sibug had not been competent to stand trial. The motion was considered at Sibug’s sentencing proceeding. The trial judge noted that neither Sibug nor his counsel had alleged, either before or during trial, that his competency was in question. The judge further noted that the court file contained a hospital’s letter stating that Sibug was competent and that he had “seemed to understand exactly what was going on” during his trial. The judge found that he was competent and denied the motion. Sibug appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing that the trial court denied him due process by failing to determine whether he had regained his competency to stand trial before proceeding with his new trial.

COSA affirmed the conviction. Criminal Procedure Article subsection 3-101(f) provides that a defendant is not competent to stand trial when he is not able “(1) to understand the nature or object of the proceeding; or (2) to assist in his defense.” Section 3-104(a) of the same article provides that if “before or during trial, the defendant in a criminal case… appears to the court to be incompetent to stand trial or the defendant alleged incompetence to stand trial, the court shall determine, on evidence presented in the record, whether the defendant is incompetent to stand trial.”

Before his first trial, Sibug properly alleged his incompetence. That conviction was vacated and he was granted a new trial. With that, Sibug’s case began anew procedurally. Sibug was then required to raise the issue again after a new trial was granted. The issue was not raised and his behavior in the courtroom did not trigger the judge’s duty to evaluate Sibug’s competency. Thus, the issue of his competence to stand trial was not before the court at the new trial.

The trial court was not required to address the issue when it was raised, for the first time, in a motion for a new trial after a guilty verdict. A trial court must determine a defendant’s competence to stand trial only if the question is raised before or during the trial. The judge had no obligation to make such a judicial determination at the sentencing hearing.

Williams v. State, No. 651, September Term 2012, filed October 1, 2014 (opinion by Woodward, J.). Williams was arrested and charged with first

The Advocate

Page 19

January 2015

C R I M I N A L L AW U P DAT E

by Bob Lidston degree murder and related offenses. He was put in an interrogation room with two police officers. Just before being advised of his Miranda rights, he made the comment, “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know, -”. He was then given his Miranda rights, after which he confessed to shooting the victim. Prior to his trial, Williams moved to suppress his confession. His motion was denied and he pled guilty to first degree murder and use of a handgun from a not guilty to agreed statement of facts. Williams appealed his conviction to the Court of Special Appeals. In affirming the conviction, COSA answered three specific questions.

Were Appellant’s Comments Made in the Context of Custodial Interrogation? The State contended that Williams’s comment, “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know, -” was not an invocation of his right to silence because he said it before being advised of his Miranda rights and it was not in response to custodial interrogation. In disagreeing, COSA noted thatMiranda requirements attach in the context of custodial interrogation which means that the custodial interrogation has begun or is imminent. Williams’s comment was made after he was placed in the interrogation room and afer he began to talk with the police. Thus, custodial interrogation was “imminent,” and he could invoke his right to silence under Miranda.

Was Appellant’s Invocation of His Right to Silence Unambiguous? Williams argued that his comment, “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know, -” was an unambiguous and unequivocal invocation of his right to silence. COSA disagreed. It decided that a suspect undergoing custodial interrogation must unequivocally and unambiguously invoke his or her right to silence before the police are required to end the interrogation.

COSA agreed with the trial judge that the “I don’t know, -” added to the statement by Williams in the same breath as the first portion of his comment made what would otherwise have been a clear statement and ambiguous and equivocal one. COSA noted that the classic expression of uncertainty, “I don’t know, ” introduced a level of doubt into the message being communicated by Williams to the officers. A reasonable officer in the same circumstances would not find the individual’s comments to be an unambiguous and unequivocal invocation of the right to silence.

Did the Police Improperly Induce Appellant to Give a Confession in Violation of Maryland Common Law? Williams contended that his confession was involuntary because the police implied that he might “see outside again” if he confessed to a robbery gone bad instead of premeditated murder. COSA disagreed. It opined that the deception short of an overbearing inducement is a valid weapon for the police to use and that an appeal to the inner-psychological pressure of conscience to tell the truth does not constitute coercion.

Williams’s detectives told him that there were two different charges: premeditated murder or an accidental killing during the course of a robbery. The officers did not tell him that he would face the same criminal penalty of first degree murder for either charge. Even this conduct was not an improper inducement.

Although a detective told Williams that he “may never see outside again,” the detective did not promise or give any indication that he would obtain special consideration from the judge or the prosecutor. The detective also told Williams that he wanted to ensure that he “got every opportunity to tell us the truth.”

Such an appeal to conscience is plainly permissible. COSA concluded that the police did not make any improper promises or inducements to gain Williams’s confession. It was not involuntary under Maryland common law.

The Advocate

Page 20

January 2015

The Advocate

Page 21

January 2015

The Baltimore County Bar Association

PRESORT STANDARD U.S. POSTAGE PAID Permit No. 1262 Baltimore, MD

The Advocate 100 County Courts Building 401 Bosley Avenue Towson, MD 21204-4491 410-337-9103-Telephone 410-823-3418-Facsimile www.bcba.org

NEW LOCATION Hunt Valley Inn Baltimore 245 Shawan Road, Hunt Valley BCBA Annual Black-Tie Banquet Thursday, January 29, 2015 Cocktails @ 6:30 P.M., Dinner @ 7:30 P.M. A limited block of Standard Guest Rooms is available for a discounted rate of $99 (plus taxes). If interested, please call 1-866-764-8359 and specifically ask for the “Baltimore County Bar Association Room Block.” To receive the discounted rate, reservations must be made by January 15, 2015. Or use this link to register: http://www.wyndham.com/wbe/reservations.wnt? pro=47327&grp=01296864BA&cha=WYNDHAMCORP

MEMBER ADVERTISEMENTS Dundalk. Available office space in Dundalk. Call 410-288-2900.

Towson. For rent, Lawyer’s office in the business condominium of J. Michael Lawlor. Approx. 20x10 w/filing cabinet, small bookcase, desk, chairs and credenza w/three lamps. Young attorney who practices domestic law (not exclusively, necessarily) is desired. Spin-off work will be available. Rent $800/mo. Contact J. Michael Lawlor at 410-494-1800 or lawloresq@verizon.net.

Towson law offices available for sublet. We are four busy lawyers working in a nicely furnished suite of offices on the 8th floor of 401 Washington Avenue, overlooking the Old Courthouse. We have 1-4 lawyer’s offices, plus work stations for legal assistants available. Suite is equipped with phones, reception area, conference room, kitchen, copier and postage meter. Competitive rates. http://www.401washingtonave.com. Macy Nelson, 410-296-8166 x 290; gmacynelson@gmacynelson.com.

Towson. Office for rent: 303 West Pennsylvania Avenue, Towson. One, two or three offices for rent available. Use of conference room, kitchen and parking. Very convenient, across from the Circuit Court. Rent negotiable. Contact Joseph Glass, 410-823-4214.

The Advocate

Page 22

January 2015