Advocate June 2015

THE ADVOCATE Newsletter of The Baltimore County Bar Association VOLUME XXIV, NO. 10

June 2015

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

by T. Wray McCurdy Cleaning out the garage.

Thanks to David Beach, who graciously allowed me to photograph his restored neon sign from his father’s long-closed Chevy dealership for this article.

David is the brother of my role model for this bar year and social predecessor, James Beach, Sr. James was President of the Baltimore County Bar Association in 1986, Eastern Shore raised and Wicomico County Washington College educated.

The bar year moves much faster and at times slower than expected.

Plans achieved and hopes abandoned; you name it, it happens. When you run the boat at times it becomes rough and the passengers get wet. If you didn’t capsize and everyone makes it to shore, it’s the best you can do. In no particular order, here are all of the topics I didn’t get to cover this year. It is up to you to ponder or ignore them.

Every person’s bar event, task, or activity is the most important bar

program possible in recorded history. Failure to understand this is at one’s own peril.

Applying Walden to the Hater, if you refuse to remain present for your shaming, did the hater have any fun?

Hypocrisy

be

damned.

Who does really run our society if not you?

Is this 1968 or does it just feel that way?

Is it wrong to be loyal or is it ok to leave someone behind when it’s convenient?

Why do Millennials understand and demand the “work/life” balance and Boomers don’t do either?

Give us a redo on some of this.

Now.

Program Registrations

Pg

31

Calendar of Events Classified Ads Committee Reports Court Notices Civil Law Update Criminal Law Update Executive Council Finding Justice Event Guardianships Historical Perspectives In Chambers ...

Judge Fader Honored Law Day Ceremonies Lawyers Assistance Tracing Marital Assets Orphans’ Court BP Wrongful Death

Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg Pg

3 38 35 4 14 26 2 8 5 32 12 31 18 28 10 7 25

Continued on page 2

Multi-Specialty HealthCare THE ADVOCATE

Inside This Edition

Page 1

Signature Sponsor June 2015

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL REVISION

Continued from page 2

Andrew M. Belt, Chair Executive Council Nominations Committee

Is court becoming a factory or am I just a misplaced widget?

Why doesn’t Preparation H cure law practice burnout? Both are conditions painful in similar locations.

If I drive for a day and answer the same message with the same response at my destination, did I go anywhere?

Can I take My Supervisor with me?

If you try your hardest and still fail miserably, are you bad?

Now that that’s out of my system, please allow me tell you how blessed and honored I have been to have The Honorable Judge Vicki Ballou-Watts follow me through our line of succession. I could not have picked a better person to have as a sounding board and to accept my chronic stubbornness and oft times idiosyncratic behavior.

This Association is about to embark on a fantastic, even-tempered year, led by the quiet grace of one of its most gracious, yet commanding presences. She has the kind of intellect and personality that makes you want to listen to her. Shouting is unnecessary because her thoughtful words command your interest and attention. Even though she has owned a gavel for many years, I am proud to turn mine over to her.

On April 16, 2015, the Executive Council Nominations Committee conferred electronically to discuss revising the membership of the incoming Executive Council by moving Rebecca A. Fleming to Treasurer, while moving Keith R. Truffer back to the Senior Member At-Large. As a result of Mr. Truffer’s upcoming obligations to the Maryland State Bar Association, the Committee has unanimously decided to endorse this revision to the incoming Executive Council membership.

Therefore, the following slate of Officers and At -Large Members will be presented at the Stated Meeting on Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 4:30 p.m., in Courtroom No. 2 of the County Courts Building, 401 Bosley Avenue, Towson.

President

Hon. Vicki Ballou-Watts

President-Elect

Robert J. Thompson

Secretary

Adam T. Sampson

Treasurer

Rebecca A. Fleming

At-Large Members Keith R. Truffer Michael W. Siri Jay D. Miller

Thank you for allowing me to serve you for this bar year. It was the experience of a lifetime for me and it would not have been so without the enthusiastic support of all of our members.

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

T. Wray McCurdy

Immediate Past President

T. Wray McCurdy

Young Lawyer Chairperson

THE ADVOCATE

Page 2

Alexander C. Steeves

June 2015

C ALENDAR

2014-15 Officers President Pres-Elect Secretary Treasurer

OF

E VENTS

T. Wray McCurdy Vicki Ballou -Watts Robert J. Thompson Adam T. Sampson

June 2015

Executive Council Keith R. Truffer Rebecca A. Fleming Michael W. Siri Jay D. Miller Stanford G. Gann Jr. John G. Turnbull III Philip N. Tirabassi , Immediate Past President Catherine A. Dickinson, YL Chair

The Advocate Laurie Wasserman, Committee Chair

4 Bench/Bar Committee Meeting, 8 a.m., 4th Floor Judicial Conference Room 4 Annual 18-Hole Golf Tournament & Beginners’ Clinic 4 Solo & Small Firm Lunch - West Side, 12 Noon, Double T Diner 9 Executive Council Meeting, 8 a.m., Judicial Conference Room 363 9 Professionalism Committee Meeting, 5:15 p.m., Proctor & McKee 10-13 MSBA Annual Conference, Clarion Resort, Ocean City 10 Lawyer in the Lobby w/Volunteer Attorneys, 4:30 - 6:30 p.m.

12 Solo & Small Firm Lunch - East Side, 12:30 p.m., Uncle Eddie’s 16 Solo & Small Firm Lunch - Towson, 12 noon, 7 West Bistro Grille 16 Pro Bono Committee Meeting, 4:30 p.m., Levin & Gann 17 Estates & Trusts Program, 5 p.m., Grand Jury Room 18 Stated Meeting, Installation of Officers, 4:30 p.m.

18 Young Lawyers-hosted President’s Reception, 5:30 p.m., Towson Tavern 24 Solo & Small Firm Lunch - Northwest, 12 noon, Harryman House

Doris D. Barnes Thomas S. Basham Associate Editors

July 2015

Contributing Writers C. Theresa Beck Catherine A. Dickinson Sondra M. Douglas Jason S. Garber Jonathan M. Herbst Robert C. Lidston Danielle Moore Margaret M. McKee Cecilia B. Paizs G. Darrell Russell Brittany L. Stouffer Laurie Wasserman Kathleen M. Wobber Catherine F. Woods 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

2 3 7 8 8 10 14 14 16 20 21 22

Solo & Small Firm Lunch - West Side, 12 Noon, Double T Diner Courts & Bar Office Closed, in observance of Independence Day Membership Committee Planning Meeting, 12 noon, Mezz 08 Lawyer in the Lobby w/Volunteer Attorneys, 4:30 - 6:30 p.m.

Long-Range Committee Planning Meeting, 5 p.m,., Mezz 08 Solo & Small Firm Lunch - East Side, 12:30 p.m., Uncle Eddie’s Executive Council Meeting, 8 a.m., Judicial Conference Room 363 Professionalism Committee Meeting, 5 p.m., Proctor & McKee Portrait dedication honoring Judge S. Ann Brobst, 3:30 p.m., Ceremonial Courtroom No. 5, Old Courthouse, Second Floor, Towson Family Law Committee Planning Meeting, 5 p.m., Mezz 08 Solo & Small Firm Lunch - Towson, 12 noon, 7 West Bistro Grille Solo & Small Firm Lunch - Northwest, 12 noon, Harryman House

Committee Planning Meetings will be scheduled during the Summer months, and are open to all BCBA members. If you are not able to attend a specific committee meeting, but would like to suggest a program and/or speaker, please email doris@bcba.org.

☺ Location is on the flyer included in this issue

Page 3

June 2015

COURT NOTICES

The presentation of Judge Brobst’s portrait will be Thursday, July 16, 2015, 3:30 p.m., in Ceremonial Courtroom No. 5 in the Historic Courthouse, 400 Washington Avenue, Second Floor, Towson. All are invited to attend.

CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY Richard Abbott, Family Law Administrator

FAMILY LAW DIVISION ANNOUNCEMENT The Family Law Division of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County has made many changes in the last year relating to processing, assignment and handling of cases by both Magistrates and Judges. We are interested in your feedback on all aspects of the handling of Family Law cases. We hope to continue to improve the way Family Law cases are handled in our Court.

410-887-6578 The revised Family DCM Plan is now up on the Baltimore County website. Here is a link to the page on the website where the Plan is published:

Please feel free to provide comment and feedback to Judge Jakubowski on any aspect of the management of these cases.

http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Agencies/ circuit/family/familymgmtplan.html

Judge Ruth A. Jakubowski Family Law Coordinating Judge

Message from the Executive Director ‌ The calendar on page 3 includes some of the committee planning meetings that have been scheduled at this time. Please check the website calendar for additional dates. All BCBA Members are invited and encouraged to attend any planning meeting, and to bring suggested program and speaker ideas with you. If you are not formally a member of a committee, but have an interest, please do not hesitate to attend. Of course, if you have any questions, please email me, or call 410-337-9103.

I look forward to an exciting year of programs and events! As soon as they are scheduled, they will be on the website calendar, The Advocate calendar, as well as the Committee Reports section of the website.

Doris Barnes THE ADVOCATE

Page 4

June 2015

GUARDIANSHIPS, AS SEEN FROM THE BENCH, THE CLERK AND COUNSEL

by Brittany L. Stouffer For those of our clients who have medical directives and financial powers-of-attorneys in place, they will likely not need a guardianship (because we are all diligent estate planning attorneys). These key ancillary documents allow our clients to name agents to make medical and financial decisions on their behalf before they are unable to do so. If these documents are not in place before a client’s incapacity or if the agent’s role is challenged, a guardianship proceeding may ensue. A guardianship proceeding is a legal action brought by an individual (petitioner) who believes that another person cannot take care of her/his own personal needs, e.g. healthcare or finances. The petitioner requests that the court should appoint an individual to make those decisions on that person’s behalf.

This process can be frustrating and complex to all involved, the client, the judge, and the attorney. The Estates and Trusts Committee held their monthly education seminar on the Issues in Guardianships at the courthouse on March 12, 2015. The Honorable Judith C. Ensor, Jennifer Wheeler, Baltimore County Trust Clerk, Mary Loker, Esq., of the Law of Offices of Mary Loker, and Sara Walsh, Esq., of Fisher and Winner, LLC, discussed their experiences , observations, and tribulations with guardianship proceedings.

First, Mary Loker, Esq., outlined the differences among guardianships including, guardianship of a minor and guardianship of a disabled person/ property. She further discussed the complexities involved so that we all can appreciate this difficult process that begs an attorney to intervene. It was also pointed out that compensation for representation should be made clear and up front and can vary based on the county and judge. She shared her experiences with numerous cases and variety of issues and kindly gave advice on how to handle different matters. One of her most appreciated tips was to always obtain permission from the court before proceeding with any unusual task or charge that is or seems outside of the role of guardian.

Graciously, the Honorable Judge Ensor further discussed her role from the bench during a guardianship proceeding. A judge must balance multiple aspects during a guardianship proceeding such as, the welfare and individual rights of the alleged disabled person, any forms of less restrictive alternatives, and education for the guardians. She explained that uncontested guardianships do not permit the attorneys and clients to take the proceeding lightly. All cases where someone’s rights are revoked is a serious matter and should be handled in the utmost respect and care to the individual. It was recommended and encouraged that attorneys subscribe to a list of court appointed guardians (contact the Trust Clerk, Jennifer Wheeler, if you are interested). Additional helpful advice included filing your reports in a timely manner, knowing who you are representing if you are appointed as guardian and lastly, to request postponement if you feel that you need more time and information to adequately represent your client.

Jennifer Wheeler, the Trust Clerk, explained some the procedural aspects of a guardianship proceeding and detailed very useful information when filing for a guardianship. This filing should be done with the Trust Department, as it is not a civil case, and expect a hearing within forty-five (45) days. Jennifer explained that in general, guardianship hearings are scheduled in 15 minute slots. However, if the attorney is aware of a contested guardianship, the clerk cannot simply add time to the hearing. She recommends that you notify the court that it may be contested, and this hearing will be used as a scheduling conference.

Emergency Temporary Guardianships are to be used when the order needs to be signed immediately due to extraneous or emergency circumstances. Same-day hearings are up to the judge’s discretion. Jennifer recommends, if possible to ask for an expedited hearing instead. In regards to the required medical certificates, Continued on page 6

THE ADVOCATE

Page 5

June 2015

GUARDIANSHIPS Continued from page 5

Jennifer informed us that the attorney should look at the examination date and not the doctor’s filing date, as the certificates will be rejected for not conforming within the 21 day requirement.

Lastly, Sara Walsh, Esq., explained the role of a Federal Fiduciary for Veterans. This of type of fiduciary is less restrictive than a guardianship. The Fiduciary only has access to the veteran’s benefits and not the all of the individual’s assets. The role of the Federal Fiduciary is to pay the veteran’s bills and if any funds remain, the veteran will receive a periodic allowance. In this circumstance, there is an annual reporting requirement to be aware of.

This type of guardianship requires only one (1) medical certificate to qualify for this type of guardianship proceeding.

The Estates and Trusts Committee sincerely appreciates and thanks the speakers for their generous time and knowledge they provide to our legal community.

BANKRUPTCY—Chapters 7 and 13 1-800-BANKRUPT Law Office of Nicholas J. Del Pizzo, III, P.A. STOP

Foreclosures Wage Garnishments Vehicle Repossessions Creditors Calls Judgments Lawsuits Free Consultation – Payment Plans

We are a Debt Relief Agency servicing all areas of Baltimore County, Baltimore City and Harford County – Over 1,000 cases filed.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 6

June 2015

BALTIMORE COUNTY ORPHANS’ COURT BEST PRACTICES

by Carole S. Demilio, Chair, Estates & Trusts Committee The nearly 40 estates and trusts lawyer who gathered on April 23rd for a dinner program at the Country Club of Maryland were joined in the conviviality by The Honorable Judges William Evans and Arthur Frank of the Orphans Court and The Honorable Grace Connelly, Register of Wills. The honored guests and attorneys shared pleasant conversation over cocktails and dinner and the attorneys were treated to entertaining as well as helpful comments from the three speakers. The Judges urged promptness and continued civility in the courtroom. They said it would be helpful to hear brief opening statements giving a concise overview of the case and to have a trial exhibit binder. Judge Evans regaled all with amusing tales from his storied career as a practicing attorney, politician and judge. Judge Frank has enjoyed the area of estate law in his 5 months on the bench, an interesting diversion from his criminal practice. Ms. Connelly was applauded for her expertise and effectiveness.

THE ADVOCATE

She urged retiring practitioners to develop a system to return original Wills to their clients, if possible, or to the Register of Wills for safekeeping as a last resort. Ms. Connolly would welcome a Bar Association program to discuss best practices for retiring estates and trusts lawyers.

It is no surprise that all in attendance agreed Baltimore County has the hardest working and most productive (albeit underpaid) Orphans Court and the most efficient Register of Wills Office in Maryland.

This event was the first dinner program held by the Estates and Trusts Committee in recent memory.

All welcomed the opportunity to socialize and meet and greet the Orphans Court bench and Register of Wills. There is every indication the dinner will become an annual event for the Estates and Trusts bar.

Page 7

June 2015

WOMEN’S BAR ASSOCIATION BOOK SIGNING: FINDING JUSTICE

by Terri Beck practice of law from Mary Sanders, Ann Turnbull, Tiffany Franc, Julie Landau, Sally Gold, Judge Barbara Howe, and others.

The packed house included retired appellate judges Robert Bell, as well as Irma Raker, an ABA Margaret Brent Award recipient. Judge Battaglia, who served by name as editor, but was actually the source of the inspiration for the book, as well as the source for much of the labor that produced this work, thanked the many who helped produce the book. She credited a bar event featuring the history of African-American attorneys and Frances Hughes Glendening’s earlier related project as the seed for this book. In addition to receiving a copy of the book, a highlight of the event was the address given by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The Secretary’s remarks put a national and international veil around the history of women lawyers in Maryland.

Baltimore County active practitioners and judges were well represented at the Women’s Bar Foundation book signing event to celebrate the publication of “Finding Justice” A History of Women Lawyers in Maryland since 1642. In addition to those in this photo, Judge Fader and his Photographs courtesy of Judge Vicki Ballou-Watts. wife, along with MSBA President Schubert, active Baltimore County practitioners including Carrie Polley and Susan Elgin, as well as others, were in attendance at the Maryland Archives on April 27, 2015. The book includes a historical time line of notable women attorneys, as well as a list of the names of all of the women admitted to practice since 1902 when Etta Maddox was admitted. A quick thumb review of the book also Judges Vicki Ballou-Watts and Kathleen Cox, Suzanne Farace, Bambi Glenn, shows reflections on the Judges Ruth Ann Jakubowski and Judith Ensor, Carolyn Thaler, Magistrate Wendy Schenker, Christine Malanga and Magistrate Terri Beck THE ADVOCATE

Page 8

June 2015

WOMEN’S BAR ASSOCIATION BOOK SIGNING: FINDING JUSTICE Continued from page

Three of the contributors to Finding Justice Judge Diane Leasure (Ret.), Michelle Mitchell, Esquire & Court of Special Appeals Judge Andrea M. Leahy

Keynote Speaker Madeleine Albright

Judges Judy Ensor, Vicki Ballou-Watts, Ruth Ann Jakubowski and Magistrate Terri Beck THE ADVOCATE

Page 9

June 2015

TRACING MARITAL ASSETS IN FAMILY LAW CASES

by Kathleen M. Wobber In a recent “Brown Bag Lunch,” Leon Berg skillfully navigated the shoals of the Melrod, Noffsinger and Richards cases regarding the traceability of marital assets.

In Melrod, 83 Md. App. 180 (1990), the husband claimed that a large part of his income (>90%) was non-marital due to a substantial non-marital incomegenerating trust. Although he comingled the marital and non-marital income, husband proceeded on the theory that assets purchased with the co-mingled funds should be considered marital or non-marital in the same proportion that his income was marital to non-marital. While the trial court agreed with this theory, the appellate court found the theory erroneous because the source of funds used to purchase the property was not directly traceable to a non-marital source. The court emphasized that “directly traceable” is not synonymous with “attributable,” and since husband had comingled his income from non-marital sources with marital income, the money used with acquire the property or reduce indebtedness could not be directly traced to any particular source.

Three years later the court again examined the issue of tracing in Noffsinger, 95 Md. App. 265 (1993).

The husband made a final payment on a non-marital investment by depositing $20,000 of non-marital funds into a marital checking account, before making the payment on the non-marital investment.

The Court found that the funds were not comingled just because the non-marital funds may have “rested in the same account as marital funds.” The court concluded that “only when the spouse chooses to commingle marital and non-marital funds to the point that direct tracing is impossible does his or her property lose its non-marital status.”

So the law remained for twelve years until Richards, 166 Md. App. 263 (2005) threw a wrench into the system. This time it was the wife who wanted to claim, as non-marital, monies which were left to her by her mother. Before her death, wife’s mother opened up two bank accounts with her daughter and

THE ADVOCATE

Page 10

son-in-law’s names on the accounts.

After mother’s death, the accounts in husband and wife’s name were consolidated and then put into a joint brokerage account, into which Husband also contributed his own non-marital funds. Note that the Court found the bank accounts were not intended to gift the husband/son-in-law money, because the mother had left nothing in her will to husband, thus they were wife’s non-marital property. Out of the brokerage account the couple purchased vacation property, subsequently husband drew out half the money and placed it in his own account, and then spent he most of the money. Despite the addition of nonmarital funds by both parties, the purchase of real estate (which was found to marital) and despite the fact that the account had grown substantially, the trial court found that the remaining portion of husband’s separate account was wife’s non-marital funds “which arose substantially” from her inherited money from her mother. The trial court further noted that husband’s one-time contribution to the account did not defeat the court’s ability to trace the funds. The appellate court affirmed this trial court’s decision, which Leon noted appeared to be results oriented.

In summary, when tracing non-marital assets, the burden of proof rests with the spouse who is claiming non-marital property. To meet that burden the proponent must show how the asset is “directly” or “substantially” traceable to a nonmarital source.

Paul E. Alpert, Retired Judge Available for Mediation and Arbitration Former Judge of District Court, Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals

410-484-2088

June 2015

Signature Sponsors The Baltimore County Bar Association continues its Signature Sponsor program, which enhances the opportunities for our sponsors, as well as our members. This singletier program provides more engagement between our sponsors and our members. Each Signature Sponsor will host one of teb signature events held throughout the year, thereby reducing the cost of the event for members, and many other added benefits.

Sponsorships help the Bar Association maintain its current dues level, despite the increasing costs of providing top-shelf legal education programs, social events, networking opportunities and Bar Office services available in the County Courts Building. If you know of a business that would be interested in one of these limited sponsorship opportunities, please contact Doris Barnes (doris@bcba.org or 410 -337-9103).

LAWYER IN THE LOBBY CLINIC The attorneys listed below have volunteered to staff the LAWYER IN THE LOBBY CLINIC, which is held the second Wednesday of each month, 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. This is an opportunity for citizens of Baltimore County to meet, free of charge, with an attorney for advice and/or referral or both (including self-referral) in the areas of collections, bankruptcy, landlord/tenant matters, contract, warranties and other consumer matters, wills, probate, advance directives, or small claims actions.

Jerry Blake Jessica Corace Keith Franz Bruce Friedman Valerie Ibe Michael Jeffers Fu-Mei Jiang Brady Locher

Lisa Magil Mala Malhotro-Ortiz Paul Mayhew James Nolan Larry Polen Michelle Valenti Jordan Watts

If you are interested in staffing the Clinic, please call Rachel M. Ruocco at 410-337-9100 or email rachel@bcba.org.

Please join us in welcoming these sponsors and consider their services when you need them. Their ads are throughout each issue of The Advocate, and can be located quickly using the index at the end of the issue, and by the gold ribbon that accompanies their ad. Please let them know you appreciate their support. Thank you!

THE ADVOCATE

Page 11

June 2015

IN CHAMBERS WITH JUDGE KEVIN Y. T. WIGGINS

by Danielle Moore Baltimore County District Court Judge Kevin Y. T. Wiggins was born in the District of Columbia and raised in Montgomery County, Maryland. He received his bachelor’s degree from Towson University and his Juris Doctorate from the University Of Maryland Francis King Carey School Of Law. After graduation, Judge Wiggins clerked for the Honorable Marcella Holland, who proved to be a large influence on his legal career.

Immediately after clerking, he began his career with the State’s Attorney Office where he stayed for fourteen years and worked his way up to Division Chief for the felony trial unit.

becoming a prosecutor taught him that his role as an attorney is much larger than arguing a side of a case and hoping for a victory. As a prosecutor you have the ability to correct any mistakes that may have been made during any part of arrest or afterwards. It is important to use that caution because it is your duty to make sure both the victim and the defendant are treated fairly and justice is upheld. Judge Wiggins mentioned that being on the bench is humbling and he is blessed.

He always tries to be as fair as possible and he only cares about doing what’s right. That includes touching people and doing good.

Judge Wiggins knew he wanted to become a lawyer after participating in an intensive debate assignment given by his high school Intro to Law teacher, Mr. Houseley. The assignment resulted in the students doing a full mock trial and lit the fire for Judge Wiggins desire to practice law. He loved this assignment. However, it was not until his clerkship with the Honorable Marcella Holland that he realized he wanted to become a judge. Judge Holland, genuinely invested in his growth as an attorney, required more of him as a law clerk and felt his job as her clerk was learning what he wanted to do. As such, she allowed him to be very involved in chambers and in the court room.

The most challenging aspect of being a judge is the very nature of the job, which is making decisions that directly impact people. It may be a job to a judge but to the one person involved it could be the biggest moment in their life and you are deciding someone’s fate. Some decisions stick with you. When asked if there was a quote he leans upon it was “This too shall pass.” A phrase commonly used by his mother.

Fourteen years as a state’s attorney allowed Judge Wiggins to participate in many cases, including many heinous crimes. Although they were all impactful the one that touched him the most was a domestic case where a husband took the life of his wife on the court house steps because she wanted to leave him and he didn’t want anyone else to have her. This case was one of the most impactful for Judge Wiggins because it showed the many faces of domestic violence and left three children parentless.

When asked what practicing law has taught him about life Judge Wiggins mentioned that with being a black male many expect you to be a public defender. However, going against the grain and

THE ADVOCATE

Page 12

Judge Wiggins was asked if there were any judge or lawyer to whom he’d like to pay homage or consider a trailblazer and he chose the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Judge Wiggins considers Justice Marshall a trailblazer because he had the confidence to do what young black people were not doing during his time. He is a cornerstone for everything. One of his favorite and suggested reads is Young Thurgood by Larry S. Gibson.

Traits Judge Wiggins believes distinguishes a good lawyer from a great lawyer are attention to detail, preparation, knowing and studying your craft, and being an expert on your case - knowing it from every side. A great lawyer does not get caught unprepared.

Tips he would offer to lawyers aspiring to become a judge are to get involved in the community. The community wants to know who you are. Be

June 2015

IN CHAMBERS WITH JUDGE KEVIN Y. T. WIGGINS Continued from page 12

familiar. Build a career you can stand behind.

Integrity should always remain first.

Tips he’d offer to lawyers before coming into his courtroom are to show deference & respect to the court, the process, and the system. This includes all parties and court staff. Be on time, prepared, and professional.

When not on the bench, Judge Wiggins can be found spending time with his beautiful wife, Kelli and their two children, Kendall (9) and Kevin (5) or reading a good book. He loves being a father and enjoys being involved as a coach for Kendall.

Award-winning branding consultant Simon Mainwaring once said “The keys to brand success are self-definition, transparency, authenticity and accountability.” Judge Wiggins holds the entire key ring with each of these traits and if you want him to let go you’d have to pry them from his cold dead hands. He encapsulates each of those qualities and has built a brand for himself that he can stand proudly behind and further lead him down the road of success. He has remained humbled and true to himself while upholding the principle of fairness, justice, and pursuing the better good. Judge Wiggins is more than worthy of his newly appointed seat on the bench.

Judge’s Favorites

Judge’s Preferences

1. Favorite restaurant – Kobe Japanese Steak & Seafood House 2. Favorite food – Japanese Stir-fry and Seafood 3. Favorite ice cream – Cookies & Cream 4. Favorite music genre and artist – R&B Soul and Marvin Gaye 5. Favorite sport and team – Dallas Cowboys 6. Guilty pleasure – Watching Empire 7. Favorite book – The Firm 8. Favorite movie – A Time To Kill 9. Favorite vacation destination – Cayman Islands 10. Last book read – Young Thurgood by Larry S. Gibson 11. Who’d he like to meet – Malcolm X

THE ADVOCATE

Page 13

1. Eat out or at home - Home 2. Steak or Chicken – Steak 3. Chocolate or Vanilla – Vanilla 4. 90’s or 80’s music – 90’s 5. Basketball or Football – Football 6. Jeans or Slacks – Jeans 7. Watch TV or Read a Book – Book 8. Movie or Sitcom – Movie 9. Aruba or London – Aruba 10. Sweet or Salty – Both 11. Survivor or The Apprentice - Survivor

June 2015

CIVIL LAW UPDATE

by Ceecee Paizs Review of the March 2015 Amicus Curiarum reveals the following decisions of interest in the civil law area: COURT OF APPEALS: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.

Mark T. Mixter, Misc. Docket AG No. 7, September Term 2013, filed January 30, 2015.

Opinion by Battaglia, Lynne A., Judge Harrell, Glenn T., Jr. Judge, joins in judgment only.

At the time of a hearing on the complaint against Respondent Mixter, the hearing judge found that Mixter: 1.

Knowingly or recklessly, and in complete disregard for the Maryland Rules, issue Maryland subpoenas to out-of-state witnesses over whom the Maryland courts had no jurisdiction and then file frivolous motions to compel compliance with those subpoenas.

2.

Issued Maryland subpoenas, commanding the witnesses’ appearance and production of documents, to thirty-five out-of-state witnesses, coupled with letters containing knowing and intentional misrepresentations to the witnesses that their appearance could be compelled in Maryland.

3.

Had a pattern and practice of knowingly and intentionally noting depositions of non-party Maryland residents in the wrong county, in violation of the Maryland Rules.

4.

Abused his authority as an officer of the court by issuing subpoenas in order to harass and intimidate witnesses and opposing counsel.

5.

Filed motions that were frivolous, because Respondent either failed to make any good faith efforts to resolve the discovery disputes or the filings were filed prematurely or otherwise did comply with the Maryland Rules.

6.

Respondent's certifications contained misrepresentations which were intended to mislead the courts into believing that he had engaged in good

THE ADVOCATE

faith attempts to resolve discovery disputes when, in fact, the exhibits Respondent had attached to the certificates were the original letters accompanying the subpoenas sent before any discovery dispute could have existed and intentionally omitted from twelve motions the responses from the adverse parties or the witnesses, in an attempt to advance his position.

8.

In thirteen cases Respondent had, in bad faith and without substantial justification, knowingly and intentionally made misrepresentations as to the contents of court orders or had disregarded court orders.

9.

Misrepresented to health care providers that no objection had been made to the disclosure of the opposing party’s medical records. In fact, Respondent had made such representations even though motions for protective order were pending or the medical records were not relevant to the underlying claims.

10.

Additional motions filed by Respondent were all based on material representations: that the witnesses were properly served with a valid subpoena and failed to appear for deposition and were most assuredly aimed at harassing and intimidating opposing parties and expert witnesses.

Based upon these factual findings, the hearing judge concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent had violated various Rules of Professional Conduct, to include, MRPC 3.1 (frivolous claims), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 3.3(a) (1) (false statement of fact to the tribunal) and (a)(4) (false statement of law to a tribunal), 3.4(a) (obstructing access to evidence), (c) (disobey court rules) and (d) (make a frivolous discovery request), 4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4(a) (respect for rights of third persons) and 8.4(a) (violate MRPC), c) (dishonesty, fraud or misrepresentation) and (d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent filed numerous exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The hearing court held that disbarment was the appropriate action.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that

Page 14

June 2015

CIVIL LAW UPDATE Continued from page 14 Respondent had, in fact, knowingly violated the various sections of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct and that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v.

Bruce Michael Smith, Misc. Docket AG No. 3, September Term 2013, filed February 23, 2015.

Opinion by McDonald, Robert N., Judge Harrell, Battaglia, and Watts Shirley M., JJ., concur and dissent.

At the time that Respondent was an Assistant State's Attorney, he received a note in a sexual abuse of a child case stating that a necessary witness, the victim's foster mother, was out of town for a medical emergency. Based on that note, Respondent was granted a postponement. By his own admission, he believed that the note was from the fosterer mother, and did not investigate whether that was correct.

Later it was learned that the foster mother never sent the note, was never notified of the original trial date, for which she was available, nor for the subsequent trial when the defendant entered an Alford plea.

Neither the victim nor her foster mother were notified of the right to testify or provide an victim impact statement. Further, Respondent failed to notify the victim or her foster mother that the defendant was prohibited from having contact with the victim as a term of his probation.

The Court of Appeals held that the appropriate sanction was indefinite suspension with the right to reapply in 60 days. The Court held that Respondent violated MLRPC 1.3 when he requested a postponement based on information that he did not verify before presenting it to the court and when he failed to act with diligence when he never communicated with the victim or her representative, with the result that they were unable to exercise their right to be present, and to offer an impact statement to the court. Respondent also violated MLRPC 8.4 (d) with his failure to provide the victim and her foster mother with the appropriate information and failure to verify the information he provided to the trial court. Mr. Smith violated MLRPC 1.3 when he requested a postponement based on information that he did not verify before presenting it to the court. He

THE ADVOCATE

also failed to act with diligence when he never communicated with the victim or her representative, with the result that they were unable to exercise their right to be present, and to offer an impact statement to the court. Respondent was found to have violated MLRPC 8.4(d) with his failure to provide the victim and her foster mother with the appropriate information and failure to verify the information he provided to the trial court, as those provisions prohibit attorneys from acting with an intent to deceive. The court found that Respondent's lack of diligence and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice were mitigated by his decision to accept responsibility for his conduct, his cooperation with Bar Counsel, and his lack of a disciplinary record.

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Carl Stephen Basinger, Misc.

Docket AG No. 30, September Term 2013, filed February 23, 2015. Opinion by Watts, J. Respondent and his sister-in-law entered into an attorney-client relationship. Later, an insurance company received from Respondent’s sister-in-law, who was his client, a letter in which she denied that she had retained Respondent, and Respondent learned of his sister-in-law’s letter. Respondent mailed to his sister-in-law three letters, all of which were on his firm’s letterhead. In his first letter, Respondent described what he had done on his sister-in-law’s behalf; called her “A TRUE C[**]T” who had “finally f[***]ed up one time too many”; accused the sister-in-law of being dishonest; and stated that, if he ever saw her again, “it [would] be too soon.” In his second letter, Respondent shared what he had learned while investigating the circumstances of the sister-inlaw’s grandson’s death; suggested that she perhaps was responsible for her grandson’s death; called the sister-in-law “a reprehensible human being” with “worthless progeny”; accused her of being lazy and dishonest; and wished the sister-in-law “only the worst from here on out.” In his third letter, Respondent accused the sister-in-law of “trying to weasel [her] way out of paying the full amount of [a

Page 15

Continued on page 16 June 2015

CIVIL LAW UPDATE Continued from page 15 funeral chapel]’s bill[,]” for her grandson’s viewing and funeral. The hearing judge concluded that Respondent did not violate MLRPC 8.4(d). The Commission excepted to the hearing judge’s conclusion and recommended a reprimand.

Respondent neither excepted to the hearing judge’s conclusion nor recommended a sanction.

The Court of Appeals held that a reprimand was appropriate. The Court of Appeals held that, based on five circumstances, Respondent violated MLRPC 8.4(d) by mailing the three letters. First, Respondent’s statements were written, and thus were neither inartful slips of the tongue nor spoken in the heat of an oral altercation. Second, Respondent’s statements were made at least partially in his capacity as his sister-in-law’s lawyer. Third, Respondent’s statements were insults aimed at the letters’ recipient (his client) rather than a third party. Fourth, Respondent’s statements were not limited to an isolated incident; Respondent engaged in a pattern of numerous insults that spanned three letters. Finally, Respondent chose the obscene, sexist word “c[**]t” to refer to his client. The Court agreed with the Commission that the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct was a reprimand, which should suffice to deter other lawyers from communicating with their clients in the egregiously unprofessional manner that Respondent employed.

THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS: Wayne Garrity v. Maryland State Board of Plumbing, No. 2171, September Term 2013, filed February 26, 2015. Opinion by Zarnoch, Robert A., Judge The Consumer Protection Division (CPD) of the Attorney General’s Office charged Garrity in 2012 with unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Consumer Protection Act. Duringa two-day hearing, the Administrative Law Judge heard testimony from over twenty witnesses, but Garrity elected not to testify. The CPD issued a final order concluding Garrity had committed over 7,000 violations of the CPA and imposed a $707,900 civil penalty plus $35,000 in costs to investigate and prosecute the violations. Garrity did not seek judicial review of this order. Subsequently, the Maryland

THE ADVOCATE

State Board of Plumbing also opened a complaint against Garrity and charged him with violation of the Maryland Plumbing Act (MPA) in the Business Occupations & Professions Article based on essentially the same circumstances. At an evidentiary hearing, Garrity, represented by counsel, called no witnesses and refused to testify. When the Board sought to introduce the CPD’s Findings of Fact and Final Order as evidence of Garrity’s violations, his attorney objected but was overruled. The Board issued a Final Order in which it revoked his master plumbing license and imposed as$75,000 civil penalty. the Circuit Court City, which affirmed the Board’s order. On appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, Garrity argued that the Board could not use collateral estoppel against him to prove that he had employed unlicensed plumbers and charged for permits he never obtained. Additionally, Garrity contended that the Board’s civil monetary penalty, following the CPD’s monetary penalty, violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

Although a novel issue in Maryland, under the general principles of finality, see Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 83, an administrative agency’s findings of fact may be determined final for purposes of collateral estoppel. Offensive use of collateral estoppel, see Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. at 329-30 (1979); Rourke v. Amchem, 384 Md. 329, 341 (2001), is appropriate in a case of successive administrative hearings where there is no indication of unfairness to the defendant; here, Garrity had ample opportunity to testify and present witnesses in the first hearing, and had similar procedural opportunities in the Board hearing. In the interest of judicial economy, there was no reason to force the Board to relitigate the well-documented factual question of Garrity’s deceptive and unfair trade practices. Despite Garrity’s contention that the central case in Maryland, Culver v. Md. Ins. Comm’r, 175 Md. App. 645 (2007), did not involve two administrative agencies, we see no reason why the recognized principle of offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel would not apply here. Nor did the State’s successive monetary penalties from two

Continued on page 22 Page 16

June 2015

THE ADVOCATE

Page 17

June 2015

LAW DAY 2015: 800TH ANNIVERSARY OF MAGNA CARTA

by Sheryl D. H. Atkins

Despite the early hour, 7:30 a.m., the Law Day Committee sponsored another successful Law Day. Beginning with the Law Day Breakfast, members and guests were greeted with an illustrious spread of breakfast delights and an elegant dining experience at Martin’s Valley Mansion in Hunt Valley.

In commemoration of the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, this year’s theme, who could top the Honorable Charles E. Moylan, Jr. as the speaker? Poised, profound, and humorous, Judge Moylan provided a historical perspective of the founding of the Magna Carta and an insight into how economics and politics fostered its creation.

A very special thanks to the firm of Schochor, Federico & Staton, P.A. for their generous sponsorship of the Law Day Breakfast, In Honor of Their 30th Anniversary.

Carolyn Thaler and Judge Ruth Ann Jakubowski THE ADVOCATE

Judge Dana Levitz, Judge Charles Moylan and Ray Atkins Page 18

June 2015

Deputy State’s Attorney John Cox and Administrative Judge Kathleen Cox Law Day Chair Harry Chase and Judge Charles E. Moylan, Jr.

BCBA President-Elect Judge Vicki Ballou-Watts and BCBA President T. Wray McCurdy

Nathaniel Fick and Leo Ottey

Donna McElroy and Law Day Vice-Chair Sheryl Atkins

THE ADVOCATE

Page 19

June 2015

LAW DAY 2015: 800TH ANNIVERSARY OF MAGNA CARTA

by Sheryl D. H. Atkins

Following the breakfast was the Noon Day Ceremony.

Distinguished guests included Attorney General Brian Frosh, the Keynote Speaker, County Executive Kevin Kamanentz, and of course, many of our judges from the Circuit Court and District Court of Baltimore County.

Attorney General Frosh remarked on the importance of the law and how justice should be attainable for all people regardless of their position in life.

He also provided insight into his developing a passion for the law. As a youngster, he witnessed injustices suffered by his father as a result of his father standing up for and believing in equal rights for all people.

In addition to the distinguished speaker, The Law Day Committee also presented two awards to deserving Baltimore County Bar Members. The Judith P. Ritchie Award was presented to Magistrate Jacquie E. Dawson. Accepting on her

behalf was her husband, The Honorable Timothy J. Martin. The Law Day Award was presented to M. Jacqueline McCurdy. These two women have demonstrated many years of service and commitment to The Baltimore county Bar. They have also excelled in their careers and have served as an inspiration to many people.

Of course, there would not be a Law Day without a component of service to the Baltimore County Community. In that regard, monetary awards were granted to students who participated in an art contest, and to winners of the Mock Trial Competition, Beth Tfiloh Dahan Community School.

Law Day 2015 accomplished its goal: to serve the community and to remind us all of the importance of the law in our Great Nation.

As people took their seats on what turned out to be a cooler than usual day, the Towson Senior Jazz Ensemble entertained with a selection of great music. Committee members Donna McElroy, Bambi Glenn and Becky Fleming circulated the crowd with the noontime program. Law Day Chair Harry Chase called on Caitlyn Wilson to sing the National Anthem after the Baltimore County Sheriff’s and Police Department Color Guards presented.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 20

June 2015

The Judith P. Ritchey Award Presentation The Law Day Award Presentation

Judge Timothy Martin presented the Judith P. Ritchey Achievement Award which is given annually to a bar member, who has made significant constructive impact on Bar Association activities, which added to the proficiency and reputation of the Bar Association. Jacquie Dawson, this year’s honoree, was recognized for her history of contributions both through her early years assisting in the public defender’s office, and her more recent years as family and juvenile master/magistrate for the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. In addition, Jacquie was recognized as a tireless contributor to the bar association. In addition to being a Past President of the Baltimore Women’s Bar, Jacquie was President of the Maryland Women’s Bar, serving on each of the preliminary offices, as well as being Chair of numerous Baltimore County Bar committees.

For those who may have forgotten, the Law Day Award was inaugurated in 1983 to honor the bar member who has made a longstanding impact on the administration of the law. President T. Wray McCurdy made the presentation this year to M. Jacqueline McCurdy. He noted that she is not only the first female Baltimore County Assistant State’s Attorney, she was also the first woman to be admitted to the Baltimore County Bar Association. Of course, being a trailblazer even when she joined the association was not new to Jacqueline McCurdy, as she was the only lady in her law school class. T. Wray McCurdy reported on a variety of career advancements, from being a member of the Maryland House of Delegates in 1964, to being counsel to the Distilled Spirits Institute, and ultimately, Vice President of Seagram’s International (again the first female Vice President).

She was also the first female speaker for the Baltimore County Bar Association Bar Banquet (1995), and the first and only such speaker to present the association with a gift, a beautiful framed picture of the courthouse.

During her over 50 years of Baltimore County Bar membership, Jacqueline McCurdy continued to excel in charitable and other philanthropic endeavors, receiving countless awards for these works. Most recently, she was voted Citizen of the Year in her adopted home, Florida.

Jacqueline McCurdy, in keeping with her congenial style, thanked the association, and suggested that the association helped spawn many of her accomplishments.

Anyone and everyone who knows Jacquie agrees that her enthusiasm and energy for the law and all bar activities is unparalleled. Accepting on her behalf was her husband, Judge Steven Wyman, who reported that health concerns kept his wife from attending. He thanked the association for the honor and recalled other noteworthy and successful endeavors of his wife that served to enhance the association. No doubt their son Matt, who was observing in the audience, could have added more to Jacquie’s list of accomplishments.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 21

June 2015

CIVIL LAW UPDATE Continued from page 16 agencies constitute double jeopardy. It is wellestablished that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to civil penalties. See Hudson v. U.S., 522 U.S. 93 (1997). Garrity’s deceptive and fraudulent practices were not classified as criminal acts under the CPA or the MPA. Moreover, both statutes are intended to protect consumers, and the monetary penalties serve not to punish wrongful conduct but to deter violations of the statutes. Further, as the Supreme Court explained in Hudson, “the payment of fixed or variable sums of money [is a] sanction which ha[s] been recognized as enforceable by civil proceedings since the original revenue law of 1789.”

Id. at 104. As these two penalties were not “punishments,” we hold that their imposition did not constitute double jeopardy.

Giant of Maryland, LLC , et al. v. Julia M. Taylor, No. 1799, September Term 2013, filed February 2, 2015. Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., Judge Ms. Taylor won a case of sexual discrimination against Giant, and was awarded attorney's fees. Giant timely appealed the merits judgment and untimely appealed the fees award. A bond was issued for the fees in the fees appeal. While the appeal of the merits and fees issues were before the Court of Special Appeals but before the determination by the Court of Special Appeals that the merits judgment would be overturned, along with the fees award awarded under the prevailing party provision of then Article 49B of the Maryland Code, Taylor moved for judgment on the supersedeas bond issued in the fee appeal.

The Court of Special Appeals held judgment on the bond is reversed. The Court noted that The ultimate reversal of Taylor’s merits judgment means that she no longer is a prevailing party under the statute. If the case is retried and she again prevails, she will be a prevailing party; but she is not a prevailing party now. The fee judgment was dependent upon Taylor’s status as a prevailing party. When a merits judgment that is the basis for a prevailing party fee award is reversed, the judgment for fees is nullified, regardless of whether the fee judgment was appealed.

Giant lost its right to challenge the amount of the fee award and how it was calculated. That untimely appeal did not change the fact that a reversal of the merits award would nullify, and here did nullify, the fee award. Because the judgment for prevailing party attorneys’ fees was null and not enforceable, the trial court erred in entering judgment on the bond.

Michael Gerald D. v. Roseann B., No. 47, September Term 2014, filed December 17, 2014. Opinion by Krauser, Peter B., Chief Judge.

During the course of a divorce trial, the circuit court, applying a “preponderance of the evidence standard,” found, under section 9-101 of the Family Law Article, that there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that Father had sexually abused his daughter.

The court then stated that it could not specifically find that there was no likelihood that Father would abuse Daughter in the future The court concluded that visitation would not be in Daughter’s best interests and “decline[d] to order any visitation” between Daughter and Father. Father subsequently noted an appeal, contending that the circuit court should not have denied him all visitation with Daughter unless it first found by “clear and convincing evidence,” rather than by a “preponderance of the evidence,” that he sexually abused his daughter.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that Under Section 9-101 of the Family Law Article, a circuit court that has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a party to a custody or visitation proceeding has neglected or abused a child, and that cannot specifically find that there is no likelihood of further abuse or neglect if custody or visitation rights are granted to the party, is required to “deny custody or

By noting an untimely appeal from the fee judgment,

THE ADVOCATE

Page 22

Not sure what benefits are available to you as a BCBA Member? Click the picture to the left to learn more, or call or email Doris Barnes or Maxine Morrow for more information.

June 2015

CIVIL LAW UPDATE Continued from page 22 visitation rights” to that party. The Court of Appeals, in Volodarsky v. Tarachanskaya, 397 Md. 291, 308 (2007), has explained that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof is the correct standard for a circuit court to apply in determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that abuse or neglect has occurred. And there is no indication in either the language of section 9-101 or the legislative history of that statute that a burden of proof greater than “reasonable grounds to believe” is required to deny any and all visitation between the abusive parent and his or her child. In the case at bar, the circuit court properly applied section 9-101 when, after applying a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof, it found that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that the Father had sexually abused his daughter and denied Father all visitation with the child.

50% of the capital-loss carry-forward on her taxes.

Wife argues the capital-loss carry-forward is a tax asset that, by operation of law, was distributed equally to her and Husband upon their divorce and that nothing in the Agreement says otherwise.

Husband argues the carry-forward is an interest in the jointly-titled investment accounts that his ex-wife unambiguously relinquished to him under the Agreement’s terms. The circuit court agreed with Husband, holding that the text of the Agreement unambiguously allocated the carry-forward to him.

After the parties reached agreement on the amount of Husband’s damages because of his ex-wife’s use of the carry-forward ($43,370) and the amount of his attorneys’ fees ($8,668), the court entered a final judgment. Because the court had found in Husband’s favor on the breach of contract claim, it dismissed his unjust enrichment claim as moot.

DeAnn Baker v. Christopher A. Baker, No. 2494, September Term 2013, filed February 2, 2015.

Opinion by Arthur, Kevin F., Judge.

The Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in Husband's favor. Under Rule 2-501(f), the court shall enter judgment in favor of or against the moving party if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A court must view the facts and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In reviewing a grant of a summary judgment motion, appellate courts focus on whether the circuit court’s decision was legally correct. Thus, we review de novo the court’s grant of summary judgment.

Husband and Wife divorced on September 15, 2010.

Their Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”), the pertinent provision for this dispute being one that provided that "Wife hereby relinquishes to Husband any interest she might have in any jointly titled investment or bank accounts. It is agreed that Wife shall promptly sign whatever assignments, waivers, or other documents are reasonably necessary to effect a transfer of interest from both parties into the sole and exclusive ownership of Husband. Husband shall be solely responsible for any loans associated with or secured by those accounts."

In the absence of any agreement, U.S. Treasury Regulations provide that if spouses file separate returns after having previously filed a joint return, any carry-forward is “allocated to the spouses on the basis of their individual net capital loss which gave rise to such capital loss carryover.”

Subsequently, it was determined that there was a capital-loss carry-forward related to the investment account that Wife waived any interest in. Wife used

THE ADVOCATE

Treas. Reg. § 1.1212-1(c)(1)(iii). In other words, if spouses stop filing joint returns, any capital loss carry -forward is divided between them in proportion to the extent to which their individual losses gave rise to the carry-forward. Id. In the case of jointly-titled assets in

Page 23

Continued on page 24 June 2015

CIVIL LAW UPDATE Continued from page 23 which the spouses had an equal interest (such as is the case here), this would mean that the carry-forward would be divided equally between them. The Court agreed that a capital-loss carry-forward, when generated by a capital loss from the sale of marital property, is itself marital property, which the spouses can agree to allocate as they wish at the time of a divorce. Thus, the question in this case becomes whether the Agreement allocates the carry-forward between Husband and Wife. The Court agreed that section 19.02 is unambiguous, but disagreed that the provision allocates the carry-forward to Husband.

The determination of ambiguity is one of law, not fact, and that determination is subject to de novo review. Under the objective view of contracts, a written contract is ambiguous if, when read by a reasonably prudent person, it is susceptible of more than one meaning. It is not ambiguous merely because two parties in litigation offer different interpretations of its language. Section 19.02 of the Agreement states, “[Wife] hereby relinquishes to [Husband] any interest she might have in any jointly titled investment or bank accounts.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, this case turns on whether the carryforward was an interest “in” the parties’ jointly-titled investment accounts. The Court held that it was not.

While the capital-loss carry-forward might be an interest that “relates to” the accounts, or “arises from” the accounts, or “results from activity in” the accounts, it is plainly not an asset “in” the accounts themselves. If the Agreement had been drafted more broadly to encompass interests “relating to,” “arising from,” or “resulting from activity in” the accounts, a different conclusion might have been reached. The Court is are required to construe the agreement that the parties made, not the agreement that one or the other thought or wished that they had made. Under the unambiguous terms of the agreement that the parties actually made, section 19.02 did not allocate the carry forward to Husband, because the carryforward was not an interest “in” the parties’ joint investment accounts. The circuit court, therefore, erred. This conclusion is not changed by any of the other provisions in the Agreement cited by Husband as part of his appeal. Because the Court held that the Agreement unambiguously does not allocate the capital-loss carry forward to Husband, the Court did not address the alternative contention, that the

THE ADVOCATE

Agreement is ambiguous. The Court held that Wife was entitled to prevail as a matter of law under the clear terms of the Agreement, and that Husband cannot resurrect the unjust enrichment claim, which the circuit court dismissed as moot.

Page 24

June 2015

WRONGFUL DEATH 2015

by Clifford A. Robinson While many of you were outside enjoying the beautiful afternoon on May 7th, more than 15 attorneys (including yours truly), were listening to a great presentation on Wrongful Death law and related issues in the courthouse. This popular seminar was presented by Judge Vicki BallouWatts and attorneys Judson Lipowitz, Paul Schwab and Christopher McNally. All four have years of experience in this field, which was quickly apparent. They touched on many topics, such as the need to thoroughly investigate and verify all wrongful death beneficiaries as a prerequisite to settling a case or filing suit. They cautioned attorneys to be aware of potential conflicts of interest when representing multiple wrongful death beneficiaries, especially when apportioning settlement proceeds. This, they said,

should be determined by the beneficiaries themselves or by a third-party mediator. The attorney representing the beneficiaries should never voice his/her opinion as to how the proceeds should be divided. They implored all attorneys handling wrongful death cases to become familiar with Maryland Rule 15-1001 and discussed the danger of failing to do so, which was illustrated in the UMMSC V. Muti case.

Overall, the presentation was a very worthwhile overview for younger attorneys, many of whom were in attendance, and a good refresher for more seasoned folks like me. A great outline was provided which will no doubt prove useful for many of us in the future. Thanks to our presenters for all their hard work!

Presenters Judson Lipowitz, Paul Schwab, Judge Vicki Ballou-Watts and Christopher McNally

THE ADVOCATE

Page 25

June 2015

CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE

by Robert C. Lidston The May Amicus contains a decision by the Court of Appeals and two by the Court of Special Appeals which may be useful to practitioners.

State v. Yancey, No. 56, September Term 2014, filed April 21, 2015 (opinion by Battaglia, J.). Yancey was charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon and related offenses. At the beginning of the voir dire process, Yancey’s counsel asked if Yancey could approach the bench during conferences with prospective jurors. A judge turned to the Sheriff on duty who answered that Yancey was in leg irons and could not approach the bench. The Sheriff said that a supervisor would later provide a final answer. The judge decided to proceed without Yancey approaching the bench and told his counsel that "you can just go back and talk to him then if he wants about anything up there." Counsel responded that this would send a negative signal to the jury and the judge responded that Yancey would not be "prejudice in any way." Voir dire proceeded.

During voir dire, a prospective juror asked to approach the bench in response to a question about whether any prospective juror or a family member had been charged with a crime. A prospective juror, in the presence only of the State and defense attorneys, revealed that her two brothers had previously faced serious charges. The judge asked her if that would keep her from rendering an impartial decision. She said that it would not and she was later selected to serve on the jury. Later, after a lunch break, the Sheriff stated that there was no longer a problem with Yancey approaching the bench and the judge permitted the leg irons to be removed. Yancey was then permitted to approach the bench, but voir dire had ended. His conviction was reversed by the Court of Special Appeals which decided that his exclusion was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeals affirmed what COSA had decided. Yancey had asked to be present when the prospective juror had been questioned and was excluded. The State presented no proof that this exclusion was harmless. On appeal, the State conceded its error. The Court opined that the standard for determining harmless error included THE ADVOCATE

that, "Prejudice will not be conclusively presumed.

If the record demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the denial of the right could not have prejudiced the defendant, the error will not result in a reversal of his conviction." It noted that the burden was on the State to prove harmlessness.

The State argued that excluding the defendant from voir dire conferences can be rendered harmless when there was proof that defense counsel did confer with the defendant. The Court responded that the State did not prove that any such conversation between Yancey and his counsel had occurred. To the State’s argument that Yancey was only excluded from a small portion of voir dire, the Court noted that Yancey was excluded from all voir dire bench conferences. It noted that even if the exclusion had only been during the conference with the prospective juror, the State had not proven that exclusion to be harmless. What proof the State offered concerning whether Yancey was prejudiced by his exclusion from voir dire conferences was largely speculative and did not amount to proof of harmlessness.

Pickett v. State, No. 199, September Term 2014, filed April 3, 2015 (opinion by Graeff, J.). A 16year-old stopped at a convenience store on the way home from a friend’s house. He noticed a light brown car with two people inside. He testified that he could not "really see" the faces of the two individuals in the car, but he did notice that the front passenger had a "high top fade" haircut. As the teenager left the convenience store, "the same car ... or I think it was the same car" pulled up next to him and the "person in the passenger side got out." The two individuals in the car were wearing ski masks so the teenager could not see their faces or their hair.

The car’s passenger got out, put a gun to the teenager’s head, and stole his iPhone and jacket.

The assailant got back into the car and drove away rapidly.

The teenager walked home and his mother called 911. The teenager told police that the passenger was "wearing a colorful jacket. He was kind of darkskinned or brown-skinned, probably brown-skinned,

Page 26

June 2015

CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE Continued from page 26 and he had a long ... high-top fade." He drew a picture of the haircut for the police. A few days later, the teenager identified a photograph of his assailant which he said "was him, but he wasn’t sure." He said he chose the photograph based on the skin tone which he was able to see around the eyes and part of the nose. He was also able to identify the iPhone cover and his own jacket.

At trial, a photograph of Pickett taken on the day of his arrest was admitted into evidence. It showed a high top fade haircut. At the close of evidence, the judge refused to give a jury instruction on consciousness of guilt despite the prosecution’s argument that Pickett changed his hairstyle between the time of the crime and the time of the trial. The judge decided that cutting your hair alone was not enough to justify that instruction. The judge, however, stated that the State and the defense could address that issue.

During closing arguments, defense counsel challenged the teenager’s identification of Pickett.

The State noted that Pickett had changed his appearance drastically. Pickett was convicted of robbery and assault. He appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing that the State’s reference to his hairstyle change was improper and that the instruction to the jury on eyewitness identification was also improper.

COSA confirmed the conviction. It decided that it was not an abuse of discretion for a trial judge to allow the prosecutor to comment on a significant change in the physical appearance of a defendant between the time of the crime and the time of trial when the change relates to identity and consciousness of guilt. In the Pickett matter, identity was the primary issue, and the trial judge had not abused discretion in allowing the prosecutor to argue the hairstyle change. COSA also decided that plain error review is a "rare, rare phenomenon" undetaken only when unobjected to error is extraordinary. The court below had given a pattern jury instruction on eyewitness identification and defense counsel had referred to it in closing arguments. The matter did not warrant plain error review.

Wiredu v. State, No. 2291, September Term 2013, filed April 2, 2015 (opinion by Nazarian, J.). Late one night, Wiredu was driving home impaired by alcohol. He crossed the center line of Harford Road and struck an oncoming motorcycle head on. When an officer arrived, Wiredu refused to take a field sobriety test and was arrested.

He was later charged with second degree assault, causing a life threatening injury by motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and related offenses. He was tried and convicted. In addition to being incarcerated, he was ordered to pay $155,672.00 in restitution, including $60,000.00 in lost wages for those lost by his victim’s wife who had to give up her job to take care of her husband. Wiredu appealed, arguing that his second degree assault conviction should have merged with his causing a Continued on page 30

THE ADVOCATE

Page 27

June 2015

Don’t let this happen to your career. Reach out for help before it becomes a train wreck. Don’t wait for Bar Counsel to pay you a visit. Confidential help is available for any attorney, paralegal or support staff for drug, alcohol and/or mental health issues, among others.

ARE ALCOHOL AND DRUGS CAUSING PROBLEMS IN YOUR LIFE? There is a way up and a way out — for ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL help, call us today ...

BALTIMORE COUNTY LAWYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM A CONFIDENTIAL resource for Baltimore County attorneys, assistants and judges.

Our services include help for a broad range of problems and personal concerns, such as: Depression Marital and Family Relationships Alcohol and Drug Abuse Stress and Burnout Prescription Drug Concerns Career Concerns

Gambling Internet Addiction Sexual Addiction Compulsive Spending Eating Disorders Balancing Work and Family

WE DO NOT KEEP RECORDS. Our sole purpose is to provide help. We can assist with providing access to treatment facilities and provide emergency practice management, as well as referrals to professional counselors.

JAY MILLER, Chair JOE MURTHA, Vice-Chair STUART AXILBUND JIM BEACH MARY CHALAWSKY MARISSA JOELSON RICHARD LYNAS GARY MILES JOSE MOLINA SAM MOXLEY JIM QUINN BILL SALTYSIAK JUDGE PHILIP N. TIRABASSI MARK VAN BAVEL

410-951-7165 410-583-6969 410-832-7579 410-241-8538 410-649-2000 917-226-6472 410-288-1099 443-632-1760 443-851-7353 410-733-3306 443-703-3041 410-583-8883 410-512-2053 410-337-5291

Continued on page 20 THE ADVOCATE

Page 28

June 2015

THE ADVOCATE

Page 29

June 2015

CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE Continued from page 24 life threatening injury by motor vehicle while impaired conviction under the rule of lenity; that the judge’s instruction on assault was deficient; and that an order to pay restitution for the wife’s lost wages is impermissible.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. As to the alleged sentencing error, the central issue was whether the two convictions arose out of the same criminal behavior. The State argued that the assault occurred when Wiredu crossed the center line and struck the motorcycle head on and that the driving while impaired offense involved the entire night: drinking earlier that evening, deciding to drive, negligently causing the accident, and demonstrating that he was under the influence.

COSA disagreed, finding both offenses to come out of the same conduct, Wiredu’s decision to drive while impaired and negligently causing an accident.

COSA could find nothing to indicate that the Legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments for the two offenses. Thus, the crimes merged under the rule of lenity for sentencing purposes.

As to the alleged improper jury instruction on assault, that contention was unpreserved because Wiredu failed to lodge an objection at trial. He refused to examine the unpreserved contention under the plain error doctrine.

As to Wiredu’s contention that the court below erred in ordering him to pay restitution for the wife’s lost wages because it lacked the authority to do so under subsection 11-603 of the Criminal Procedure Article, COSA found that that subsection did not authorize the awarding of restitution for the lost wages of individuals other than the victim. To have done so was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. COSA, therefore, vacated the part of the restitution order which required Wiredu to pay $60,000.00 for the wife’s lost wages.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 30

June 2015

MSBA SENIOR LAWYERS HONOR JUDGE JOHN F. FADER II

by Terri Beck On Sunday May 3, 2015 the Senior Lawyers Section of the Maryland State Bar Association presented Judge John Fader with the Section’s highest honor. While there is an age pre-requisite to membership in the Section, the standing room only awards banquet at Liberatore’s was attended by a wide range, both in age and geographic practice area. The age quotient was brought considerably lower thanks to the attendance of clerks Becky Culbertson, Joan Oldewurtel and Valerie Bush from the Circuit Court of Baltimore County.

Geographic dimension was added by the attendance of Judge Cindy Callahan and Bryan Renahan, both from Montgomery County. Retired Judges Alpert and Daniels, who had been chamber mates with Judge Fader, along with their spouses joined those assembled. Both retired Judge Byrnes’

along with Judge HH Kaplan, the 2014 Senior Lawyer Honoree, from Baltimore City added to the legal talent honoring Judge Fader. The Baltimore County bench was well represented with Judges Cox, Jakubowski, Ensor and Stringer. Baltimorebased attorneys Myles Friedman, Emma Clarke,

Natalie Reece and Connie Putzel added to the many others in attendance.

Previously Judge Fader had been recognized in 2003 by the Baltimore County Bar Association when he was awarded the Law Day Award. Judge Fader was acknowledged for always doing more than is required by the job. His name appears on several books as either author, or co- author, but his books are always considered to be the “bible” of the topic. The Baltimore County attorneys and Jjdges could still laugh, thinking of Judge Fader’s theatrical talents as seen in his performance with the “Jacobson’s Jesters” shows. Judge Fader was acclaimed for his excellent teaching skills at both law schools and the Judicial Institute, as well as the Baltimore County Bar CLEs. In 2003, the Maryland State Bar Family Law

Section awarded Judge Fader the Beverly Groner Award for significantly improving family law practice. It was widely known that anytime

Continued on page 34 THE ADVOCATE

Page 31

June 2015

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES: JUDGE MOM, SALLY C. CHESTER

by G. Darrell Russell, Jr. Sally is the fairest, most honorable, and most professional judge in Baltimore County and probably in Maryland. Anonymous Attorney If you know Sally, you love her. All the poets rhyme sonnets of love. The torch singers croon their songs of love. Judaeo-Christian scripture repeatedly admonishes us to love one another. St. John, with enigmatic profundity, adjures: ”If we love one another, God remains in us.” But some people are difficult to love, particularly people in authority, such as a judge or two or more. Black robe disease is a rampant reality. The words in this column are about the judge in Baltimore County, who is the least likely to be infected with the aforesaid malady, and is in fact, universally loved.

Sally C. Chester of the Baltimore County District Court is affectionately known as Judge Mom, Aunt Sally, Sister Sally. It’s in her DNA to always be understanding, compassionate, patient and fair. It also is part of her background and environment.

Sally assimilated love of God and neighbor from the loving environment of her family and the supportive nature of her schools. Her parents, though exacting high standards from their kids, also knew how to express their love by example as well as words. There was no woodshed but there was the tough love of non- corporal penalties, when Sally came home late from lacrosse practice, or forgot to feed the dog, or left her room in sorry shambles. She has now become the Mom because she protects a legion of lawyers and helps a cadre of criminals, which often encompasses tough love.

The Chesters believed in quality education and all the Chester children went to elite, nurturing private schools. Sally began her exclusive education at the Gill School in Bernardsville, NJ. She had wonderful teachers, and her favorite teacher taught her music. Sally aspired to a career in the musical theater. Despite a robust voice, capable of high octaves, that aspiration did not lead her to Broadway. So she chose law. She entered the Friends School of Baltimore at the age of fourteen, when her family arrived from New Jersey. Friends

THE ADVOCATE

is a thirty four acre woodsy oasis in North Baltimore on the Charles Street of stately neighborhoods.

It has beautiful grey stone buildings, which blend with the fine houses of Homeland and Roland park which surround the campus. The school has a soul which reflects the Quaker values of truth, equality, simplicity, community and peace. All students participate in a weekly “Meeting for Worship.” It teaches the spirit of St. John’s message, namely, that God is within every person. Sally, although not of the Quaker denomination, lives those values.

She sought a small liberal arts college and found it in Waterville, Maine. Colby College lies on 714 acres overlooking the very rural Kennebee River Valley. Its clean brick buildings are fashioned with tall colonial columns reflecting its revolutionary era roots. The 1800 students breathe clean air far removed from the polluted fumes of the big city. Its winters are dazzling white with pure snow and its spring and summers are intense green. But the most beautiful time on campus is fall, when the abundant leaves perform their technicolor show.

Colby too has a soul where teachers are always accessible. And where diversity erupts like the multicolor leaves of autumn, as students hail from every state and 70 countries. Students make connections for life. Sally learned compassion for the universality and diversity of people from Colby.

I am honored to be part of the same system as Judge Chester, and what a great world it would be if they were all like her. Anonymous Attorney Even the occasional miscreant, who gets a rare jail sentence from her, is often blowing her kisses as he is being led off to the prison farm, far away. She is a consistently kind person, with a deep faith, and an infectious smile and laugh. She is also very smart. She is a constant reader who always is working on a book, which she devours as Hershey kisses. Although she was a English-History major, her tastes in literature now favor the romance

Page 32

June 2015

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES: JUDGE MOM, SALLY C. CHESTER Continued from page 32 novels or mysteries with an historic setting.

Outside of court, her world is hubby Mr.Nick, son William, granddaughter Macy, a thousand friends, two dogs, and mega books. But, give her the quiet beach of Assateague, douse her with oily sun block, put her in a chair, give her that good book (must be good literate fiction) and leave her alone, for the rest of the day. This is her nirvana and retreat.

Although she went to the northern liberal arts college, she muses that going south would have been nice too. The sun is just warmer in the south.

But after a day at the beach, where she and Nick maintain a summer home, she still carries the warmth of the sun with her at night. It helps give her a disposition full of sunshine. But Colby is in her heart, where she was cum laude in her EnglishHistory major, and earned a Phi Beta Kappa key.

She didn’t ski on the ample slopes, but did play field hockey and lacrosse. She had played both of those sports at the Friends School, where she also was an honor student. And, of course, she was honors at University of Maryland Law School.

Aunt Sally was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1979 and the Pennsylvania bar in 1980. She went to work with Walker, Rubin and VanBavel where she practiced in an array of legal areas, but gravitated toward the criminal work. She joined the Public Defender’s staff in 1986, and promptly rose to a supervisory position. She remained with the PD until she was appointed by Governor Bob Ehrlich to the County District bench in 2004. A Republican with conservative values, she and Governor Bob were soul mates and she was a slam dunk choice. Her championing by family friend, former Congresswoman Helen Bentley, was icing on the political cake. Along the way to her judgeship, she was in a legion of activities, accumulating a long list of awards. A short list of awards: 1992, Public Defender of the Year. 1995, Baltimore County Executive Citation. 1997, Distinguished Service Awards from the Board of Education and Maryland State Bar. 1990, William C. Cahill Award for PD Service. 2000, Death Penalty PD Defense Award.

Judge Chester is very considerate to all in the court.

I am grateful whenever I bring a client before her.

Anonymous Attorney She entered this world on a fall day in 1950 in Plainfield New Jersey. Her dad was a CPA with a high management position at Johnson & Johnson which had headquarters in NJ. He was lured away from Johnson by Noxell Corporation of Hunt Valley, Maryland in 1964. The family, that is, Mom and Dad, and Sally and her two older siblings moved into their new home on Greenspring Valley Road. That was when Sally entered the Friends School. Her two older siblings soon left for college, and she found plenty of space on the property to chase rabbits and squirrels and swing on the porch, while doing her History assignments.

Sally and husband Nick now live in the childhood home in the Valley. There they raised son William and a succession of dogs, who roamed the woodsy backyard. The picket fence kept the four legged animals safe from traffic on the Greenspring byway to the Valley.

William was afforded the same high educational opportunities as Mom. He went to Calvert Hall, where he was the MIAA diving champion.

William has taken a smattering of college courses but is more comfortable in the world of auto parts and sales. He has given Sally and Nick their grandchild, Macy. There are also 6 nieces and nephews from Sally’s siblings.

On Nick Williford’s side there are many more than from the Chester family. Nick, recently retired, will frequently accompany Sally to her court and remain as a mute observer, hiding in the packed courtroom, among the pews and people. He wisely offers no opinion as to the Judge’s performance or decisions unless asked. But he does have a keen eye, is a genuine person, and has been Sally’s worthy partner for thirty five years. Lawyers know Nick and have befriended him warmly and often seek his counsel, as a guide to the effectiveness of their representation. And Nick appreciates their Continued on page 35

THE ADVOCATE

Page 33

June 2015

MSBA SENIOR LAWYERS HONOR JUDGE JOHN F. FADER II Continued from page 31 someone had a quirky domestic law question, or a procedural conundrum, they could always call Judge Fader and get sage advice. Newer Judges are reported to have his number and e- mail on speed dial during their first rotations in family law, and many still do. Judge Fader’s enthusiasm for family law, and good sense of humor, made him instrumental in giving family law the long over due dignity it deserved well before the concept of a Family Court was ever considered Building on this exemplary service of enhancing the administration of justice, Section Chair Rob Ross Hendrickson confirmed that Judge Fader was the nominee for this award because he has more than met the highest standard of excellence, the threshold criteria of this award. No one had to be persuaded of Judge Fader’s worthiness for this award. Aaron Kadish, long -time friend of Judge Fader, and himself a fellow Pharmacy School Student, had the easy responsibility of presenting the award. It was most definitely not as Judge Fader proposed, the result of his having missed a Section Council meeting. Instead, Judge Fader’s

THE ADVOCATE

longstanding and continued quiet good works of providing sage advice to countless judges and attorneys, always making time for those of us in need, did not go unnoticed. Likewise, Judge Fader’s attending awards benefits in numbers too high to comprehend, as well as his attendance at funerals and memorials, not to mention the attention to those in poor health, also did not go unnoticed.

It appears that one of the best “side effects” of Judge Fader’s pharmacy school experience, to use a pharmaceutical phrase, is that it was in Pharmacy School, where Judge Fader met the love his life, Kathy.

Both Judge and Mrs. Fader greeted everyone on an individual basis connected as good friends. When given the opportunity for rebuttal, Judge Fader, in his typical understated fashion, claimed no special talent, but expressed appreciation for the friendship from those in attendance and specially thanked co- conspirators who arranged the presentation.

Page 34

June 2015

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES: Continued from page 33 hand of friendship, as a welcome to honorary citizenship into the land of lawyers!

Attorneys often make the mistake of misjudging the informality of her court. Because she is so personable and disarmingly charming, they assume she is either too lax or lenient, which is so wrong.

Firstly, Sally just can’t stop being nice. Secondly, she wants lawyers and litigants to be relaxed. The less pressure that is imposed, the more truth flows.

Having handled multiple capital cases in her PD days, it is hard to get exercised over Trespass and Loitering cases. Or even the Driving While Suspended case, where the defendant is on the way to work to support his family. A sense of humor is also a catalyst for truth. She has assumed the role, previously held by retired Judge Gordon Boone, as the resident font of humor on the Baltimore County bench. She is flattered to be so recognized, as she, like so many, much admired Judge Boone.

Judge Chester has a quick sense of humor. If you are sincere with her, she will reciprocate. She will snap if you are not. Anonymous Attorney

himself. She is masking his flaws. Sally makes an effort to be as quiet as a church mouse at bench meetings, but it is difficult. She sits at a table flanked by a chorus line of egos, and sometimes she needs to use her soprano voice to sing the final song. Otherwise, she has no agenda and saves her voice for court.

Sally’s best friends aren’t necessarily other judges, although she is close to a small contingent. Her wealth of friends go back to her great schools. She has always been close to her secretaries and assistants over the years. She has as many male friends as of the fairer sex. The friends number thousands. A trip to the supermarket for Sally often finds another shopper, who was a litigant in her court, greeting her with a “Hi, Judge Mom.” The waitress in the restaurant will say, “I know what you want because you are unforgettable, Aunt Sally.” A legion of grateful defendants, litigants and attorneys, write her letters of gratitude. If you are her friend you have a loyal friend and are blessed. If you know Sally, you love her.

Sally laments the increasing sloppiness of lawyers and their unpreparedness. She is very perceptive and if you try to “Aw shucks,” her, you are only fooling yourself. Ironically, she feels she is the most conservative member of the bench. She has old fashion values and breathes old school. She expects courtesy, preparation, punctuality, proper dress and decorum. This reflects her education at home and at school. She will spot instantly your lack of socks, loose ties and buttons, hands in pockets and careless disregard of the proprieties.

Aunt Sally is a debutante in disguise.

If you present a suspect scenario for your case, Judge Sally will go toe to toe with you and quickly grasp the deficiencies in the law or facts. But she will never embarrass you. She understands lawyers will have bad days. She treats lawyers as she would want to be treated. Lawyers also err when they think that Sally has been perhaps too vocal. She will speak when a lawyer is not speaking well THE ADVOCATE

Page 35

COMMITTEE REPORTS All Committee Reports, Chair and ViceChair contact information, upcoming programs, and handouts from those programs already held this year, can be found online. Click on the Committee Reports banner above.

June 2015

THE ADVOCATE

Page 36

June 2015

P R O G R A M & E V E N T 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; fax to 410-823-3418, or REGISTER ONLINE at www.bcba.org.

PLEASE register me for the following programs/events: Registration Fee:

Member

June 17, 2015, Estates & Trusts, 5 pm

Non-Member

$0

$20

Name(s) Telephone

Address

City

State

Email

Zip Amount Enclosed

Menu Choice (if applicable) Name on C/C

Today’s Date

Billing Address City

State

Email

Zip Amount authorized

MC/Visa/Discover/American Express Card No. Expiration

SEC# (on back of card)

Signature____________________________________________________________________

THE ADVOCATE

Page 37

June 2015

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

Upcoming Events August 21

Orioles Night At the Yard

September 10 Bar Year Kick Off Event September 24 Crab Feast December 3

Holiday Party

January 28

Black-Tie Banquet

MEMBER ADVERTISEMENTS House for Rent. 129 North Culver Street, Baltimore, MD 21229. Google for details and contact information.

Historic Lutherville. Office space available in a small law firm, perfect for a solo practitioner. Office comes with a Partner’s desk, chairs and bookcase. Use of conference room, waiting room, receptionist, phone system, utilities and internet. Free parking. Close to Towson court houses, I695 and I83. Email randy@waselaw.com or call 410-828-8500.

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.

THE ADVOCATE

Page 38

June 2015